Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 1 May 1913, Page 21

Current Topics

Catholicism' and Protestantism - ■ Vi _ We direct our readers' attention to an "■ interesting and thoughtful article which we print elsewhere in this issue from the leading columns of our Presbyterian contemporary, the Outlook. We have omitted incidental references to the Bible-in-schools : question and to the Chapman-Alexander mission which were introduced merely to illustrate the main theme, and there are, of course, in what is left sentiments and points :of view with which we are not in entire agreement but there is so much of good in it, and so much that furnishes food for thought that we have reproduced the article exactly as it stands, without further excision. As we took occasion to remark some time ago in our leading columns, when the Outlook speaks of and for itself its tone and attitude towards the Catholic Church and things Catholic are uniformly courteous and gentlemanly ; but when it is under the unpleasant necessity of becoming ' a sounding board' for the sentiments of others it is liable, if we. may be allowed to mix our metaphors, to get seriously off the rails. On the present occasion the Outlook is speaking in propria persona; and the article" which we quote gives us, both as to matter and manner, the Outlook at its best.

An Historic School By this week's mail from England there came an intimation that this year would be celebrated the third golden jubilee of the 'venerable and historic school,' Sedgley Park. The 'Park' was opened in 1763. The school authorities write: ' The very mention of that date carries back our minds to the trials and sufferings of the penal days, and to the golden story of the heroism with which those sufferings were borne; at the same time it fills us with admiration for the stout-hearted courage of the men who were bold enough to set up a Catholic school when the penalty for so doing was imprisonment for life. Trusting in God, they nobly dared; and their work has survived in life and vigor to the present hour.' * At the expiration of its ninety-nine years' lease the school was transferred to St. Wilfrid's College, the celebration is to be held on Whit Tuesday, and the disposal of the money subscribed for a fitting memorial will be determined upon. We are requested to state that Parkers or Wilfridians living in New Zealand can send their contributions to Mr. James Plunket, 145 Aikman's road, Christcliurch, who has been placed on the general committee and authorised to receive subscriptions; or, if they wish, direct to the Rev. S. J Gosling, secretary for the fund.

Is it a "Just" Fcheme? Speaking last week at a meeting of women interested in the Bible-in-schools movement the Rev. G. H. Balfour, minister of (Presbyterian) First Church, committed himself to the statement that the League's platform was a ' just' one. The following reply appeared in the Dunedin Evening Star of Saturday:

' Sir, —In your issue of April 22 the Rev. G. H. Balfour is reported as saying: "The platform of the League was broad, just, and equal.' I contend, on the other hand, that it is narrow, unjust, and sectional. Let us test, first, the claim that it is a just scheme. If it fails on this head, by that fact alone the scheme must stand condemned, for every Christian and every honest citizen must stand opposed to injustice. In this connection I would ask Mr. Balfour to make good his assertion by answering the following questions —(1) Is it just to compel teachers, of all beliefs and of none, to give "general religious teaching at variance with their conscientious convictions Ten years ago the Bible-in-schools denominations, in a conference held at Wellington, very properly laid it down as essential to a just scheme " that teachers who conscientiously object to give Bible lessons shall not be compelled to give them." To-day the League insist that teachers who

