BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 8782, 11 July 1914, Page 13

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

PUBLISHED BY ARRANGEMENT.]

PERSONAL ATTACKS DEALT WITH Sermon, preached by the Eevd. Cano n Garland, in St. Paul’s Cathedral. Wellington, on Sunday, .1 nly 5. ‘'But—ami if ye suffer for righteousness .sake, bnppy are ye; and be not afraid of their terror, neither bo troubled; but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts.”—l St. Peter 111. 14.

When St. Petor wrote this epifttl© Christians had entered upon an ocean of hatred, legalised persecution, and ■wilful •misrepresentation, the lost waves of which did not expend themselves for three long centuries. The Christians were hated by tho Pagans, prohibited by legal enactments from the exercise ox Christian liberty and wilfully misrepresented, by tho philosophers of those days. Their desire to do good was wilfully misrepresented, "they speak against you as evildoers," writes St, Peter;, they were misrepresented as tiuiruo to religion, as having no religion; they were accused of injuring and destroying child-life—those very people who. carrying out the principles of Jesus, sowed the seed of a Christianity which gave civilisation to the ■world, and lifted up childhood into the happy and sacred place which to-dav it holds in Christian nations only.. But to accomplish this they suffered for righteousness sake, and counted themselves happy, being not afraid of the terror of the present, or troubled by the misrepresentations of ’fcho Pagans who boasted they would crush Christianity. They who suffered for righteousness sake have gone their way and entered into tho jov of their Lord, and we of to-day. from their example and the* lesson of therir triumph, for which we thank God, can take, heart to “be not afraid when wo too have to suffer for righteousness sake at tho hands of those -who, in this 20th centurv would deny liberty to Christian parents to have their children in their day schools, paid for by those parents as part of tho whole people taught those truths about God and that knowledge of Jesus Christ which are part of the common law of the British Empire, From the example of tho long roll of white-robed army of martyrs and their victory, often by death, wo can learn to "bo. not afraid, neither be troubled/* when wo aro misrepresented in our efforts and our desires for the 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 ol names, the wilful, perverse and persistent misrepresentation to which I am subjected by those who are opposing the opening of the Bible to Christ*s little ones, in the State schools, and the restoration of liberty by which ChrigSiaL ministers of every church will be allowed to enter tho schools to teach those whose parents desire it the Christian laith; but, however, much I may be willing #personally to submit to slander and wilful misrepresentation, there are times when the Cause which I represent means that 1 must put on one side my own wishes and while 'dealing with that which applied ostensibly only to defend the Cause which is in my

person. . , ... Of many sucli attacks, take one in tn© Wellington evening paper of 2nd inst., -where in an editorial note, two charges aro brought against me; one, that havo persisted in my misrepresentation of Sir Charier Bowen's attitude in 1877 and in later years, which is described a« a “grave offence"; but as <<a ' tnvial fault bv contrast with a ■Japs©' in a certain sermon of which I shall speak presently. „ , , Now. what aro the tacts about my references to Sir Chas. Bowen? Speaking in St- John's school. February 24th jasr, I am reported in tho "Dominion ot February 25th as saying : . “There was nc» . time tor him to review ‘the whole history of the movement in Now Zealand. He thought.he could sum it up by saying that since'lß7b, when Sir Chas. Bowen, as Minister ior Education, was defeated on the clause which he had put into his Education Act providing that there should be Bible lesson in schools there had been unrest more or less definite,. but always existing always simmering, in-regard to educational matters in New Zealand. And, preaching in Xvent terrace j ies byterian Church last Sunday night, 1 ain reported as saying:— “That ever since Sir Chas. Bowen, had stated in 1877 that nineteen-twentietiia of the people desired Bible-readmg in schools for tho children there had been continual protests from the Christian churches as a result of tho entire y secular’ law.” ~ , . , . Here I stated two historical fame which have not been Questioned, and which are .beyond challenge 1 Sir Cbas Bowen did introduce in his Education Bill a clause providing tor Bible reading; , . , . 2. That Sir Chas.'Bowen stated) in lsi7 that nineteenrtwentieths of the P 6O ? 1 ® desired Bible-reading in schools tor the children. .. .. . Where is the faintest suggestion that I claim Sir Oh as Bowen, as a supporter of our proposals? I mesrelv quoted two facts beyond dispute associated with himself, and expressed no opinion whatever as to his views. Con there be. a clearer case of wilful misrepresentation when the “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 oflence.

