BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16606, 18 July 1914, Page 14

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

PERSONAL ATTACKS DEALT WITH.

Sermo:i preached by the Bevd. Canon Garland, in St Paul's Cathedral, Wel« ling-ton, on Sunday, July 5.

"Bui—and if ye Buffer for righteousness eake, happy are ye; and be not afraid of their'?rror, neither be troubled; but sanctify the Lord God in your heart?.' —1 i>t Peter, in'., 14. •

When St Peter wroto this epistle Christians bad entered upon an ocean of hatred, legalised persecution and wilful misrepresentation, the last waves of which did not expend. thomselves for three long centuries. The Christians were hated by the Pagans, prohibited by legal enactments from the exercise ol Christian liberty, and wilfully misrepresented, even °>" <( "»e philosophers ol those clays. Their desire "to do good was wilfully misrepresented, 'they speak against you as evildoers," writes St Peter; they were misrepresented as untrue to religion, as-having 1 no religion; ihoy were accused of injuring and destroying- child-life—those very people who, carrying out the principles of Jesus, sowed tho seed of a Christianity which gave civilisation to tho world, and lifted up childhood into the happy and sacred nlaco which to-day ic holds in Christian nations only. But to accomplish this they'suffered for righteousness sake, and counted themselves: happy, being n °k afraid of iho terror of tho present, or troubled by the misrepresentation* of the Pagans who boasted they would crush Christianity. They who suffered for righteousness sako have gone their way and entered into the joy of the Lord. a?d we of to-day, from their example and the lesson of thoir triumph. for which wa thank God, can take heart to "he not afraid" when we too have to suiter sako at the hands of those who. in this 20th century, would deny liberty to Christian parents to havo their children in their day schools, paid for by those'parents as part of the whole people, taught those truths about God and that knowledge of Jeaua Christ which aro part of the common law ot the British Empire. Prom the example of the long roll of white-robed army of martvrs and their victory, often by death, we can laarn to " bo not afraid, neither be troubled, when we are misrepresented in our efforts and our desires for tho moral and spiritual benefit and welfare of the children of this country. As a rule. I am quite content to suffer in silence the vituperation, calling of nsinoi, the wilful, perverse and persistent misrepresentation to which I am subjected by thoso who are opposing the opening of the Bible to Christ's little ones in the State ech:ols, and the restoration of liberty by which Christian ministers of every Church will be a'lowed tt enter the schools to teach those whose prrents desire it. the Christian faith; but, howevei nuch I may be willing personally to submit to slander and wilful misrepresentation, there are timos when the Caueo which I re resent means that I must put on one side my own wishes, and while dea'ing- with that which is applied ostensibly only to myself, defend tho Cdueo whirh is attacked in my pers-n. Of many such attacks, take on; in the Wellington evening paper of 2nd fnst.,_ where, in an editorial note, two charges are br i against me; one that 1 have persisted in my misrepresentation of Sir Cha-les Bowen's attitude in 1877 and in later years, which U. described as a " grave offence"; but as " a trivial fault by contrast with a lapse" in a certain sermon of which I sha'l speak presenly. Now, what are the fac's about my references to Sir Chas. Bowen? Sneakms: in St John's School, 34th February last, I am re. orted in the " Dominion " of 25th February aa saying:— " There was no time for him to review the whole history of tbe movement in NewZealand. He thought he could sum it up by saying-, that since 1676. when Sir Chas. Bowen. a« Minister of Education, was defeated on the clause which he had put into his Education Act providine- that there should bo Biblj lessen in schools, thero haa Jbefen unrest more or .es? definite, but always existing, always simmering in regard to educational matters in New Zea'and." And, preaching in Kent Terrace Presbyterian Church last Sunday night, I am reported is saying:— i " That ever since Sir Chas. Bowen had stated In 1877 that nineteen-twenUeths of the people desired Bible-reading in schoo's far the children thero had been continual protests iron tbe Christian Churches as a result of the 'entirely secular' law." Here