Lists (None yet)

Login to create lists

Tagged (None yet)

Add Tags

Comments (None yet)

Add New Comment

No corrections yet

AN ARTICLE ON LETTERS.

[From a Correspondent.!

Let not our readers infer from the title of this article that our remarks will have any connexion with belles letlres, or that they are intended to apply to post office espionage in England, er official arrangements and charges for the transmission of letters in South Australia. Our sole purpose is to glance at some of those epistles — already numerous as letters «f the

alphabet — which have been put forth in the news papers by advocates for involuntary modes of sup porting religion. In the warfare of mind and of principle wliich now convulses the community — reckless as is the aggres sion on the one hand, and stern and uncompromising as is, and will be, the opposition thereto, on the other ; yet, as in the conflict of opposing armies, much of the ludicrous mingles with the furious and the sad. Of this order are the ridiculous airs of our great man, and of his great men — faithful and worthy mimics of himself — the larger half of the Legislative Council. The bear in the fable, when he put to sea in a boat, found himself in a pretty particular scrape, as all such bearish animals wOL whether they attempt to steer a boat or a community ; but what would have befallen had he taken three or lour ignorant, con ceited, and obstinate cubs with him on the cruise? Of course he would have upset the boat at once, and never have reached deep water. We institute no parallel. ' Comparisons,' as Mrs Malaprop re marks, 'are odoriferous;' so, for that matter, are some of the Members of Council.

Ut tnis order, also, are the grotesque wincings and contortions of the flayed concocters of the late meet ing, who, since their drubbing, are too sensitive even to bear the approach of a little finger towards them. It appears that they are now endeavouring to mantle their skinless cause beneath a memorial for ' State support to the Voluntary Principle.' Despotic aid to freedom, or aqueous support to fire, are rational and practicable projects compared with this absurd chimera. When the few incautious ninnies whom they may induce to sign this senseless docu ment shall find their published names the laughing stock of the colony, they will have the pleasure to observe that none laugh louder or more lustily than their cajolers.

Not of this order, generally, are the letters to which we refer. It is, in most cases, as difficult to extract from them amusement as instruction. Yet, dry and marrowless bones as they are, for want of better occupation, we will endeavour to pick some thing from them. The first that comes to hand is a lengthy article signed ' Veritas' — one so conclusive of the whole subject, that the Editor of the South Australian trans cribed it from the paper in which it was originally inserted, and withheld the meteoric coruscation of luminous matter which, but for die previous rising of so glorious a eun, would that day have irradiated the murky mental atmosphere of South Australia. 'Veritas' commences by regretting that, no doubt for the first time iu {he world's history, the Nonconformists of this colony have declared that the aid of Government in matters of religion is inexpedi ent and unscriptural, and endeavours to follow them

into the path. *' they have with so much intrepidity struck out for themselves*' And for what purpose? ' To trace from the records of past experience its ulti mate tendency and inevitable termination.'' Very ** clever and argumentative,*' truly ! ' Veritas' regrets also that these eccentric and intrepid Nonconformists should not follow their 'fore- fathers'' implicitly in this matter. Does ' Veritas' follow his forefathers, either of the Church of Rome or of England, and, if so, which set of them does he follow, and of what period? Can 'Veritas' point to any .Reformation, civil or religious, which at once was perfected, and wherein all Reformers -went the self-same length? If a few of the fathers of Non conformity carried about with them some dirt from the slough whence they emerged, is it necessary that their followers should bedaub themselves to match? ' Veritas' abandons the lachrymose mood for the positive, and asserts that it is incumbent on Christian Governments to provide for the moral and religious training of its subjects. This he proves by the ex ample of the Patriarchs, beginning with Abraham, who, he says, 'paid tithes to the appointed priest of God.' There is a touch of ' Veritas's' cleverness here. The authority says he gave tithes, which little word makes just the difference between the compul sory and voluntary system; indicating an offering, not an exaction. If ' Veritas' and his brethren will give tithes to their priests, we shall hear no more of Government grants— they will carry out the patri archial and voluntary system to an extent adequate to all the requirements of the colony — rejoice the hearts of other voluntaries, and no doubt draw down a blessing from the Head of the Church, who, we are told, ** loveth a cheerful giver,' and, of consequence, ' hateth robbery for burnt offering.'* He says further, *' We have the direct and plain law of Jehovah respecting the national support of the mimofaiv *\t Uac* cAtintttAM«r ' 'KTT!II 'L.A 4-a.11 ...» ? ..I, ,-? ?? n 2

