RELIGIOUS EXERCISES IN SCHOOLS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20191, 31 August 1927, Page 4

RELIGIOUS EXERCISES IN SCHOOLS.

TO THE EDITOR. ' Sis, —I turn aside from discussion of the evolutionary propaganda organised by the professor of education to say something on the strictly relevant issue. Parliament and the Bible in schools. It appears from a manifesto in your columns that the professor is an active and influential supporter of this movement. The combination of organising agnostic evolutionary lectures and running Bible in schools is so rare a phenomenon that one is led to surmise that either the professor or the movement has got off the track. Many have .refrained from expressing opinions on the, subject, some believing the movement would fail, others hoping that it would succeed." Others again have been vexed at its tortuous course within the past 30 years, and its sterility in produring something of its own, tangible and clear, in the form of a Bible manual and hymns, such as it proposes to place in the schools. Going to the heart of things, let me set forth afresh from Mr Isitt’a pamphlet the actual proposals of the league. 1 have found many supporting Bible in schools without the least knowledge of Tvhat these are. I will quote:— The first 15. minutes of four school days each week is to be given : (1) To einging a hymn from a hymnal prepared by representatives of the churches concerned, in conjunction with' the'Education Department. (2) The reading of a passage of Scripture from a Bible manual to be prepared In the same way. No religious comment upon the passage read being permitted. (3) The repetition Of tho Lord’s Prayer. (4) A 1 conscience clause enabling any pupils or teachers to withdraw during the exercises. This is indeed a very plastic germ. One does not know whether it will evolve intoModernism or grow into Christianity, or pine and dwindle away. Such questionings would have been remote 40 years ago; but we are being continually reminded that the beliefs of yesterday, even the most cherished, are by law of evolution subject to change, and soon out of date. Now let us go to the core of-the Isitt Bill. Here Parliament is asked to give to a religious combine composed of persons selected, no one knows how, from the “ churches concerned,” or in what proportions no one knows, the right to compose a Bible manual in conjunction with the Education Department. This product is immediately to have the force of law within our education system, without further reference, after it is prepared, to the churches, to the people as a whole, or to the Parliament of this Dominion. Just,think of such an adventure seriously proposed to-day in any other country! Imagine what Anglicans, Anglo-CatholicS, Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, Mresbyterians, CongregationalIsts, Baptists, Methodists, Modernists, and . Fundamentalists, to say nothing of Unitarians,’would say on such a proposal submitted to Parliament today! Suck A scheme, in view of the notorious differences of beliqf within the favoured “ churches concerned ” would be deemed chimerical. Mark, too, “ in conjunction with the Education Department.” Favoured department! But why not the Railways Department, or the Postal Department? Doubtless there ' are men in these and other departments equally gifted and fitted to draw up a Bible manual or approve of it with those of the Education Department. Who is to choose the officers of the department for this purpose? Are evolutionary professors of education to be controlling parties in this marvellous combination of the talents of Church and State? Where will the evangelical Christian, with his obstinate conscience and discriminating eye, be on this epochmaking occasion? Will an evangelical pacifist, pouring platitudes on troubled waters, be judiciously selected ’ for the honour? Where will the modernist be? Will he be in charge of the whole? If these questionings' are unwelcome, why has not this shadowy league prepared its manual and tried it out on its merits among its constituents and in schools having Bible reading? Then, having won approval so readily accorded to real thing, it could have gone, with credit, to Parliament. The Bible in Schools League could have done this long ago. It might do it yet, or leave the objective of the league alone. In the case of a former Manual of some 600 pages, prepared in Australia, and never adopted anywhere, yet the proposed text-book of the league in 1901, Dr Cleary quotas the words of the present Primate of the Anglican Church when Arehdaacon of Christchurch, that the Manual offered was “ an emasculated Caricature of Biblical teaching.” He refers also to my vehement opposition to it as a more or less modernist production. If the Isitt Bill becomes law, there is nothing to hinder, that text-book or any other modernist text-book, lying ready to hand, from being foisted on the education system of this Dominion, when all protests of evangelical Christians would be simply ignored. There is nothing so callous in all the world to evangelical sentiments as a successful religious We are not where we were 30 or 40 years ago. We nfay turn the clock back, but we cannot remove the forest which has grown in the meantime. It is therefore impossible, if not dishonest, to ignore the fact of the forest, the rift within Protestant churches increasingly during that ■ period. These differences must be adjusted within the sphere of the churches themselves. It would be unspeakably -disastrous to extend them within the education system and the schools. Evidence of this rift is offered on every hand. I select from the last issue of the Congregational Quarterly (London) the testimony of the professor of O. T. literature and theology, Birmingham, who writes: — Fundamentalism as a religious movement ’ deserves more than the surprise and contempt which is has - aroused in the minds of the so-called “ Modernists.’’ Fundamentalists maintain that they are fighting for the essence of Christianity and of the Christian Gospel, and that ” Modernism ” Is heading straight for unbelief. In this Catholicism and fundamentealism are at one. -Modern Protestantism, they main- > tain, has rejected revelation, cut itself off from historic Christianity, and , taken up a position of unbelief; its spiritual pedi- » grees to be traced not to the New Testament but to the Illumination or Aufklarung. To a considerable extent this Is true, and ft constltues the supreme religious issue In Europe and America to-day. Again he says:— Modern Protestantism asserts In emphatic tones the Fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man,, the unique—or at least the unparalleled—place of . Jesus Christ In history, the moving of the “spirit” of God upon the hearts of men. These arc, in fact, its dogmas, and this is its faith. It is a religion, and a very high type ol religion, but Is it Christianity? It may be noted here that there Is nothing which many religiously-minded philosophers, many emancipated Hindus, many modem Theosophisto would be concerned to deny. These dogmas are all drawn from historic Christianity but they are the ideals to which most of the higher religions tend. . . . The Fundamentalists maintain that this ’ ts a new religion which they style ” unbelief ”; Radicals maintain that this the appropriate modern dress of the faith “once delivered to the saints.” The Fundamentalists are right that this neo-Protestantism is not the religion of the New Testament and of historic Christiaity. Another testimony I draw from the Transactions of the Victoria Institute or Philosophical Society of Great Britain, of ■which I am an associate. Here is the language of Bishop Welldon, Dean of Durham, at an annual address on “Modernism The Modernist will tell you what he does not believe; he will suggest grounds of doubt, if not of disbelief; but he will not • tel 1 you what he does believe. . . . I believe that modernism is a retroegrado and not a progressive movement. I oeHeve that it tends to materialise man’s view of the universe, at a- time when science itself is beginning to spirtuahse that view. I believe that It ts inconsistent that the realities both »of Jewish and of Christian history. 1 believe that it is critically unscientific as It is religiously undevotlonal. And I believe that Christianity must be understood and embraced either in the sense of tho ancient Catholic creeds, or that It cannot be understood and embraced at all. (Vol. 54, 1922.) In view of these differences of belief at the present day, what thoughtful statesman would give to any combination of men drawn haphazard from “churches ’concerns” (whatever that means) and unknown officials of State, the task of 'formulating a Bible manual for the education of the entire Dominion? I do not follow Mr Isitt in his rather controversial reasonings in his pamphlet. T cannot understand what he means, or what his religious syndicate may take him to mean, in his statements about the

measure of “religious teaching” in his Manual. “ What is the religious teaching that is asked for?” he says, “if denominatiocalism, the special doctrines of any church, the State is right to refuse. No such teaching .is asked for.” Then he designates these as “ non-doctrinal exercises.” “All the Protestant churches have agreed to lekve all doctrinal teaching out.” Yet, again, he says, they are to have “ some measure of religious knowledge.” Is is to be “religious” but not “doctrinal?” What, then, is it to be? Mir Isitt rises to his highest when he concludes with the question: Will you allow the warring of sects over non-essentials “ rob your children of the inspiration and teaching of that One who spake as never man spake and Who lived and died the death that revealed to the human race the character and attributes of the living God?” This may be religious, but no one will say that it is over-weighted with doctrine. You cannot cross a chasm on a bridge that does not go all the way. In Browning’s words: A little more and how much it is, A little leas and what worlds sway. We come now, in conclusion, to the core of a previous question: This alliance of the State with “ churches concerned ” is preparing a Bible manual for national education. Mr Isitt tries hard to show that this does not involve a State-church religion. Unfortunately, one does not in the least know what it might be. It is a sort of lottery bag; we know not what may come forth. Mark you, it is not a league (if that means anything) or an association of Christian people that are made parties to the bargain of compiling this book, but “ the churches concerned.” If the “churches concerned” and State officials are to draw up this manual, it seems hard to distinguish this from recognising a State-church formulating a religion for the people pretty much over their heads. For churches to bargain with the State for money and endowments is bad; to bargain with doctrines is deadly. And if you concede the principle, you may rest assured that the manual will in other years be revised again in the direction of religious evolution. I have had a book for some time written by an eloquent and large-hearted Scottish minister ' against State interference i: religion. It seems appropriate to take it down, unknown to him, when its author, the Rev. James