I stated two historical facts which havo not been questioned, and which are beyond challenge: 1 That Sir Chas. Bowen did introduce in his Education Bill a clause providing for Bible-reading; 2. That Sir Chss. Bowen stated in 1977 that nineteen-twentieths of the people desired Bible-reading in schools for the children. Wher« is tho fsintest suTgestion that I claim Sir Charles Bovsen as a supporter of our proposals? I merely quoted txro facts bev> nd dispute associated with himself, and expressed no opinion whatever as to his views. Can there he a clearer esse of wj'fu'.misrepresentation when tho ' Post'' states I have persisted in misrepresentation of Sir Charles Bowen's attitude in 1877 and in later years, and characterises this as a grave offence. •■'-■'■■ ••-..'■> Tho "Post" proceeds to epeak of my "grave offence" as "a trivial fault bv contrast with the lapse in a srrmon" of whio'i some extracts aro published by,the "Post"; »nd says 1 havo " de'iberately surges ed t a people win vote ags-inst the Lesme's proposals may incur a sentence of exile on 'he Day of Judgment": that I have " th eatened tho Nationalists with the displeasuro of G-'d, and have"warned theni that when :hry. .tani beforo the Great White Throne they may near the dread words, ' Depart from me; I novo'r knew you.'" '- ' ■ ■-■'... ■■*■"■'■■ The "Post" bfses this- article upon a letter which it lifted from a morning contemporary signed "'James M'Donne'l," who wrote "That according to a report in the 'G:sborne Times of A'aril'2o'the reverend -en'l""man warned his hearers that OPPONENTS of tho League, no matter' how good (THEllii motives may have been, would at the Day of Judgment hear from the lips of the Lord the words, Depart from Me; I never knew you." Now. what is the sermon, according to the report of it which appears in the " Gisborno Times"? It would be incredib'e. if "-e were not so fami'iar with the ways of some of "our opponents to believe that the f-1 owing is the comp'ete report as far as that paper gives it. and upon which the " Pest's" attack on me is bated:— '" This appeal can only bo felt by Chrlrtians: by those who accept the Lord Jesus a* their only Saviour.' as Gcd manifest in the flesh, to Whom they have committed their who'o lives. Because WE thus accept Him, WE believe He will come to be OCR Judge, when every one of US shall give an accouut of the things WE have- done in this .ife, for every tboudit. and word, and deed. What sha.l I say then when 1 see Him face to face ? Shall I plead: ' Lord. I would not trust the teachers of New Zea'and.' ' Lord, I thought tbo State phoiild have nothing to da with the religion of the chi dren in the schools,- though it might with the crimina's in the prison.' 'I thought this or thit, and therefore I rebuked those that would have brought the children to Thee in their schcoi." What will be His answer then? WE know, for He has shown His mind, and it is the same yesterday to-day and for over. It wi I be the same at the Day ot when WE stand before Hlin to give an account. The same as it was in Palestine nineteen hundred years ago. He will be much displeased with US, no mat er how good OUR nr tives may have been, if the result is that WE in any fashion p.ace ft stumbling-block in the way of the little ones coming to Him. ' Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of the leaßt of these, ye did it not unto Me. Depart from 51c; I never knew you." Let V deal with the question of B.ble in Sta'a Schools as V E believe and know the Master has taught US. as WE wou'd wish WE hrd dealt with it, when WE stand before th« Great White Throne of Him who said for all times and conditions: 'Suffer the little children to como unto Me,' and Who was much displeased with those who would have kept them from Him." ■ ,

It will be noticed that I never referred to opponents directly or indirectly; that even by a strained meaning thero is no sueees: on that I was referring to them. I never referred to "Nationalists" or "warned them" of anything whatever. I was refe rm'g to myself and those who, with mi-so'f. wou'd be included ic the pronouns of the first person which I need. "Ho will be niuch diepleasea with US: no matter how good OUB motives may have been, if the result is that WE in any fashion place a etumb.inj-block in tho way of tho little ones coming to Him. ' Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of the least of theoe, ye did it not unto Me. Depart from Me; I never knew you.'" The letter which the "Post" takes for its text has not only fa'.sified what I said by introducing the word "opponents" so antecedent to my wo-.ds, but has actua ly inserted in the middle of my words a'word wnich never passed my lips, and struck out tha word I really did say. „ This was not tbe first time there was misrepresentation of the sermon. The Tablet gave tho lead to the action of the correspondent of the V New Zealand Times " by finding itself compelled to place before its misqnot t.on of my words, words which I never used. 