The “Post” proceeds to speak of my “grave offence” as “a trivial fault by contrast with, tlio lapse in a eerinon * of which some extracts are published by the “Post”; and says I have deliberately suggested that people who . vote against the league's proposals may incur a sentence of eodie on the Day ot Judgment"; that I have "threatened the Nationalists with the displeasure ot God, and have warned them that when they stand before the Great VV hite Throne they may hear the dread words, ‘Depart from me; I never know youThe “Post” bases this article upon a letter which it. lifted from a morning contemporary, signed damns McDonnell.” who wrote “That according to a report in tho ‘Gtsborno Times of reverend cftntlcmaTi 'warncfi League, no matter how good UHLUy motive* may have been would .at the Day of Judgment, hoar from the lips ot 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 “Gisborne Times”? It would be incredible, if we were not so- familiar with tho ways Of some of our opponents, to believe that the following is tho complete report so far as that paper gives it. and upon which the “Post’s” attack on mo is b&sed:— , , „ , • “This appeal can only be felt by Qhiristians; by those who . accept the Lord Jesus as their only Saviour, as God manifest in the flesh, to‘Whom they have committed their whole lives. Because WE thus accept Him, WE believe Ho will come to be OUB Judge, when every one of US shall give an account of the things WE have done in this life, for every thought, and word and deed. What shall I say then when I see Him face to face? Shall I plead; ‘Lord, 1 would not trust the teachers of New Zealand.’ ‘Lord I thought.tho State should have nothing to do with the religion of tho children in the schools, though' it might .with tho criminals in the prison.’ ‘I thought this or that, and therefore I rebuked those that would hare'brought ■ tho children to Thee in their school.’ What will be His answer then? WE know, for He has shown His mind, and it is the same yesterday, today and for ever. It will be the eamo at the. Day of Judgment, when B stand before Him to give an account. Tho same as it was in Palestine, nineteen hundred years ago. He will be much displeased with US, no matter how good OUE. motives may hare been, if the result is that WB in anr fashion place a stumbling block in tho way of the little ones coming to Him. ‘lnasmuch as ve did it not unto one of the least of these, yet did not not unto me. Depart from Me; I never knew you’ Let US deal with tho question of Bible in Stale Schools as WE believe and know the Master has taught US, ae _WE

Moreover I was not then referring to opponents or to the public generally. 1 was addressing, as a priest, members, of tho Church of England. I was speaking to them as I conceived it to be my duty to speak to members who, for the moment, were my flook. I exhorted them, as I exhorted on a former occasion, tho congregation in this cathedral, to ap-Di-oach this subject not from tho point of view of-what I said, or anyone else said., not heeding one word that I or others might write for or against tho proposal, but entirelv as in the sight of God and as: in the presence of Him—the GodHan—Whom Wo, with all our hearts, believe will pome to be our Judge. 1 pointed out. as you will remember, and as the extract I have read reminds you, that the mind of the Lord Jesus as our Judge has been clearly shown; He was much displeased with those who, from whatever motives; sought to keep the children from Him Surely as a Christian priest I have the right to appeal to tho example and teaching of onr Blessed Lord Himself as a guide to myself and the flock, committed to my charge.

would wipvh WB had dealt with it when WE stand before the Great'White Throne of Him who 6a.id for all times and con. ditions; ‘Suffer the little children to come unto Me/ and Who was much displeased with tho6o who would have kept them from Him/*

But perhaps I am mistaken; we not only have to fight for liberty to allow tho Blessed Lord Jesus, the Saviour of man. the Friend of little children, to enter the schools though Mohammed, Confucius, and heathen gods, may freely entft*, but it would seem ae if we have to lor tho right to proclaim . within, our churches, the faith as it is in Jesus, as a standard for ourselves. It is true that there is no Act of Parliament which saj’s the teaching in tho Churches shall b 9 "entirely secular/' but this instance shows that' any Christian Minister who proclaims tho truth as his conscience believes it, may have to dtdend himself as I now have to do from attacks by opponents of Christianity teaching in the schools, when he holds up tho words and deeds of Jesus as a pattern. Though the days have gone by when those who sought for liberty for Christianity were burned as living torches to light the pagan festival, yet. so far as modern conditions allow, wo aro held up by Secularists and Homans as a spectacle for men to jeer at. Though physical life cannot be assailed by those opponents, yet that which is dearer than lifehonour and character—!is ruthlessly stabbed by those who are deprived of tho power of physical torture, simply by tho growth of that Christianity which they are seeking to hinder entering our schools. In speaking to tho “Post” reporter 1 told him I had a copy of tho sermon before me, I got him to read the letter from the “Now Zealand Times,” then I read him the corresponding passage from my sermon, showing that the words “opponents” had been attributed to me by the writer of the letter and had had to bo invented by him to make my words apply to them. Moreover, that tho writer of the letter had to insert tho pronoun, “their” and cut out my pronoun “our” in order to give tho sentence tho meaning vfhich he desired, and which is the exact reverse both of my words and their plain grammatical meaning. Tho reporter asked me if the copy were correct, to which I replied “Yes,” and further asked me if I had used tho words attributed to me, to which I emphatically replied “No.” Yet tho "Post” publishes that conversation as if I had merely “complained" of tho 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 fairplay is to suppress my denial and on Saturday night to invite me to a vindication of mysoif in its columns, which it had already obtained and refused to insert, though it continued its attacks upon me, in face of my denial which it had received, and which, it suppressed without mentioning It It may bo *a small matter, but when the "Post” says I sent it a copy of the sermon, 1 say clearly, I did not. The “Post” asked me 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 ho sent for it, which ho did. The whole incident is a specimen of that journalism which makes me thankful that tho “Post” is on the side of “Secularism” and not of Eeligious Instruction in State Schools. The Hon. W. Earnshaw, a Labour politician, speaking at .the opposition League’s meeting in the Opera House last Sunday -night, is reported to have said, when referring to the Eeligious Instruction Referendum : “The Bill was full of tho greatest DEVILTRY that could ; be conceived by