conscientiously object to give Bible lessons shall, nevertheless, under penalty; 01 loss of pay and pension," be compelled to give them. The burden of justifying^ this change from Christian liberty to unchristian tyranny lies upon the League. .Why do the League 7refuse to include in their proposals ; a . conscience clause for the teachers ? How has that which ; the Christian conscience of the Bible-in-schools denominations absolutely refused in 1903 to acquiesce in become justifiable and morally right in, 1913? ■ . * ' (2) Is it just to compel objecting- . taxpayers to pay for general' religious teaching" at variance with their conscientious, convictions ? It is obvious that a man's rights of conscience are as much violated by compelling him to pay for religious teaching which he regards as error as by compelling him to listen to it. " God alone is lord, of the conscience," says the West--minster Confession of Faith (chap, xx., s. 2), and by a curious coincidence, the copy of the Co?ifession from which I am. transcribing the sentence belonged originally to the first minister of First Church, and memory are still so justly revered. How does his successor justify himself in abandoning a tenet which Macpherson in his handbook on the Confession of Faith (p. 123), describes as "a fundamental principle of Protestantism"? By all means let all who desire religious instruction for their children in the schools .have it, but let them not force dissident taxpayers to pay for it. ■'.:.■■' * ' (3) Mr. Balfour has referred to the case of the Jews. Here they are in this community, devout worshippers of the only living and true God according to .their conscientious convictions, and entitled as of right —and all the more so because they are few in numbers —-to absolute religious equality. Is it just, I ask Mr. Balfour, to compel Jewish teachers, present and future, to teach, and Jewish taxpayers to pay for, the dissemination of Christianity ? The moment the taxes of the Jew are appropriated to a form of religious instruction alien to his faith, and which teaches its falsehood, he is persecuted; and the persecution is intensified when the religious teaching for which he is to be compelled to pay constitutes, as he has been taught, blasphemy against the God of his fathers. Would Mr. Balfour be willing, for " all the tea in China," to administer lessons or to voluntarily pay for teaching which he regarded as blasphemy against God? Yet that is the humiliation and injustice : which the League proposals compel the Jew to submit to. * .'I notice that the League are prepared to take charge' of the consciences, not only of Jews, Catholics, etc., but also, and, I suppose, a fortiori, of their own Christian women, and particularly of the recalcitrant members of the W.C.T.U. God alone is lord of the conscience," as the Confession of Faith teaches, and the members of the W.C.T.U. are responsible not to the Bible-in-State-Schools League, but to their own conscience and to God. When in doubt as to the right or wrong of a particular course, for Christian women as for Christian men, there is but one thing to do, and that is to cling firmly to Christian principles that are clear and definite, and in regard to which they are quite sure. The two Christian principles which bear on the features of the League's scheme, to which I have above referred, and which I commend to the attention of the W.C.T.U., are " Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, ' do ye even so to them," and the uncompromising apostolic injunction which forb ; ds us to say " Let us do evil that good may come." —I am, etc., ' ■' r • .'-'..-: '■'■:' J. A. Scott. '." 'April 25.' . '•

An Anonymous 'Educationist' In the local columns of Thursday's Ota go Daily Times there appeared quotations from an extremely bigoted letter written to a Dunedin citizen by an alleged 'educationist' in Queensland, and submitted to the Otago Daily Times by the Rev. R. E. Davies.

The; following reply appeared in Tuesday's Otdgo Daily Times:- - ''.-"': ~ : r "'■".' j;- : -' v -^;'' .•-"•- "'■ zi.^-o/Sfe;^

.' Sir,ln a local in' your issue of Thursday' last you quote from a letter submitted 1 to you by the Kev. R. E. Davies, in which,- ; inter alia, the following sentence occurs:— With I regard to the attitude -of the Roman Catholic Church, it is, of course, the same as alwaysj they do not ' recognise the - right r of any secular person in education." This last : statement, as it stands, is wholly and absolutely false; and I cannot but express surprise that the minister of Knox Church should have made himself party to an appeal* to ignorance and bigotry, both of which qualities are conspicuous ia the utterance of this anonymous "educationist." = • . ■■;''