'lho •'Post." the mouthpiece of the S:cula:ist Party. I therefore admit is not a.one, but keeps the company of the official organ of the Roman Catholic Church in misrepresenting and strainiug what I actually did say. Moreover I was not then roferring to opponents or to the public generally. I was addressing, as a priest, members of the Churoh of England. I was speaking to them as I conceived it to be my duty to epeak to men- bers who, ; for the moment,' were my flock, i exhorted them, as I exhorted on a former o casion, the' congregation' iu this cathedral, to approach this subject not from the point of view of what I said, or anyone else said, not heeding one word that I or others might write for or against, the proposal, but entirety as in the sight of God and as in tho presence of H-m—the God-Man—Whom We, with al our hearts, believe will como to be our I pointed out. as you will remember, 'and as the extract I havo read reminds you, th; tho mind of the Lord Jesus as our Judge v has been clearlv shown; He was much d'sp'eased with those wboj from whatever motives, sought to keep "the children from Him. Surely as a Christian priest 1 havo the right to appeal to the example and teaching of our Blessed Lord Himself as a guide to myself and the flock committed to my charge. But perhaps I am mistaken: we not only have to fight for liberty to allow the Blessed Lord Jesue, the Saviour of man, the Friend of littlo chi.dren, to enter the schools, though Mohammed. Confucius, and heathen g"ds, may freely enter, but it would seem as-if we havo to fight for the right to proclaim within our Churches, the faith as it ib in Jesus, as a: standard for ourselves. It is trus that thero is no Act of Parliament which says the teaching in the Churches shall.be "entirely secular," but. this instance shows that any Christian minister who proclaims the truth as his conscience believes it, may hav» to defend himself as I now have to do from attacks by opponents ot Christianity teachin"- in the schoo's, when he holds up the words and deeds of Jesus as a pattern. _ ° Though the days have gone by when tl ose who sought fox liberty for Christianity were burned as living torches to light the p'gan festival, yot, so far as modern conditions allow, wo are held up by Secularists and Romans as a spectacle for men to jeer at. Though physical life cannot bo assailed by those opponents, yet .that which is dearer thin life—ho-uour ar.d character—is ruthlessly stained by those who are deprived of the power of physical torture, simply by the growth of that Christianity which they are seeking- to hinder entering our schools. In speaking to the "Post" reporter, I told him I had a copy of the sermon before me, I got him to read the letter from the " Now Zealand Times," tnen I read him the corresponding passage from my sermon, showing that, the words " opponents" had been attributed to mo by the writer of the letter and had had to be invented by him to make my words apply to them. Moreover, that the writer of the letter had to insert the pronoun "their" and cut out my pronoun "our" in order to givo the sentence the meaning which _ he desired, and which is tlie exact reverse both of my words and their plain grammatical meaning. The reporter asked rao if the copy were correct, to which I replied " xes, and further asked mo if I had used the words attributed to me, to which I emphatically replied " No." Yet the " Post" publishes that conversation as if I had merely " comp»ained " of the correspondent; I did not "complain," I went much further, I emphatically denied that I had said that which was attributed to me. Yet the "Post's" idea of fair play is to suppress my denial, and on 'Saturday night to invite me to a vindication of inyseh in its columns, which it had already obtained and refused to insert, though it continued its attacks upon ine, in face of my denial which it had received, and which it suppressed without mentioning it It may be a small matter, but when the " Post" says I sent it a copy of the sermon, I say clearly I did not. The "Post" asked