Barr, M.A., 8.D., M.P., in our midst. Here is a paragraph: It la the deepest and most sensitive regard for tho interests of religion that refuses to have It sullied by the secular hand, and made an instrument of secular power; that declines to have it associated with injuestic, holding that such association Is the greatest disservice you can render to national religion, and that it never, can be a real homage to Christ to perpetrate a national wrong; and that claims for religions and churches a fair field and no favour, and the fullest freedom 'or their own development. It is a deep religious Instinct that tells the State to keep to Its own province and leave religion to Its own sphere. The more the religious consciousness is developed in tho nation, the stronger will bo the demand for absolute non-interference. This is the core of the question on State regulation of religion; for the moment you depart from tho old use and wont of simple Bible reading in schools and begin to frame manuals of the Isitt pattern, in spite of yourself, though with the best intentions, which we do not doubt, you are drawn into distinctions of more or less. May I, therefore, quote a statement of the commanding principle on this subject. That I may assure the reader that it is not a personal opinion of no weight, I will fortify my quotation with the support of others. 1 wrote a “Brief Statement of the Reformed Faith,” compiled from standard authorities, some 18 years ago, which, besides unanimous approval of the Presbyterian Church, received highest commendation of recognised scholars of all Protestant churches, mother lands, even from a Prime Minister of Holland, which might be summed up in that of the Monthly of the United Free Church of Scotland, that it is one of the best statements of the Reformed Faith that had ever come into their hands. On the relation of Church and State, the following is the declaration: — Wo believe that the government of the Church Is distinct from that ot the State, that their spheres are distinct and independent, and that tho government of the one has no authority, upon any pretence, either to make or execute law within the legitimate domain of the other. WP bebelicve also that as God alone is Lord of the conscience, liberty of conscience is the inalienable right of every man. [Law, here, of course, includes doctrinal lawj It may be freely admitted that churchmen accustomed to State establishments might give a wavering adherence to this declaration of evangelical Christianity. Nevertheless it is the prevailing law of the British Empire, and there is hardly any disagreement with the practical application of the principle, except in the Homeland, where ecclesiastical preferences and injustices are rooted in the soil. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic theory is that the Church and the State are two sides of the same fact —the Church being supreme over all. Is not the_ proposed alliance one in which State officials, in return for aid given to the ' churches concerned,” shall be supreme over all? It would he exceedingly difficult to settle responsibility for the result of their deliberations if evangelical Christians should find the education system saddled with a Bible manual of which they totally disapproved. If liberty of conscience is the inalienable right of every man it is the inalienable right of every child in the schools and of youth in the, universities. Already in the universities and training colleges that right ot conscience is by some of the professors, in the judgment of well-informed Christian people, greatly violated. Is that violation to be extended to the primary schools of our land? Religious truth and the right of conscience may be violated as much by economy of doctrine and facta as by additions to them. . ... It is 35 years since I, when a public school teacher, circulated through the post to education committees and teachers some 10,000 pamphlets on Bible in schools, 5000 of one by myself. It was a simple enough problem then. No one thought of a Bible manual edited, fettered, and doctored to suit the times. As to Roman Catholic claims, I expressed the thought then, and I was not alone, that if the schools were made satisfactory to the vast body of Protestant people, some equitable adjustment should be made of these claims, representing as they do a very large body of our people equally entitled with ourselves to equitable consideration of Parliament. I am of the same opinion still. It is not for me, however, to suggest, after 35 years, what should be done now. All that can be said on both sides of that question is well said in Parliament already.’ And on the present state of the whole question of Bible in schools I feel that the best in all the circumstances of to-day has been well, even beautifully, said, in speaking against the Bill, by Mr Malcolm, in his speech in the Upper House, reported in Hansard. August 12, of last session. We are at all events better in the wilderness with a whole Bible than in bondage and controversy in Egypt with the riddle of the Sphinx. The Rcy James Chisholm said long ago that if halt the energy put spasmodically into, „ible-in-schools movement were put into immediately practical channels of service, the churches would be vastly better off. Members of Parliament can be little in need of light on the general question, yet the aspect of the Isitt Bill here set forth may be thought not unworthy of renewed examination. I, therefore, intend to torward copies of this letter to all members of Parliament, with the respectful request that they give it, along with other representations placed before them, a gracious and