Untitled

New Zealander, Volume 9, Issue 749, 18 June 1853, Page 3

It is a startling position in which a candidate for such an office as that of the Civil head of a British Province is placed when he finds it necessary to argue the question whether or not he is fairly chargeable with "irreligion and infidelity." According to Lord Mansfield's memorable dictum, "Christianity is part and parcel of the British Constitution" :—it is the great characteristic feature of the New Constitution for this colony that it confers upon the people a fuller participation in, and identification with, that Constitution; and, on such a vital point as this, a stain is as a wound, and there should be no room for disputation on the matter, —no room for suspicion, except it be merely such as uncharitable and malicious persons might atany time entertain against their neighbour in a matter the absolute truth of which can only be known to the All-wise Searcher of Hearts. Such a position, however, Mr. Brown is placed in by his own showing, as set forth in his newspaper both on Tuesday and yesterday. Why he has judged il necessary to bring the subject so prominently under the public view just now is best known to himself. We made no particular accusation of the kind. Indeed we are not aware of our ever having said that Mr. Brown is an infidel although we undoubtedly have said, and are prepared to maintain, that his views on some subjects, —that of Education, for instance—tend to infidelity, and are such as avowed infidels might, and probably would, heartily unite in. When, on Saturday, we intimated an intention to recur to the article in the Sovlhcrn Cross of the preceding day our purpose was to show, —as we now propose very briefly to do—that, whatever may be the fact, that article did not afford any evidence in refutation of the assumed charge, but that, whether Mr. Brown be Christian or infidel—all that he there alleges himself to have said or done, might have been said or done by the veriest unbeliever that ever rejected and despised the Bible. The case, so far as we now mean to deal with it, lies within a very small compass indeed. Mr. Brown would disprove a charge of "infidelity." How does he attempt it? Why just by citing evidence (hat, some years ago, he, on one occasion, voted and protested against a Grant of money to the Church of England, and on another occasion, opposed the nomination of Trustees, as the Executive under the Native Trust Ordinance, on the ground that the Trustees named were all members of the Church of England. It may appear scarcely credible to those w ho have not read the article that this should be the substance of Mr. Brown's " proof" thai it is a calumny to accuse him of infidelity ; but his defence"stands recorded in his newspaper of Tuesday, and any man may judge for himself whether—setting aside verbiage and merely extraneous matter not of the essence of the question—this is not the real substance of all he advances. It would be an insult to the common sense of our readers to dwell upon the utter irrelevancy of these pleas to the matter at issue. It is readily admitted that sincere and devout Christians might have voted as Mr. Brown did on both these occasions;— nay more, that numbers of religious men would have felt themselves bound to resist, as he did, any attempt by legislation to elevate one Church in the colony above others, however they might—and we think would-dissent from some of the views expressed or implied in his ** Protest." But on the other hand, it is equally certain that latitiidinarians, sceptics, and infidels of all grades and classes might with perfect consistency have voted as Mr. Brown did in both instances. Mi-. Brown s course on those occasions proved nothing as to his personal views,— except indeed a conclusion may be inferred from his willingness that "the religious instruction in the Schools should be'confined to the great principles of Christianity, excluding the peculiar touts of each denomination of Christians:' If any one can tell what a system of " religious instruction" would be, from which every tenet "peculiar" to Tri-

nitarians or Unitarians, to Pioleslams or Roman Catholics, to Calvinistsor Arminians, to Paedo-Baptists or Anti-Psedo-Baptists, to Episcopalians, or Presbyterians, or Wcsleyans, or Independents respectively, was "excluded," he may perhaps be able to form some idea of Mr. Brown's opinions on theological and ecclesiastical mailers. We confess ourselves altogether incompetent to the task. Incidental to the main subject, these Speeches and Protests furnish some information on Mr. Brown's views as to public grants for religious purposes, which we commend to the consideration of those (if such there be) who regard him as an enlightened and consistent advocate of Voluntaryism in its principle and its details. They will judge for themselves of the Anti-Endowment orthodoxy of the speaker and writer of such sentiments as the following, — " Had it been the general question of Church Establishments, there might have been some ground for discussion ; but there could be none when one sect seeks to monopolize all | the benefit."

" I object in particular to the sum of 200/. voted on account of the Episcopal Establishment, upon the general principle of such a grant creating an invidious distinction between one set of Christians and another. If assistance be afforded to one class, it ought to be given to another; and because the colony is unable to support all, I object on principle to any assistance being afforded exclusively to one class." There is more of the same character which we might quote, but it is plain the " invidious distinction between one set of Christians and another," was the point of Mr. Brown's objection, rather than any hostility to endowments in themselves—if the colony were •'able to support all." On the whole, we do not believe that Mi-. Brown's objects will be at all served by the course he has taken in this attempt to refute the charge of " irreligion and infidelity" which he^says has been made against him. The refutation of such an accusation requires more cogent proofs. True, Mr. Brown asks through his newspaper, "what proofs could be given?" and adds, ''Conceive the absurdity of asking a man to prove a negative." Now, although we were not asking any questions on the subject when the Southern Cross itself mooted it, yet as it has been raised, we reply, it is not a "negative" that is to be proved, but a broadly defined positive. If anything in the world may especially claim such a character of definite reality, it is I lie profession of a man's faith in Revealed Religion ; the negation is all on the side of scepticism. But supposing Mr. Brown to refuse (as he has a right to do if he pleases) to make any declaration of his religious belief, yet such inquiries as these will suggest themselves —what denomination of Christians reckons him amongst its members? What Minister includes him in the roll of ins pastoral charge? What place of worship is he in the habit of attending? If not a constant attendant on the services of the sanctuary, yet is he, or is he not, found even an occasional attendant at Church, Chapel, or Meeting House? Has ho identified himself with any religious associations or movements whateveV? Have his efforts—through his newspaper and otherwise—been directed to the promotion of harmony amongst the different denominations, or have they not rather tended to sow the seeds, and to nurture the growth, of jealousies and discords t Distinct answers to these and similar questions, if Mr. Brown and his friends could only give them, would be the really satisfactory way of meeting the charge which Mr. Brown complains of,—so far as it can be met; and, we must add, that it should be met, now that Mr. Brown has himself thought fit to bring the matter more prominently before the public eve than probably would otherwise have been,—at least by us.