New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4961, 15 February 1877, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1877.

In our issue of yesterday our correspondent, "Observer,".returned Jo .the question in the matter of our remarks regarding secular education and certain recent proceedings at the Church of England General Synod. "Observer •-"■ intimated that his last letter is to close the controversy so far' as" he is concerned, inasmuch as he does hot consider that the questions at issue can be fittingly discussed in the columns of a newspaper. We should have been quite content to have permitted the last word to "Observer," just as in a controversy with an

elderly lady it is not only discreetj but; saves trouble, to permit her to hear.the" sound of her own voice alone in the finale. But we cannot see how he can reconcile to his conscience having so willingly plunged into print, and argued the points at issue' between him and ourselves in the columns of the Nkw Zealand Times. . However, we are not surprised at this last utterance of our correspondent, since it is notuncommon for people who trust to assertion and not argument to declare on finding themselves worsted that the whole argument was put of place. In "Observer's" last communication, to use a trite and somewhat stale expression, we can find nothing new that is true, and nothing true that_ is new. For instance, we will quite readily admit that without freedom of discussion " our vaunted British liberty is a mockery." But we deny that we have ever attempted to stifle freedom of- discussion. _ Indeed, what we desire is freedom of discussion, unbiassed by dogma or sectarian intolerance, such being certain to advance, the truth ; and we desire to see arguments on either side fairly stated, which causes us to object most strongly to the stater ment of some arguments of ours-by "Observer." For instance, because [in defining to a certain extent what a secular system of education is, we said, amongst other things, that it. must suit the Jew, our correspondent assumes that it must deny "the God of Christians;" meaning the Redeemer. Our correspondent's theology is as loose as his statement of our position. In the first place, Jews and Gentiles acknowledge the same God, and differ as to whether the Redeemor has been incarnate. We merely notice this fact, not to enter upon a theological discussion, but to show how unreliable in almost all matters our correspondent is. As a ' matter, of fact, our definition, so far, of a system of secular education, never involved the denial of the incarnation of the Redeemer, but simply maintained that State education should have nothing to do with the affirmation or denial of fundamental points of sectarian religion. We have written so frequently on this subject that we need not reiterate now how a system of State secular education can run hand in hand, nay, be the best helper of that true religious teaching which should come from home influence or from clergymen earnest in their duty. It is sufficient to say that there is nothing antagonistic, but everything favorable to the truest and highest type of Christian teaching, in a purely secular education imparted under the auspices of the State. As to the assertion of "Observer" that the system of State education has failed in Victoria, we simply take leave to state that every statesman of repute, not under the influence of a certain Church, testifies to the success of 'that system, and so does every unsectarian journal in the colony.