THE STATE SCHOOLS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1042, 3 February 1911, Page 6

THE STATE SCHOOLS.

Sir,—l Imve very little doubt that your leading article of this date will greatly surprise and disappoint many who had become satisfied that your paper was independent and straight as far as politics were concerned, and hero ] may express my opinion that the great Teacher whom Archbishop Redwood claims to represent emphatically taught that we should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, i.e., the ruling power. Obedient to those who have rule is also demanded of all Christians, and no Christian Church has power to override or set asido the word .of God. See Matt. 5, 25, where Christ refers to a judge, nu officer, and a prison, recognising them as a warning to quarrelsome people. In John 19, 11, Jesus said to Pilate: "Thou could- ■ est have , :iio power, at all against lie except it were given theu from above." Ihis was said of a pagan government who controlled tho Hebrew nation at the time. St. Peter, in his first epistle, deals with this subject fully, though briefly (Chap. 2, v. 13-17): "Submit yourselves 'to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; whether it lie to the King as Supreme, etc. St. James (C. 3, 11) denounces envy and contention against truth, and the next two chapters denounce strivings, and all such things, enjoining peace. Tho Archbishop makes a very daring statement when lie says tho other' denominations nave practically accepted the secular system of school education by tho State. Now, Sir, I have bc.oii tired reading editorials for sixteen years heaping ridicule, as far as they could, on the "Bible in Schools" party, which embraced, I believe, all tho Protestant bodies, and our lato Premier promised a referendum, but failed to carry it out, as was , believed, through fear of offending the Catholics, whose teachers, apparently do not desire lay help in teaching the Bible. A vote of censuro on Dr. Gibb was passed by the Houso of Representatives for strong language used in reference to the broken promise, but the Rev. Doctor has survived to "fight another day." I think it most unfair journalism on your part to pass this serious error of the Archbishop, this taking sides with him on a statement utterly unwarranted. You have up to'this commanded my respect, but now you are certainly failing. The approbation of the Archbishop will be a poor compensation for loss of prestige an an independent journalist. As this point is of vital importance, I write at once, but shall bo compelled-to call attention to other points to-morrow (D.V.).—I am, etc., WATCHMAN. Wellington, January 31. [We are sure that on a reconsideration of our article our correspondent will s»e that.he has hastily, road into our article opinions that wo- do not ■ hold. His imputations against our independence and honesty do not require notice.]