THE "EVANGELIST" ON EDUCATION.

Southland Times, Issue 1559, 2 April 1872, Page 3

THE " EVANGELIST" ON EDUCATION.

SlB, — Having witnessed tl>e liberality you showed to <he one side in your issue of Tuesday, the 26th ult., I am encouraged to ask you for ■pace for a few words on behalf of the other. In your publication of Tuesday, there are three columns of your valuable paper devoted to an article which you stated y^u were requested to reproduce from that periodical called the 'Evangelist. .Although there are not mnny in this part of the world who can pretend to a high order of education, yet. I question if it is much behind Dunedin in that point of view. There is here, moreover, in all probability, as much common sense, which latter, methinks, Evangelist has not complimented by his article. I wish to draw the attention of the common sense of the public here to the absurdities, bigotry, and spirit of injustice which are but too apparent in the Evangelist, and lest, whereas there are many persons very ignorant, and especially of how this vexed question of education should be settled, « fillister importance might be attached to the words of the so-called Evangelist, I expect that, in a spirit of fair play, Mr Editor, you will kindly insert the following lines. The words of Evangelist are a series of contradictions from beginning to end, but I suppose on the question of education he does not profess to write under Divine inspiration. Ido not wish to trespass on your space too much, nor indeed, to inflict on the public a review of all the absurdities and lying insinuations of the Evangelist. 'Tib not worth while, nor dops the article merit any further notice than that of its absurdities and bigotry — for bigoted it is, even in its phraseology. If the Evangelist would abstain from insulting us Catholics, we would certainly let him alone, for abstracting from the insulting insinuations and terminology of the article in question (which qualities never lend wright to any argument), the Evangelist is more likely, in the minds of educated men, to advance the cause he seeks to oppose. The Evangelist gays in the article of which there is question — " It cannot be too distinctly realised that the main object contemplated by the aided schools clauses" — which he terms odious clauses — " is to take the public money and apply it to the teaching of Popery." What does Evangelist mean by public money, or does he mean that none of it has beeu contributed by Catholics ? But perhaps his definition of the public differs a shade or two from that given of it by other people. I suppose his definition of the word would run thus — " All people except the mere Catholics, or as he would call them in his own refined and Christian style, Papists." Does he forget that there are 300,000,000 of these mere Papists in the world, and that even in New Zealand these mere Papists have to put their shoulder to the ■wheel and bear their portion of the burden of taxation, and that while putting their shoulder to the wheel, they are turning and working a mill out of which they alone get nothing. If Evangelist said that without the aided •choob clause, the Government would be putting their hands in the pockets of Catholics to pay for the support of a eysUm of education ■which woula be either practically Presbyterian, or for a secular system, which would be a system for teaching non-religion, then he would be nearer the truth. Evangelist says again — " Surely Romanism has not done so much for the world, enlightenment, &c, that a community in the main Protestant should give it the exceptional privilege of paying tor its teaching." We don't want any community to pay for our teaching, but we o' ject to pay fora teaching •which is in the "main Protestant," as the Evangelist himself admits it is. All we want is aid lor our schools in proportion to the taxes we pay, that we may be enabled to teach our children in accordance with, and not in opposition to, the principles of their faith. With regard to the first part of the proposition, viz , " Romanism has not done so much," let him read Baize's European Civilisation, and some of his own Protestant authors, e.g., Paley, Grotius, Hume, &c, and Evangelist will begin to be a little more inspired as to who have been enlightening us. Evangelist says a word about Galileo, about whose history, in all probability, he knows but little. He sj ends too much of his precious time in writing evangelical epistles for much historical research. This question is one of the many long since given up as a failure by educated Protestants. It is astonishing that people like Evangelist will still continue to talk about the Bible as they do, saying, "We are afraid of the Bible." We are not afraid of it, for we have got it from our Mother, the Church, and from the same Mother the Protestants have got it, not from the inhabitants of China or Confucius, surely ? But by reason of the many and serious changes made in the Protestant version of the Bible, Catholics hold it to be an heretical book, and Protestants having objected to the authority of the Church, " the pillar and ground of truth," have of course no other authority but themselves. Really the Evangelist ought to know more of the Bible he pretends to be so fond of. I wish he would in his next epistle try to reconcile the 16th verse of 3rd chap, in 2nd epistle of Peter with the Protestant rejection of a divinely authorised interpreter, to whom and to whom alone those words of Christ were addressed ; " He that hears you hears me, and he that doth not hem you, let him be as the heathen and publican." Evangelist says again — " Is he afraid that they themselves will manifest an undue hankering after that forbidden fruit, and thus their eyes will become inconveniently enlightened." If the Evangelist opens hi 9 own version of the Bible, and reads the 16th Terse of St. Peter, already named, and looks to what has been the result of bis opinion of the reading of the Bible since the so-called Reformation, which has occasioned hundreds of different churches, he will perceive more analogy between cause and effect, and more " inconvenient enlightening of the eyes," than from the opinion of the Catholic church as to the reading of the Bible. The verse is — " As also in all His epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable, wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction." We do not prevent the correct version of the Bible being read with note and comment, — same time, let me add, even exclusive of those points of doctrine in which we differ from Protestants, our children, knowing their catechism, in which is the most important part of the Scriptures, have a sounder and more comprehensive knowledge of the Word of God than most Protestauta I meet, — so much for the Bible. Evangelist says the present Otago system is admirable. Oh, dear me ! But the Government of his country, a iew months ago, did not seem to think so when they condemned it as a failure. Here is another mode of reasoning from Evangelist, which certainly looks very like another contradiction, and which makes one think Evangelist does not know what system he is advocating, and doubt what system he wishes to advocate, — viz., he says, " Rather than forfeit the advantages of a truly national system, we would be prepared to go further and exclude Bible reading altogether, thus making it purely secular, if only Dr Moran and bis co-religionists would co-operate," and further down, this inspired writer says, speaking of the Otago Ordinance, "and we must let our rulers know that we shall not sacrifice the leading principle of it — Bible reading, with a conscience clause — to pleaee infidels, and that godless class of secularists who hate ail religion." The Presbyterian or Otago system would be, forsooth! admiralU—% ttautijul system, if tjie Presby-

fcerians would do hero -what was done in the north of Ireland after the provision of more than a conscience clause ; soon after the year 1831, vide Pr Moran's letter in Otago Daily Times, 10th February. It is astonishing Evangelist is not ashamed to talk in this manner — perhaps he doesn't see it ? lam sorry the wise one at whose requppt, you, Mr Editor, inserted this epi-tle of Evangelist, did not see it was " apoc-yphul." U ith regard to the other arguments of Evangelist, I shall say nothing, for I know the vu'ilic hus already pronounced on them a verdict of felo de se.— Yours, &c, J. Cabdek.