OPEN COLUMN.

North Otago Times, 29 September 1864, Page 3

OPEN COLUMN.

We aio desnous of afFoidiii 1 ? CoiicjkhkU'hIs sjww for the legitimate d. scission of :\)l Biilrpcti ot public linpu) lance ; but, nfc the same Imie, \v > wish it tu be umU'l'itDOil iiiab wo do not bold ouisob' ii-->-poniihlp fui opinions tboiem e\pie>-!>< 1

the Presbyterians, within what ho emphatically designates 'the sacred precincts of his jurisdiction.' " Did not Mr Connor state on March 26 th to a certain young man that Mr Ryley would preach at ray station? and did ho not send a letter from John Oliver to a eerttiin young man to go down with that letter to Mr Ryley, and tell him to come up and preach ? and - did not that certain young man — unknown to me, as 1 was from home — meet Mr Ryley at Mr Atkinson's, and tell him to so to the Island Cliffs and preach? and did not that same young man make private arrangements, without the knowledge of anyone on the station, for Mr Ryley to preach at Ewcland ? The people met, but Mr Ryley did not come. Hore, then, are two intentions ; the third was performed, and it was on that occasion Mr Ryley made his attack upon myself and others by stating" thai they had errors 1 aught them," which I complained of in my letter. I have no doubt that it was in this way that such Presbyterians did request him to preach again, but that 1 was to remain ignorant of their requests. 3 They delight in expediency. " Mr Fovens has no ground whatever of complaint against us, for either interfering between him and Ins servants, or keeping them from attending to his business j for the tune Mr Ryley preached was in the evening, after the men had completed their works for the day, and it was arranged that Mr Connor should preach in the evening also ; but it so happened that on that day the sheep were to be brought into the station, and the shepherds, rather than be disappointed, requested him to preach at the tune when they were vesting their flocks — which lie did, not thinking that i any innn would find fault with him for so doing " It was not known who would preach until the time j arrived • it is on this count i hat I gravely charge my people who did make the appointment knowingly to neglect their duties. On these grounds, for it appears , Hint on eueh they are abetted by their ministers m i their letters. 1. It is the- duty of servants to ask permission to obtain certain privileges connected with their work. 2 And not infringe on time in a regardless spirit by causing the sheep to reft from 1 o'clock am till 1 o'clock pin. without ray knowledge. 3 That no mun oi minister ought to have presumed to do so with the knowledge that it was not known by mo. Would it noi have been more pleisunt to have preached to them knowing that they had my sanction, &c ? Agim, did not James Oliver go down commissioned b,\ the trio to tell Mr Connor to meet them i\t that particular peuod of tho day, ami not as if it was a casual incident 9 It was arranged! Now, m common sense and common usage, would the employers of any manufactory or working establishment allow any number of then* men to take such an unwarrantable liberty — lit alone a minister to presume to control in an arbitrary sense an employers' lime- and servants' duties. I look at the question as utterly subversive to all moral restraints and rectitude of action— let alone the defiance of their letters m maintaining such a fearful spirit of disobedience. h They do certainly desire to let the public know how little they appreciate truth when they can write the following : — " Wo wish it also to bo known that we neither went to Mr Feren's private dwelling nor to the house of any professed Weshyan on his station, but to those who gave in thiir names as Presbyterians, requesting our ministration." Certainly | Mr Connor cannot denv that he recmed hospitality, i and was en lei tamed for one night, from 9 o'clock p in. to 9 o'clock a.m , and tins was in " Mr Feren's i own private dwelling" lie cannot deny that he did call on two families who were Weslevans of their own free accord, and that he al«o called a second time — on his> second visit, March 20th, on a Sat ur lay ' evening — and took ten, anil then went up to another house of mine, and was there entertained for the night with John Oliver Again, in ponmug their letter section b\ section, none certainly exceeds the j next thnt follows — for it is really and truly an unpualclled, unprecedented, unjustifiable ch-play of ignorance of the mo 4 illiberal character, that any 1 mail piofossmcr to teach others reverence and obe- ■ dience to divine law, can be guilty of — " Xor did we '< deem it necessary, in this acknowledged land of end 1 and religious liberty, m tins enlightened nineteenth 1 a nturv, to ask permission of M> Fu-ens in order to comply with the pcopic'b reqiu'fcl Does Mr FereiiH think that we for a moment will ask permission to ■wmt the people of our i barge in their own pnvnte dwellings, although they should happen to be In ing on his station, and pi each whenever, wheivrer, and whatsover circumstances require ?" This enhghten- ' ment, or cml and religious liberties go to prove how f.ir they are advanced, when it will not allow them to ask permission to visit the peon e of their c 1 urge Are they m some Popish village ? tor common cour- | tcsj m other respects teaches men to do so in minor subjects. The would-bo dominant, untoward spirit which has caused them to act so siivuigely lntheito, still burns more glaiinglylo make them venture to do more — "preach whenever, wherever, and whatsoever circumstances require" To inform them on tho tenure of those private dwellings They arc living there without rent, therefore I can exercise on oversight; and also they receive allowances of provisions, which people who pay rents m private dwellings do not But tho construction of those sentences cannot bear criticism — neither m ] oml of grammar, logic, or classical language for professed collegiate men, as all the polite ruli s of prosody and PvntnK are grossly trampled upon — uot even the rudiments of polite composition .And in respect to the next sentence — "We would wish to know who gavo Mr Fercns the right to exercise lordship over the consciences of Presbv terans, and to compel them to be satisfied with Die ministrations enjoyed by himself." 1 bog to state, in most decided language, thnt T ne-\er ha\e. What I complain of is not against Prcsln terianism, as many of its people and ministers I iWplj respect It is against those particular, ineousist-nt modes of action, as well as the spirit and pnnciples that have •letuatcl them It is m consequence of which I resolved to defend mv«elf against all usurpers For those who tlnuk different can jini pi ice themselves in in) position, and do to oilier^ as they woul.l expect to be done by, anil then supp >«e others acted to (hem in a Pimilnr manner. I realh think they would see and feel chtlerentl> Do let honesty and candour be judge. They presume in bland terms to deprecate exciting a rehuious controveisy, and well they may write so affectedly when they are dome; all they can to 1 1 rim;; it about. From whence lias arisen a'l this tie nniony but from themselves 9 Ts it not a prcvai'iiH'trait of Mr C m pnr'ieu'ar to treat upon eouhoversial points, both in pnvate and public, without any just occasion P Suelt is not preaching the G os-pel, but that which tends to "doubtful disputations. " And as to tho " elliptic stuff" that my views and principles aro made of, I thank him for the compliment, as it is not to be torn or drawn out into shreds. Certainly the elasticity of truth is not an evil, but a great blessing. The connection of the sentence I indignantly hurl back upon himself — "That the man who holds it can bo anything and everything to suit tho ends of a proselytizing party." Who more guilty thau Mr C. ? Let the other sentence be dovotailed on to this — " and preach whenever, wherever, and whatsoever circumstances require," shows most plunly who will venture to tamper with people of other denominations, whether they bo Presbyterians who hold different views, or Church of England, Independents, Baptists, Morrisonians, Weslsyans, or Roman Catholics All these, more or less, are held in abhorrence, and especially those who dare to maintain their own views And have not all sects an equal and a perfect right to maintain and propagate their views and tenets, though Mr C. thinks otherwise? It is a pity that ho cannot be made Pope, to monopolize, and occupy, and claim all revenues of tho fee simples. I pass over his illiberal remarks of my want of learning, &c. But I destro to inform him that he deceives himself that he at all alarms mo because he is a minister ; ho is a man nevertheless, and an erring one. Therefore I will presume to write, with what littlo learning I have, and shall not shrink from him on any occasiou, either in composition or otherwise. The last section is positively refuted by the very letters which he has dragged into the affair. Look at the dates. They aro all after my letter of July 25th, to Mr C. privately. The first is July 29th. The request of the trio and the accompanying letters are dated August 22. These are his great bulwarks for his contemptuous treatment of myself. I would beg to ask Mr Connor whether he obtained «T. O.'s

