The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1913. THE POLICY OF EVASION

New Zealand Tablet, 8 May 1913, Page 33

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1913. THE POLICY OF EVASION

9 IBLE-IN-SCHOOLS apologists still . ; ' IBLE-IN-SCHOOLS apologists still maintain _ V \yp)\ their reputation as persistent and inveterate > shirkers. Nearly a fortnight ago, as readers may remember, Mr. J. A. Scott submitted certain queries, per medium of the Otago xSq* Daily Times, to the Rev. R. E. Davies, Presbyterian minister of Knox Church, • Dunedin. The questions arose directly out of a statement submitted to the Daily Times by Mr. Davies; and Mr. Scott undertook, if Mr. Davies gave him the opportunity, to prove that no Presbyterian minister or elder could support the League’s programme without flying full, in the face of the authoritative standard of Presbyterianism, the Westminster Confession of Faith. That Protestant readers of the Times realised that there was an obligation on the part of Mr. Davies to meet the challenge and face the issues raised is shown by such letters as that of Mr. J. J. Ramsay, which appears elsewhere in this issue. But up to date not a line of reply has appeared from the Knox Church minister. The following further letter from Mr. Scott appears in this morning’s issue of the Times. * ‘ Sir,—lt was long since evident to thoughtful people that Mr. Joseph Braithwaite was getting out of his depth in his effort to evolve a “principle" which should justify the violation of the rights of conscience and the picking of the taxpayer’s pocket which are involved in the Bible in State Schools League’s proposals; and it was manifestly only a matter of time when the tyrannous and persecuting character of his alleged principle would stand clearly revealed, I had intended to keep him under interrogation a little longer with a view to getting him to put into plain English the great “principle" which he wished me to grasp; but several of

your correspondents have anticipated matters and have exposed the precious "principle" without more ado. The alleged principle is nothing more or less than the old persecuting doctrinewhich we had all hoped - had been finally abandoned—that in matters of religion and conscience might is "right, and that a majority a bare majorityare entitled to trample on the religious convictions and do violence to , the consciences of the dissenting minority. That is what the referendum, as applied to questions of religion' and conscience, amounts to. It is based on the mathematical principle that by multiplying nothing by thousands you get everything. The word of one ill-equipped or biassed: person is admittedly valueless as a guide to truth and right doing; but, by adding to his voice those of ten thousand others as ill-equipped and biassed as himself, the expression of infallible justice and wisdom results. Against this "principle"- the whole history, as well as the teachings, of Christianity are a protest. . Where' was the majority on Calvary? What was it about ? "Christ or Barabbas" was made a State question; on which side did the majority range itself? Was it to reward the fidelity of the majority that the deluge came? Were the prophets in the majority or those who stoned them? What part did the majority play in the death of Stephen 1 • After the severe handling. which Mr. Braithwaite and his "principle" have received from the Rev. W. J. Ashford and Mr. J. J. Ramsay it would be cruelty to subject them to further punishment.

1 1 have waited for nearly a fortnight to give the Rev. R. E. Davies an opportunity of answering my queries and of vindicating, on Presbyterian principles, the revolutionary proposals of the League, but apparently Mr. J. J. Ramsay was right in his prediction. Mr. Davies, like the rest of his ministerial brethren, is determined to keep as far away as possible from the firing line. I am exceedingly sorry; and can only say that I will be ready at any time, whenever Mr. Davies is willing, to discuss with him the question, Is it in accordance with Presbyterian teaching to allow the State to set up as a teacher of religion, to force the consciences of any section in the community, or to decide vital questions of religion and conscience by a mere count of heads? all of which proposals are embodied in the programme of the League. In the meantime I commend to his thoughtful notice the following pregnant passage from a volume on Scotland's Battles for Spiritual Independence (1905) by Hector Macpherson: "If we are to be saved from social and political anarchy on the other hand, and social and political despotism on the other, we must fight the evils which grow out of the principle of the Sovereignty of Parliaments and Law Courts by another principlethat of the Sovereignty of Conscience. We must fall back upon the old view, that man as man has certain rights which neither kings, lawyers, nor Parliaments can be allowed to touch-. This is the question at issue in the present crisis, and all who value the birthright of humanityfreedom of conscienceshould rejoice that once more it is left to Scotland to vindicate the glorious principles for which our fathers went undauntedly to the stake and the scaffold." And these principles—for which their fathers made such heroic sacrifices—New Zealand Presbyterian ministers are prepared to betray.

' Mr. Ramsay is right also in his indictment of the League's methods. There are certain fundamental questions of right and wrong involved in the League's proposals —questions in regard to which ministers, of all men, ought to be able to give a strong and clear lead. Some, at least, of these questions have been set forth again and again in your columns, and League apologists have been challenged to give an honest and straightforward reply. Not one of them has so much as attempted to do so. On Monday night two League meetings were held, one at Roslyn and one at NorthEast Valley. In all, seven ministers took the platform, and with one consent they avoided the moral , and conscientious issues involved in the League's scheme as they would avoid the bubonic plague. League apologists may, and presumably will, continue to shirk and avoid

the plain issues raised by their proposals, but they may, rest assured that the public will not fail to notice the fact of their evasion, and its significance. Several of the speakers referred to the address to be delivered next week by Bishop Cleary in the Garrison Hall. As will be duly notified in your columns, members and officials of the League are particularly requested to be present, and are cordially invited to submit relevant ■ questions to the lecturer to their heart’s content. If they do, I can -• give assurance that there will be no evasion or beating about the bush, but that all relevant questions will be promptly and straightforwardly answered. Will the League speakers, at their future meetings, give us a similar opportunity to question them? And if not, why not V * A further glaring example of the inability of League advocates to defend their position and of their utter helplessness under straightforward cross-examina-tion, is furnished by the episode at Hamilton, which is fully reported on page 22 of this issue. The League representative on that occasion, the Rev. Alex. Miller, is a man of undoubted ability, but he made no sort of showing at all under Bishop Cleary’s courteous but searching interrogation. Question after question was either feebly parried, or openly shirked and evaded. As the Yen. Archdeacon Cowie, a leader of the local League, admitted, on the logical side of the matter Bishop Cleary had the League advocate completely ‘ tangled up.’ ‘ The Bishop’s questions,’ said the Archdeacon, ‘ ran on one line and the lecturer’s replies on another, and the two lines never met.’ It was an instructive and decisive exposure of the weakness of the League’s position, and one from which the public can be safely left to draw its own conclusion.