His third proof rests on 1 Corinthians, ix., 8, wherein St. Paul insists on the duty of Christians to support their ministers, without the slightest al lusion to State or national provision for that sup port. Indeed, had such provision been uiade, the

exhortation would have been without meaning. Very argumentative, this ! The next arguments are an opinion of Dr. Owen declaied to the Long Parliament, and extracts from a report of the London Missionary Society. The latter, as far as we see, do not refer to State grants or to any kindred subject, and probably are cot in tended so to apply, as ' Veritas'' states that the authors ' are most warmly denouncing all connec tion between Church and State,' itc. But sup pose that there were inconsistency attributable to the parties in question, could that rule the Memo rialists? 'A Daniel come to judgment, yea a Daniel !' t It is rather unkind of ' Veritas' to adduce these denouncers of Church and State union, &c.. and thus tear off the laurel he had planted on the brows of the Memorialists, in honour of their originality and intrepidity. After asserting that nine-tenths of our popula tion care nothing about religion, he argues that the State should provide churches and pastors for them, but does not show how they may be com pelled to attend the ministrations provided. The j ustification of this compulsory provision is one of the most extraordinary we ever heard. As ever; man ought willingly to contribute to the support of whatever increases his own prosperity, he is by im movable consequence obliged to support the reli gion, &c. Willingness is what the Voluntaries j contend for — not a willingness to be obliged to I serve their own interests — but a willingness to \ obey the law of Christ. i Nest follows a fad of that peculiar class which

renders it advisable that ' Veritas' should adopt same other signature when he again lucubrates on the subject. ** Here it (the Voluntary System) has not unaided supported one minister, or built one substantial place of worship !' In England, he thinks one million granted in ad dition to the scores of millions already granted in vain — money wrested from the people by exaction, distraint, and prosecution, and squandered on a State priesthood — ' would effect a mighty change,' &c. The statement that the Voluntary Principle has failed in America, is a fact of the same order as the last. 'Veritas*' also discovers that trhere the free system prevails it makes way for the spread of Popery. Now, considering that he argues for a grant of money, in part to be devoted to the direct promotion of Popery, we most allow him to be as argumentative as clever. The next epistle which comes to hand is that of 'Vigil,' who insists on four propositions, all equally erroneous. The first is, that extreme religious destitution exists in this colony. The second, that the experience of America, England, and Australia proves the inefficiency of the Volun tary System. The first and third named countries conclusively prove the contrary, while England proves that the coercive system is inoperative (ex cept for evil) in proportion to the magnitude of the scale on which it is tried. The third involves the oft-repeated but unsupported statement re specting the duty of governments ; and the fourth 6tates tacts as true as those of ' Veritas,'. calling them who reject the proffered aid ' a small section of this community,' and alleging that they are dis honest enough to accept on false pretences State school-houses to be used as chapels, and masters to be employed as preachers ! With what low and unprincipled persons has this writer associated, that he is so ready to anticipate nefarious acts, and assign base motives ? Surely he is not an Episco palian ! Next we have a letter signed ' S. S.' After a care ful perusal of it, we are inclined to think that the compositors must have omitted from the signature an antecedent letter — the first in the alphabet. We do not ' insinuate*' bnt assert that if the

