South Canterbury Times, FRIDAY, AUGUST 4, 1882.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2920, 4 August 1882, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, FRIDAY, AUGUST 4, 1882.

Bishop Nevill, of Dunedin, on Mond'ay evening last, delivered a lecture in the Garrison Hall in that city, on Christianity. Religious topics are never discussed in these columns, but, while we abstain from polemics, we have no hesitation in commenting upon a subject of world-wide interest, not in a contentious 'spirit, but being as observant of the progress of thought as of all other operations in nature. Th« Hrot tbinga which strike us in connection with this address are the wisdom and courage of the Bishop, and secondly, the excellence of the address itself. Neither of these things surprises us, however. We have the pleasure to know the Bishop, and to be aware of his earnest courage, and conspicuous ability. But it certainly is travelling out of the old paths for a Bishop to descend from his - ecclesiastical throne and to address the people in a liberal, thoughtful, winning way on the subject of religion. It is an evidence of Bishop Nevill’s wisdom, that he so far conforms to the spirit of the age as to sink his episcopal rank, and to address the people generally in a liberal, tolerant, and argumentative way. We are not surprised that the lecturer had a large audience, and was most cordially received. There are plenty of people, who, on the one hand, are prepared to denounce those who do not conform to the laws of a Church ; and, on the other, there are, we regret to say, an equal number who regard religion as a butt for jokes, and its traditions as foolish tales. But there are very few who are prepared to calmy, dispassionately, and logically, from either side, discuss the merits of religion. Yet that is what is wanted, often; and it is therefore fitting that we should notice a step which may have an important influence on the minds of the community. If there is one thing more than another which keeps people apart, and therefore retards progress, it is religious difference. There are rapidly growing two distinct parties, in which all minor sections are being merged, viz.,—the advocates and the opponents of religion. So real is this movement that it threatens to disorganise society for a time, to ‘strain’ the relations between man and his fellow, to make union and cooperation in worldly matters impossible or futile, and to divert people’s attention from other subjects which ought not to be neglected. The attitude of Established Churches has kept the breach widening. They have shown a disposition towards Conservatism. Now, Conservatism is a very useful and desirable element in politics and manners, but in the realm of thought it is simply an obstructive nuisance, and to attempt to call a general halt of the minds of men at certain points is a futile effort. In earlier days they tried persecution. They shed blood and inspired terror—but minds moved on in spite of them and thought triumphed over physical torture. Now-a-days, custom is as tyrannical as Nero or Severus, yet it too is inadequate to the task of arresting the progress of human thought. But the tendency to tryranny is not, be it understood, all on the side of the dogmatists. It is not less manifest on the side of the non-religious. The one party requires subscription and obedience to dogma, and denounces those who will not yield obedience; and the other party commands men to throw off the fetters of dogma, and never ceases to ridicule and malign thope who do not follow their way of thinking. There is thus engendered

a widespread feeling of bitter- i ness, inconsistent alike with the principles of Christianity, and the professed liberality of the freethinker, and altogether detrimental to the interests of society. When, therefore, a distinguished ambassador from the camp of dogma, deigns to address the multitude and to reason with them about the great subjects of thought and disputation he, in effect, counsels each man to think for himself ; and, while pursuing the path which his reason and conscience point ont as the correct one, to respect the convictions of his neighbour ; and rather to build up his own character than assail those of other people. The blind Samson tagged at the pillars until he brought down the roof of the theatre upon the Phillistine audience and “inevitably drew down the same ruin upon himself.” It ill befits the ancient dignity of dogma, or the power of modern thought to play the part of the blind despairing Israelitish slave. Yet this is what either does, when it strives by any sort of violence to destroy the other. What society wants is less talk about freedom of thought and the right to private judgment. Both sides, the old and the modern thinkers, have much to learn in this respect. The address of Bishop Nevill is just an illustration of the style most likely to be effective in promoting peace and goodwill among men of all shades of thought.