It wall b© noticed that I never referred to opponents directly or Indirectly; that even by a strained meaning there is no suggestion that I was referring to them. X never referred to "Nationalists" or "warned them" ot anything whatever, I wag referring to myself and those who, with myself, would be included in tho pronouns of the first person which I used. "Ho will be much displeased with US, no matter how good OUR motives may have if tho result is that W© in any fashion v place a stumbling block in the wav of the little ones coming to Him. ‘lnasmuch as vc did it not unto one of the least of these ye did it not unto Me. Depart from Me; I never knew you/*’ The letter which the "Post** takes tor its text has not only falsified what X said by introducing tho word “opponents" as antecedent to my words, but has actuallv inserted in the middle of my words a word which never passed my lips, and struck out the word a really did say. This was not the first time there was misrepresentation of the sermon. The "Tablet’* gave the lead to the action of the correspondent, of the "New Zealand Times** by finding itself' compelled to place before its misquotation of my words, words which I never used* Tho "Post/' th© mouthpiece of the Secularist Party, I therefore admit is not alone, but keeps the company of the official organ of the Roman Catholic Church in misrepresenting and straining what 1 actually did say. .

persons wearing the clerical cloth. You know thov conic feoiuctimes very near Uio devil.” '(Lanffhter from his hearers,) it is “deviltry” to propose to allow the Sovereign People the right merely to say what their desire may be ou a question, or .subject with which Mr Larnsnaw does not happen, to agree. According to this Democrat, the democratic principle of merely looking to Parliament as representative of the people to provide machinery to enable Parliament to ascertain their will, is “deviltry.

Tho insults he cast at ministers of religion when ho epok© of “tho greatest deviltry that could be conceived' by persons wearing clerical cloth. lou know they come sometimes very near tho devil,” emanate most fittingly trom one who. like Mr itarnahaw. has an opportunity—not by election, of til© people of exercising by his personal voto in the .Legislative Council an individual autocracy by which tho -whole tribunal of. tho people will bo denied the opportunity of asking lor justice, when they believe injustice is being perpetrated upon them. Could the worst “deviltry" ever alleged of “persons wearing the clerical cloth" bo equalled by tho tyranny of Hr 13amshaw’s personal voto hindering the people exercising a similar vote for themselves? This charge of “deviltry" conceived by persons "wearing tho clerical cloth," comes most appropriately from one w r ho, in his upholding of secularism in. the schools, is a follower of that great living apostle of secularism, ."Joseph McCabe, wire, in Wellington, July 2nd, 1010, under the chairmanship of Sir Robert Stout, one time President of the Rationalist Association, enunciated the doctrine of Secularism as applied to State schools, with such convincing force to his hearers that forthwith wa.s established the Secular Education Defence League, with Professor Mackenzie as its treasurer.

Tho. Hon. Mr Barr, speaking in the Council last Monday, is reported to have said: “Those Bible-in-schools people, headed by FANATICS—some of them HIRED from abroad.—have t brown down the gauntlet." Tho “fanatics" include very many of the Christian loaders in this country; and many of the women best known and honoured in, New Zealand; mothers travailing again for their children, who aro loading this movement, ate “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- Well, lot him, os an honest man, come 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, come out from the olose preserve of a nominated seat in Parliament, to which he has not been elected by the people, and stand for an election, .taking as his .political cry: “Those Bible-lu-schools people are headed by fanatics." As to those who are "hired from abroad,” I know of only one come from abroad—myself. Well, is it to go out to the world that a British subject of full white extraction is Hot welcome in New Zealand if ho happens to be one of “those Bible-iu-schools people." Let Mr Barr come from behind the safety of the Legislative Council and say that as a candidate for tho suffrages of the whole electors and see whether they would proclaim to the British Empire which, as an almost entire whole, has retained the Bible in its English-speaking schools, that those are not wanted in New Zealand, Who are anxious to bring New Zealand out of line with the Atheist schools of France, and once again into lino with

the British. Imperial practice and history of Bible-in-schools. I know what the answer would be from the • hearts of the Christian, British, and .. National people of this Dominion. /‘But—and if ye suffer for righteousness sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; but sanctify the Lord tied in your bearis."