thoughtful consideration. Mr Isitt declares in his pamphlet that the passing of the Bill is already assured. Consequently my writing can do it no harm. “ Of the Cabinet Ministers, nine, including the Minister of Education, are supporting the Bill; only two are voting against it. In tho Reform Party alone there is a majority of the whole House in the Bill's favour.” This being so, it seems rather superfluous for him to issue an instructive and highly controveisral pamphlet in its favour as if tho ark wore in danger. “ All the churches are behind it ” he° savs. If so. all the churches, ana members o"f Legislature as well, are behind a blank. A facile approval has been given merely • to the general idea of Bible in schools. In the case of the Presbyterian Church, it is a violation of its written law to give its doctrinal authority to any revision of its principles that has not in its final form been submitted to, and approved by, a vote of the people in their congregations. ' But apart from these considerations affecting the churches, I respectfully beg members of tho Legislature to consider whether they would hand over their own children to he taught from a Bible manual of which they know nothing. If the hook is without doctrine, as Mr Isitt alleges it will be, it must bo without doctrinal influence and he worthless, \\hat if it should contain essential teaching by omis-

sions or by editorial headings of which both members of Legislature and the vast body of the people of this Dominion totally disapproved ? —I am, etc., P. B. Eraser, M.A. £0 Queen street, Dunedin.

Sir, —While the statements made by your religious correspondents cry aloud for correction as usual, I accede to your request and confine my remarks to the narrower limits of the subject. To do so, 1 have only to re-state several questions made by me in former letters and ask again for a convincing reply which, I am sorry to say, has not so far bean supplied. My first letter contained the following: “It is claimed by advocates of Bible in schools (1) that the moral decadence they profess to see around us to-day is owing to the people’s ignorance of the Bible, and (2) that its teachings inculcated into the minds of children will arrest this tendency and in every way raise the moral tone of society.’’ I said also, in the same letter, that to teach Bible lessons to the immature child intelligence was taking an unfair advantage of the future man or woman. Has one of your correspondents proved (1) that we are morally decadent; (2) that the Bible would arrest this tendency if it existed, or that (3) the proposal is not an unwarranted tampering with undeveloped intelligence ? Of the first, it can confidently be stated that we are emphatically not morally decadent. We do not in our collective life present a state of society which will bo remedied by the application of theological injunctions. Wo are far from perfect, of course, and progress, morally, industrially, and physically, is both necessary and probable, but has it been proved that reliance on plain moral teaching, doing right for right’s sake alone, without hope of reward or fear ot punishment in another world, is insufficient to accomplish the object,aimed at? Is it not manifast that reliance on commands supposed to emanate from a Deity will suffer a staggering blow when ripened intelligence awakes to the fact that the promised rewards and punishments are shorn of their delight or terror by the knowledge that no evidence—convincing evidence, that is—exists upon which to base one’s belief? It is, of course, plausibly contended that the “ good ” portions of Scripture will arrest this supposed degenerating tendency, but this is open to the objection that these lessons will rely for their force and benefit on theological commands. Further knowledge of the Scriptures will show that conduct tho reverse of moral, humane, or just, is commanded, condoned, or practised with impunity by the “ chosen of God.” This will bo fatal to the whole system of morality so taught, and ; while 1 am not one who sees' in man only a deprived creature who has fallen from a state of perfection and whose bad impulses are held in check only by fear of supernatural punishments, I recognise tun folly ond harm of relying on safeguards which will inevitably receive their first shocks just at an age when the impulse's to do wrong are strongest and most in need of restraint. The course of conduct proposed by Bible worshippers is suicidal. It might have served its purpose, although tho means can never justify tho end, in an age of ignorance and credulity, but today, when enlightened mankind claims tho right to examine everything and demands the right to act in accordance with educated conclusions, the -proposal is both foolish and astounding. Even ages of credulity do not present a picture of excellence and high morality which wo would expect if the claim of the Bible-lover is true. History shows that at» that time tho state of Christian Europe was notable for tho almost entire absence of just those virtues which, wq are now informed invariably and inevitably result from the inculcating of religious ideas. How much loss can we hope - to hold the present day rebellious, inquiring, sceptical, educated man or woman by tho same means? Not only do commonsense and history refuse to accede to tho claims made on behalf of the Bible, but figures supplied by myself showed the actual state cf affairs here in New Zealand, in a modern day. to be the direct reverse of that claimed’. The last figures published in this country on the subject showed that while Christians populated our gaols to the extent of 16 per cent., the