BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2205, 18 July 1914, Page 3

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

[Published by : Arrangement.]

1 ,— SERMON BY THE EIGHT REV. W. SAJDLIEB,' BISHOP OP NELSON. The Bishop of Nelson preached two eloquent and impressive sermons on tho subject of the Bible-in-State-Schools on Sunday last. He said that Parliament was now on its trial, and he demanded courtesy and faithfulness to their trust from tho members; somo of who had referred to tho subject as' "deviltry,". and had denounced the Leaguers as fanatics. The presept system , was not a tentative one, but bad been tried for years and failed. The Bill for a referendum, to allow tho people to express an opinion on the proposed measure, was now before the House, and it behoved them, all not. to give out strong expressions, but to .pray , earnestly that their rulers might be guided aright in. their deliberations. The proposed measure would in no way interfere with, or add to, the present syllabus. It mprely substituted one reading lesson for another; with the right of entry of authorised persons at a specified time, not at any hour. The four leading Protestant denominations, tho Episcopal, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, and Salvation Army were all in accord iu the matter; and 144,000 electors had signer cams pledging themselves to,vote.for the measure and asking for the referendum to be granted. If it were refused it would be a terrible check to the .Gospel of Christ in this land, and the deathknell of the national system. It was strange that the religion of Confucius, of Mahomet, of Buddha, of Japan, might be explained to our children, . but that of our own. race should be excluded. Tho system had'been tried for nearly BO years in New South Wales and Tasmania, for lesser periods in Western Australia, and Queensland; in all of which it had been found to work admirably, and with excellent results. . , Throughout the history of the Church there have been many instances of enthusiasts on religious matters. Such' people have often been terribly persecuted, and were called fanatics. We now hear it said that they are guilty of "deviltry." The ■ fact of the matter is, we can be enthusiasts on anything but religion. For the two years that, he had been in this diocese, he had lievor imputed motives to any opponent, and had desired above all tnings that the truth should be brought 10 light. There was. then no need for such terms as bigotry,' fanaticism, deviltry ; for it - was not ■ Christian to indulge in such abuse. The Church of England, together with the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches and the Salvation Army, had come to an agreement with regard to the teaching of the children in State schools. The question they had to decide was not: Have the people, the right to determine the religious'msmicimu oi tho child? But: Have the people the light to determino the education of tho' cnildl But' these two were inseparable. For the last twenty months the Bible, in State Schools League had had before it a definite scheme. The same scheme had been tested and proved in most of the Austr«lia.n States i.or a, great many, years, fu Ne-.v South Wales all sorts of Ministries had' been . tVied'i' either Liberal, Reform, Labour, or a combination of tmo or more of them, and no Ministry had ever dared' to suggest an alteration of the. Act. A thing was either true or not ti'iw, and there was no need for abuse. The Act decreo-1 that selections from the Bible and Biblical history were to bo read in school, the 6ame as any . other lesson. The Bible in State Schools League did'-not say which " version it'must be from. One might say. that this was sectarianism. But they asked !:or the same right for all, and all dienominatiohs alike. The Roman Catholics and other sects should 'have precisely the same right that they possessed. This surely .was not sectarianism. The well-known conscience clause, also called a proselytising clause, was drawn up by none other than the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin. Under a conscience clause the subject of history need not in* New Zealand be taught at all. , . ' .Their opposition came from two sources. (1) The Roman Catholic Church. This had made great sacrifices for its' children. It would not have secular education., It nas logical in its conclusions, but, its 1 justice failed in one place. The Roman Catholic' Church, claims a special State grant for its'schools, and because it cannot get this it says, "We can't/get what wo want, 60 you cannot got what you want." , ' ' (2) The Defence League. On July 3rd, 1910, Joseph M'Cabe lectured in Wellington on "Secular Education.". He said, "Some people believe that suoh a person as Jesus Christ did exist and other such tilings. As a result of this meeting the Defence League was formed. Some of its assertions were absolutely .false. The Bill is now before Parliament. The result wo leave in GodV hands. We must thank Him for tho magnificent work which Canon Garland has done, in'that 144.000 people of tho Dominion have combined together to plaoa the present Bill before the House. It is not the League which shall havo the right to deal with this, but it is the public men who nre put to trial. It is our boasted democracy, and our ideas of common justico which' will now be put to tihe test. We 0"?1it to obey God rather than men. and whatever the ifue it is the will of. God. It is not a time for ns to boast, but for earnest ornyer for the. country, for ourselves, and fo" our children, and that God will uphold the right.