'.v.;'.' I have good reason for my feeling of surprise. (1) It is only a year ago since Mr. Davies, in an interview given to a representative of the Christchurch Press, admitted that the Catholic theory—that "education must be permeated from top to bottom by a religious atrrfdsphere"-"is ideally correct," and went on to say: :"The Roman Catholics of New South Wales are agitating for "grants to denominational schools. They are doing noble work, and at considerable sacrifice they are carrying on their own schools for the instruction of ■their own children." (2) It is less than two years ago since the reverend gentleman announced his readiness, under certain circumstances, to pay to the Catholic example in the matter of religious education the sincere flattery, of imitation. At the meeting of the Presbyterian General Assembly held in Dunedin in November, 1911, he spoke as follows: "If the State could not do it (i.e., provide Christian education for the ~ children) then it was high time the Church should face the question and, consider whether it should not commence a movement and establish schools of their ownschools permeated with a religious atmosphere from top to bottom." According to the 1 Outlook report, from which I quote, this statement —it is significant to note—received with "hear, hear" and applause. (3) It is only a Sunday or two ago, as I am credibly informed on the authority of several citizens—and the information was given, I confess, not without a chuckle—that his Holiness the Pope, on the occasion of his recent critical illness, was affectionately prayed for from the Knox Church pulpit. From ■ some ■'points of view the incident doubtless has a humorous aspect, but I prefer to look upon it as a truly Christian display of fraternal charity. I am sure that it was only Mr. Davies's modesty which prevented him from submitting this item also to your reporter. In this matter Knox Church has, so to speak, been "doing good by stealth," and its pastor—l have not the slightest doubt—will now "blush to find it fame."

' Joking aside, there is one remark in the otherwise banal communication of Mr. Davies's correspondent with which I entirely agree: • If a measure is right, then let it be enforced." How does it fare with the League's proposals, when this test is applied? I have read most of the controversy which has appeared in the daily papers of Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin, and I have noticed that without exception, League apologists have broken hopelessly down when called upon to face the moral issues involved in their scheme. Perhaps Mr. Davies will have better luck. I have already shown that the League proposals are flagrantly unjust in their treatment of the teachers and of objecting taxpayers. I invite Mr. Davies to try his hand on the following further queries.

(a) Is it right for Christian churches to hand over to the State the authority to teach religious truth and to concede to the civil government the right to decide with all the infallible power of an ecumenical council upon the doctrines of religion ? Where is the organ, where are the instrumentalities, by which the Government is to discover religious truth ? To whom shall the State apply when it wishes to ascertain that fundamental, undenominational, universal, neutral, achromatic truth which, according to the claim of the League, it must teach the children in the public schools ?

To Canon Garland? to Bishop Geary? or to the Jewish rabbi ? By * what ■ rule iof -maxima ;or ; mimima will it determine the least ; or [_ greatest quantum of religion which it can safely administer to the children of > the 40 odd denominations which make up,, our New Zealand population ?> Was it to-the State or to the Church that our Lord said, "Go "ye into; all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature . . ; .... teaching them, to > observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" ? The Confession of Faith (chapter xxiii., s. 3) emphatically denies to the civil government "the administration of the Word"; and if Mr. Davies gives me the opportunity I will prove, that no Presbyterian minister. or elder can support the League's programme without flying full in the face of that venerable and authoritative document. The most glorious event in the history, of Presbyterianism—the Disruption of 1843 -was a memorable and magnificent protest against; this very principle of State intrusion into the spiritual domain. ' _ -'

, ' (b) Is it right to take money from the common fund—provided out of the pockets of all the taxpayers for the purpose of teaching the League's view of religion, without at the' same time making provision for teaching the view of religion held by the other religious bodies contributing to the fund? 'Common decency forbids the mere majority to grab the whole treasure of the State and turn it into its own coffers. If the League has the right to have its'religion taught and paid for out of the common taxes, have not Congregationalists, Baptists, Jews, Catholics, Unitarians, etc., precisely the same right? Is it right to plunder the education fund to the extent of £IOO,OOO yearly to teach the League's view of religion, and then to tell all dissenting denominations that if they want provision made for teaching their religious views they must get it elsewhere and at their own expense?

' (c) Is it right to decide such grave questions of religion and conscience as are involved in the League's scheme by a mere count of heads? .Does Mr. Davies really think this a sound principle ? Would he accept it if the majority in this country were a Catholic, a Jewish, or a secularist majority ?• These . are some of the questions which Mr. Davies is called upon to face if he'is to show that the scheme proposed by the League is right. When these have been disposed —if they ever shall —there are others.— I am, etc., •J. A. Scott. 'April 26.' _ . '■ '--