percentage of Rationalists, Agnostics and Atheists was only 2 per cent. No. plainer lesson could be taught than these figures supply, and it should once and for all silence tie Bible worshipper. if more is needed, it is supplied by the pronouncement of the Crown Prosecutor at the quarter sessions in Sydney, New South Wales, in 1910. He said: “ The city appears to be honeycombed with dishonesty. He feared that if a comparison were made Sydney would occupy an unenviable position among Australian cities. This is the State in Australia which has had the most extensive, intensive Bible-m-schools training and the statement quoted, which doubtless could be repeated many times since, is a glaring exposure of the claims urged on behalf of simple Bible teaching. The measure is a specious move on tho part of the religious clement to recover, per medium of the helpless child mind, ground lost by virtue of our enlightened intelligence. To-day the churches are empty and neglected, the dogmas and doctrines ignored, and the influence of the clergy almost nil. No pleading will br-ng tho average man or woman to church to listen to a plan of salvation which, as a moment’s unbiased thought shows, rests on very inadequate evidence and to theories and statements which are not just, wise, it edifying. Therefore we find the religious fanatic turning to those who cannot say to them nay, who cannot judge for themselves, and who are intellectually and physically helpless. Here, indeed, is a fine field to conquer! What boqndless prospects open up to the clerical eye! Pews once more filled and the preached Word once more accepted by ignorant multitudes. The fact that to attain this object, and that ot regenerating the world which may be honestly entertained, the child mind has to be captured and drugged troubles the religious ono not at all. The effort to compete with education, enlightenment and knowledge having failed, the present proposal is a reversion to tho only method which holds out any prospect of success and alone allows a continuance of tho various beliefs—ignorance. They know, none better, that- lessons taught, habits learned and ideas inculcated in the plastic stages of childhood, are most difficult to dislodge even by the holder ot them himself, and that once the seed is sown the future generation can be relied on to supply a more tolerant and sympathetic attitude towards the Bible and Christianity with a corresponding increase in church membership. The average Christian has little love for the story of ovolu.tion and the “survival of the fittest” since it strikes directly at the foundations of his religion. He is equally averse to allow his pet doctrines to stand in the battle of ideas and abide by the verdict “survival of the fittest.” Dimly and perhaps unconsciously, he perceives that tho Christian religion and the Bible are subject to the laws of evolution and that in a hostile atmosphere they will languish and die unless they secure outside aid or otherwise adapt themselves to tho prevailing conditions. Some divines have endeavoured to adapt the Bible and its doctrines to modern thought, but without ' any material success. We are at present suffer ing tho onslaught of the more primitive Christian who, unable and unwilling to lose himself in tho mazes of subtle thoolog - cal definitions, aims at a direct survival of tho unfit by medium of our educational institutions and our helpless children. I have asked before, and I ask again, what is this thing which requires the protection and help of the State to exist and now has to retire to the nursery to propagate its doctrines in order to obtain belief? Why cannot it lake its place among .the other forces for good and sink or swim according as mankind ignore or espouse its cause? To ask tho question is to answer it. Wc all know that in the main, the people repudiate or are indifferent to Scriptural commands, and that loft to fight ts own way in the world, without help from the much despised secular forces, the battle •will and must cease to exist in tho near future. It is difficult to write restraincdly when one realises the real aim and object of the Bible worshipper. However honestly ho may plead in favour of Bible reading u schools, or if he does it with a tongue in his chock, the dishonest and unfair advantage proposed to be taken of the child mind remains (ho same. The offence is in no way lessened by the hdicsty and sincerity of a cc.rlain proportion of its supporters. Tho child in our schools should not fie taught anything which is not verifiable, which is riot an acknowledged fact, which is not an unquestioned and undoubted influence for good, nor anything which will tend to make him rely rather on outside in [luenres and rewards, than on Ins own sense of right and justice, and on tho contentment of having done right cause it is right. That is the position in a nutshell, and if the supporter of he proposal to foist tho Bible upon us cau prove that it possesses the merits called tor, that it is true, necessary and indispensable, then we can give serious attention to his demands. Not before. Unfortunately the efforts that are being made politically force ns out into the arena, and it, is tho" duty of. everyone who lias the welfare of the ehiTl and this country at heart to resist the introduction of tho Bihlc into our schools. The right to teach

plain morality is there now, but theological conceptions of the universe are out of place in tho schoohoom. No one can ever possess the moral right even if the legal right oe obtained, to teach helpless ones what the adult person repudiates or is indifferent to. -I am, etc.. E. VV. F. August 27.

