RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13762, 29 May 1908, Page 7

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.

VIEWS OF .CORRESPONDENTS. TO THE EDITOR. : Sib,—Among the papers recently brought by me from the Mother Country, I have just come across "The School Catechism, issued by a Conference of Members of the Reformed Churches in Scotland," arid published last.year by Messrs. William Blackwood and Sons,, of Edinburgh and London. This is described in a prefatory note as " a simple catechism embracing 'such teaching in the facts and doctrines of Christianity as might be acceptable to all the branches of the Reformed Church." It is not designed to supersede the distinctive catechisms officially recognised by the several Churches for the instruction of their own children, but is issued in the hope that it may commend itself for use in schools where children of various Churches are taught together. That is to say, it is intended for exactly such conditions as exist, in our own State schools. Your readers will pardon my troubling them with the somewhat lengthy list of the compilers of this Catechism, as its comprehensiveness serves so utterly to confute the strange fear, and even despair, of some of your correspondents as to the possibility of a general agreement among the Churches. The names are:—Arthur W. Cooke, M.A., Wesleyai) Methodist Church ; James Cooper, D.D., Professor, Church of Scotland, University of Glasgow; Robert Craig. D.D., Congregational Union; John Dowden D.D., LL.D., Bishon in the Episcopal Church in Scotland, Edinburgh: Rowland Ellis, D.D., Bishop in the Episcopal Church, Aberdeen : James R. Leslie, M.A., principal, Episcopal Training College, Edinburgh; Alexander R. MacEwen, D.D., Professor, United Free Church of Scotland, Edinburgh; William Mair, D.D., ex-Moderator, Church of Scotland; John Marshall, Esq., Wesleyan Methodist Church, Glasgow; Theodore Marshall, D.D., Home Mission convener, Church of Scotland; Maurice Paterson, LL.D., rector, Morav House Training College. Edinburgh; Robert Rainy, D.D., LL.D., principal, New College, Edinburgh. exModerator, United Free Church of Scotland; James Robertson, D.D., Church of Scotland; Walter Ross Taylor, D.D.. exModerator, United Free Chur:h of Scotland.

I reminded your readers that a course of Bible lessons had been compiled by the united Churches for use in our New Zealand State schools. The above makes it evident that the united Churches in New Zealand might, if they so desired, go much further "and compile a summary of doctrine or catechism entering pretty minutely into the faith, which would be acceptable to till concerned, so deep and wide is their real unity. And yet there are doubtless some among us who will still keep singing the old song about our hopeless divisions and of the impossibility: of that being dflne which has been done, and is being done. W. Gray. Dixon. St. David's. ,

Sir, — do not wish to enter into a ; controversy with the Rev. D. D. Scott—': at all events until he condescends to face the issues and answer the arguments ad?, duced: but flagrant misrepresentation" must be exposed. He says that I "cite archaeology us an adverse witness," i.e.)' to the statement that;,'' the 'Old Testament is corroborated by the 'monuments'.'!-'' So far from doing this, I have fully,ad-.! mitted that the Old Testament narrativemay have been.in many respects corroborated by (he monuments, otherwise my reference to the confirmation by the monuments of the Homeric poems would have had no point. But my argument was that to adduce the fact of this partial confirmation as in any way strengthening the claim to belief of the many foolish and demoralising things in the Old Testament is simply " throwing dust:! in the eyes of unlearned congregations." It will be seen, therefore, that Mr. Scott has entirely misrepresented me, and that my position in this matter has not been disturbed by his—perfectly correct —disparagement of my capacity as an " exegete" or an ." archaeologist," any more than by his cheap sneers at men like Herbert Spencer, Huxley, and Darwin. J. Giles.

Sir. —My answer to "Layman" will be very brief. I.regret having inadvertently used the word " provoke" instead of "evoke." However, the present discussion proves that it, is possible to evoke correspondence and provoke persons at the same time. " Layman" says that it \is a mistake to take mc too seriously. I am very glad for his own sake, if not for mine, that he thinks so, if his letter is ait example of the way he takes people playfully. Also, I must acknowledge that he' lias mercifully forborne to give the weight of his name to the charges which in sportive mood he has levelled at me. Wm. Beatty. [This correspondence is now closed.—ED]