consent to publish his letters, and if he has not largely amended them, as 1 hold letters vastly different in structure, &c. ? Perhaps he has had too great a faith in James Oliver's obsequious production, not knowing thai others hold letters that can give the lie direct to what he has tlierein stated. In conclusion, I most seriously and emphatically state that it is not men, but prineiulea and actions, that I have contended for, aud sfiall most strenuously oppose any like occurrence that militates against right action. I trust that none after tlm will presume to follow a blind, capricious guide again. — I remain, your a, otc, Thomas Fi:p.exs. September 23rd, 18G4 • Stotfold.

(To the Editor of the Oamartt Tiues ) Sin, — T respectfully beg that you in&eifc the following remaiks on At Feiens' "letter in explanation of thnt wiitten to the Rev Chailes Connor, 1 ' and wlucli appeared in your issue of the 16th currt. I l'ave a deeplj -looted aveision to work of the nuturo of that in which 1 am now to engage ; and it is selfvindication and truth that impells me to attempt it I peiecive it cannot he hut obvious to most that I am plainly designated in the above letter, although my n«.me is not especially given. I desne, then, to notice that thoie arc -several misstatemento — not to say falsehoods— in the said letter, the piincipal of which are the following : — it is positively asseited that "a most pointed voibal message, a.c , &.c ," had been delivered to mo to be communicated to Mr Connor This is imaginary, and taken foi gi mted. I dony the asseition. It is al.so affinne 1, after ihojough investigation, that I, piioi to niv enteiing his emplo", and Mr Connor " pi econcet ttd" th.it he (Mr Counoi) should make lepeated vim's to his station. I wiy that uuch was not the case, avd I defv Mi Foi ens to piove it. Lot it also be known that whatever has been the cause of the " unplta-aiitriess" Mr Ft ions com])lains of as existing bwtwocn parties. I dtsa\o\\ that which i-> imputed to ine in it. I deoply legiet that a name hku Mr Feiens' icspectable and ass- cptrd wiih much that is good and desiialile — should l»o nppendtd to a letter so fi aught \>i(h base vagaiic&, enotieous asset i torn, and evilsiumising, us (he one under cow- delation. I will not pursue tins unpleasant einplovnn tit any further, although theie is abundant teason foi doing so ; and I solicit the public, if thev aie mteiestfd in it, to weigh the whole cisu imp;>iiially, and see who lb light and who wrong — I am, cic , James Oku. Otepopo, Sept. 2Gth, 1801. [The cotiebpondence on this subject his now received nmplp seojn 1 , and no fuither coinniutiicatious will be leceivod bj ua. — Ed. O. T J