Sin,—ln this correspondence s 0 far there has been a good deal of beating about the bush, and 1 think that it is now time that wo came down to “tin tacks.” In my previous letter 1 made the statement that the British nation as we know it is founded on tho Bible; that as a nation we occupy an extremely favoured position, that as wo honour God, and try to serve Him we shall occupy an even more favoured position, and if as a nation we cease to honour and serve Him, our day is done. Solomon says, “ Trust in the Lord with ail thy heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct thy paths.” Wo believe that that is true of the nation as of tho individual. We believe that Jesus Christ was a now spiritual creation, and that all who believe in Him and try to servo Him become now creatures and are promised the gift of eternal life. We believe that this is not a matter to be treated lightly at tho whim o f “ E.W.F.” or Sir Robert Stout. 1 showed in my previous letter that Plato arrived at the conviction iftat behind the phenomenal universe is an infinitely wise good and beneficent God striving cease lessly to create His likeness under tho con ditions of this material world, and that to achieve real life individual men in tho world must see and know this God and bring their wills into line with His will, io as to become like Him. Wo believe with Plato that education in all its branches should bo concentrated on the development of the soul, in which term ho includes the character, and wo insist with Inm that tho wrong type of education causes “ the most gifted minds to become pre-eminently bad” We believe with Solomon in training up a child in the way ho should go: and that when he is old he will not depart from it. We also believe with Solomon “ that a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame. We are told that if we have religious exercises in schools we shall -offend our friends the Jews and the Roman Catholics Is this so or is it not? In 1868 I went to the Nelson College; wo had religious exer cisos then. In. my class was a Jew now a leading citizen in Auckland. W hethcr he was present or not at the opening exercises I cannot remember, but I can temember that whether he was present or absent, it made no difference to our treat mont of him or friendliness towards him As regards the Roman Catholics, why should they object to tho Bible being cad in the schools 7 If Roman Catholicism is based on the teachings of Christ, how -an they possibly object? When wo had Bible reading in the State primary schools the Catholics had many schools of their own. Now that Bible reading has been stopped at their instigation, the number of their schools has increased enormously and the reason given is that the State education is Godless education. If we wish to remove tho stigma that our education is Godless, can the Catholics complain; Does any sane man think for one momeu that the fact of there being religious exer cisos in the State primary schools will make one halfpenny worth of difference to the Roman Catholics? They moan to have their own schools in any case. In the ’nineties my children attended 'he Upper Waitohi State primary school. -the head master, Mr Chaster Goldstone. was a Roman Catholic, who was a very gooa teacher and a gentleman Of ‘be children about half were Catholic and the rest Protestant. About once a month a priest from Pleasant Point or Tcmuka came over for a few days and instructed tho Catholic children. There was no friction of any sort. Why should there bo.', 1 iviia a member of the school committee. Jour years ago a high school was opened at Masterton. It was called the Woirarapa High School. Applications were mviwd for tho position of principal. Amougst the applications was one from the first assistant oiMihe Napier Boys’ High School, who was a Roman Catholic. He was was nreoared to undertake .the icligious exercises in the school. Hisrepywas that ho was quite prepared, and that at the Napier school in the absence of -ho principal he always took the rehg.ous exercises. He was recommended to the Wairarapa Board by the Mayor of Napier, the leading Presbyterian minister and rnanv others® Now, then, the point is his. If a Roman Catholic teacher can undertake to give the religious exercises, why can a Roman Catholic child not bo present when they are given? In.conclusion 1 beg to remind your readers that the British Parliament is opened day by .day with prayer. It is a very simple sei vice, but is well attended, and I wish to aAi, Are wo Tn this Dominion not t 0 be allowed to honour God by an equally simple ser vice in our schools?—l am. e T’’ T N . ENT Roslyn. August 28. W. J. lexxext.