grant be received at all it will be ' for the Church of England alone' or nearly bo, and that the result will be ' to embody a corps of State Parsons.' .That ' S.S/' is puzzled to comprehend what ' the genius of Christianity is,' we readily believe, and, judging from his letter, surmise that any other kind of genius would be equally incomprehensible to him. ' S. S.' has not time and space to prove that the Scriptures countenance Government aid to religion, which is a pity ; but he attempts, at great length, to prove that common sense and observation may lead to that conclusion. He asserts that people in the bush arc too scattered, and perhaps poor, to supply themselves with religion and education. Scattered they may be, but poor they arc not. The meanest labourer, with his ample wages and small necessary outlay, is better able to find funds for these purposes than educated men in the town who have large fa milies and small salaries. The former do not want — the latter will not receive charitable assistance in these matters. ' S. S.' then twaddles about collecting cards and fancy fairs, and intimates that contributions from one religious body to another are not voluntary, and sud denly finds that the genius of Christianity is ' the teaching of the Holy Scriptures.' Then comes a passage indicative of the thorn which rankled in the bosom of this sapient Episcopa lian epistolarian. ' A meeting is to be held on Monday, and a great gathering of the 'unwashed' is to put down the friends of Government aid, by dint of numbers and

clamour.' Of course 'S. S. does not include Messrs Gilbert, Fisher. Bartley, Wilson, &c, among the ' un washed.** What then does this anticipatory abuse of those who 6hould attend the Meeting imply ? It shows that the requisitionists already discerned then folly — that they had seen the hand-writing on the wall — that their own insignificance as a party, what ever their respectability as individuals, was about to be exhibited. It proved that three days before the meeting they cowered at the thought of the defeat which ewaited them. But who is this superlatively lathered individual who designates his fellow-colonists *' the unwashed ?'* We agree with one of the speakers at the meeting, that he must be some toilet and smelling-bottle dandy, whose time has been too much occupied with dress and perfumery to admit of bis learning good manners. 'S. S.' ends by calling himself a promising youth which he undoubtedly is — and then likening the In dependents to the Dog in the Manger. If -we recol lect the fable aright, no portion of the hay belonged to the dog, nor could he make beneficial use thereof. The public moneys, on the contrary, belong as much to the Independents as to the Episcopalians, and may — so the latter think, be directed to uses much

more beneficial to all than those of violating consci ence and fomenting dissension. We therefore ven ture to opine that the fable does not apply.' The letter of ' Vox Clamantis' is the most gen tlemanly and Christian in its spirit of all which have appeared in favonr of State exactions in sup port of religion. Yet its arguments and inferences afford lamentable proof into what inconsistencies advocacy of that principle can lead even good and enlightened men. He says : — ** We are not called upon to patronise heathen idolatries. All the va rious religious denominations of which this colony consists, profess to worship the oke t&ub God : and whilst as Protestant Trinitarians (for such, doubtless I may assume the vast majority to be), we may deplore what our judgment and our cons ciences constrain us to consider as dreadful delu sion and mistake in the Roman Catholic system, and may mourn over what we deem the fatal soul endangering defect in the Socinian scheme, and may grieve that the children of Abraham should still deny onr Lord Jesus Christ to have been their promised Messiah ; still let us remember that what ever and however great may be the differences on points of faith between ourselves and them, that they, one and all, teach and preach precisely the same grand practical duties and virtues.'* Thus a ' Protestant Trinitarian,** in bis advocacy of a State grant, calmly, yet urgently, exhorts his fellows to seek inculcation of the moral virtues at the expense of directly promulgating ' dreadful de lusion,' *' soul-endangering defect,' and the doc trine that our Lord was an impostor ! But where fore should he exclude heathens from his list of protegees f since they are not necessarily idola ters, and some of them have beautifully inculcated and rigidly practised the moral virtues. It has been the fashion since the public meeting I which proved the public feeling to be against State .- endowments to argue that the grant in question is

Zoom

plus
thumb
minus
left
thumb
right
up
thumb
down