mo for a copy after I told the reporter I had one, and I willingly responded to his request that I would give it to him if he sent for it which he did. "The whola incident is a specimen of that journalism which make* me thankful that the VPost" ia on the aide of " Secularism" and not of Religious Instruction iu State Schools. Tho Hon W. Earnshaw, a Labour politician, speaking at the opposition League's meetin" in tho Opera House last Sunday night, is reported to havo said, when referring to th« Religious Instruction Referendum:— " The Bill I»as full of the greatest DEVILTRY that could be conceived by persc-M wearing the clerical cloth. You know they come aometimea very near the devil. (Laughter from his hearers.) Now, on the word of this Labour man, it Is " deviltry" to propose to allow tlw Sovereign Peoplo the right meroly to 6ay what their desire may be on a question or subject with which Mi' Earnshaw does not happen to agree. According to this Democrat,' the democratic principle of merely looking to Parliament as representative of the peoole to provide machinery to enable Parliament to ascertain their will, is " deviltry.", '; ; Ths insults ho cast at ministers of religion when he spoke of " the greatest deviltry that could be conceived by persons wearing clerical cloth. You know they come semetimes very near the devil," emanate moat fi ting>ly from one who, like Mir Earnshaw, has an opportunity—not by election of the people—of exorcising by his personal vote in tb« Legislative Council an '.individual autocracy by which the whole tribunal of tho people will b» denied tho opportunity of asking for justice, when they believe injustice is perpetrated upon them. Could the worst " deviltry" ever alleged of " persons wearing the clerical cloth" bo equalled by the tyranny of Mr Earnshaw's personil vote hindering the people exercising a similar vote for themselves? This ehargo of " deviltry " conceived by persons " wearing the clerical cloth," com«« most appropriately from one who, in his upholding of secularism in the schools, is « followor of that great living apostle of secularism, Joseph M'Cabe, who, in_ Wellington, 2nd July, 1010. under the chairmanship of Sir Robert Stout, one time Presidont of the Rtttiona.iat Association, enunciated tho dostrine of Secularism as applied to State schools with such convincing force to his hearers that forthwith was established the Secular Education Defence League, with Prof. Mackenzie as its treasurer. The Hon Mr Barr, speaking in tho Council last Monday, is reported to have said: — "Thoso Bibio-m-Schcola people, headed by FANATICS—some of them hired FROM' ABROAD— havo thrown' down tho gauntlet." Tho " fanatics ' include very many of tho Christian loaders in this country; and many of tho women best known and honoured in 1 New Zealand, mothers travailing again for thoir children, who are loading this movement, are "fanatics," according to Mr Barr. Mr Barr is an honest man, I believe he speaks from the honest convictions of his heart; he is also, like some other opponents, a Labour man. Weil, let him, as an honest man, como from under the protection of Parliament, which privileges him to say there what, could' not be said elsewhere, and let him, as a . Labour politician, como out from the closo preserve of a nominated seat in Parliament, to which ho has not been elected by tho people, and stand for an election, taking as hi nolitioal cry: "These Bibic-in-Sehools people are headed by fanatics." \ a to those who are " hired from abroad," I know of only one come from abroad-* myself. Well, is it to go out to tho world that a British subject of full white extrac* tion is not welcome in New Zealand if he happens to be one of ' those Bible-in-Sohools people." Let Mr Barr come from behind the safety of the Legislative Council and say tint as a cand.date for the suffrages of the wholo electors snd see whether they would proclaim to the British Empire, which as an almost entire wlfcle, has retained the Bible n its English-speaking schools, that those are not wanted in New Zealand who a« anxious to bring Now Zealand out of line with the Atheist schools of France, and once {ipain into lino with the British Imperial practice and history of Bible-in-Schools. 1 know what the answer would be from the hearts of the Christian, British and National pooplo of this Dominion. r "But—and if ye suffer for righteousness sake, happy are ye; and be non afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; but sanctify tho Lord God in yonr - - heart*-" 62451 ;