citp —ln mv letter in Monday’s issue confusion occurs owing to the transposition contusion ti Qtation glven oy Sir HcbertStout- “We use tho Bible rightly when wo use it as containing, Eternal Truth for us as Spiritual beings That dom nates tho whole position; a 1 else is dc ad. Sir Robert admits in his last < t he is not adverse to children being ung“ lessons from the Bible, but he maintains that it is not the function of tho State teach religion. He is .under a misapprehension nere. Religions stand .tor dogma® and creeds, rites and ceremonies and are not necessarily a companion n ,th morality. The higher the morality the better for tho State, which inflicts punishment for disobedience of morahty-for crimes and all other evils—but to punish without having first given morality, vhich includes the ’ spiritual education is wrong and immoral. Therefore there is no escape fiom the position that it is the function and duty of the State to give such “ducation, and any person who objects to or is not competent to, impart it is not ht for the position of a State school tcachei. Moral teaching is a necessity for the goon Of the State, but to be successful it umst be authoritative. Tho best time in life for this teaching is in youth, those vho will read the' Hfo of George Cadbury will pet something corrective and Joarn ot practical Christian work for the good ol the people,-of education alongside Chustianity not marred by creeds or any other hampering conditions.—l am, ctc^ EREAN

g lß —Sir Robert Stout, in your issue of August 27, does me the honpur of replying to my previous letter in a way in which (if he will permit me to say it without any intention of being discourteous to one with whom in the past I have had very pleasant conversations) he writes rather as a member of the Council than as an ex-Chief Justice, be* cause lie has not verified his references, nor really considered the position of those he quotes. ■. To with. Sir Robert assumes 1 am a defender of a State Church, which I am not, nor a member of a State Church. The premises hence being wrong, his conclusions thereon based are fallacious. Sir Robert is strong about majorities and their malign influence or errors. I assume that in the Council he will therefore always be consistent enough to vote with the minority. Otherwise will he not be in danger of being on the side of persecutors? 1 shall watch the division lists ivith interest. As a prophet. Sir Robert asserts, “ the time is coming when State interference with religion will be as unknown as ” etc. One is glad to hear that. The State now does interfere with religion in absorbing all the legitimate time of children for educational purposes, and thus preventing religion being taught, and further b creating partly an animus against religion and partly by atrophying the religious sense by a purely secularised system. which creates an impression in II child’s mind unfavourable to religion. Children arc being taught to measure everything in terms of quantity, instead of quality. Such children will not have a love of art nor of anything allied thereto; and to Art, Religion is most strongly allied. It is just because Sir Robert'fails to see this that he docs not approach (lie Bible with the spirit of the artist, but with that of the mechanic. So he fails as a Biblical oxogeto, and fails to see that the Bible can only be understood by those who are imbued with the characteristics of the Eternal Spirit —viz., Truth. Goodness, and Beauty, which lie behind the statement that God spake in divers manners and by divers portions in the prophets and at the end of these days in His Son. Sir Robert says that one of the three words in the Greek of the Lord’s Prayer —that translated "evil” or “evil orja ” —is an adjective, but he forgot to look a little further on in his lexicon, and to learn that it is also “ used as a substantive.” Then he states that the revisers gave the word “ one ” ns that which the adjective qualified. He forgets to say anything about the word “evil,” which was accepted as an alternative. Sir Robert would have learnt more and found out his error, and that I was right in in' former letter and he wrong in his two

letters (or rather wrong in the former ol his and probably would have been guided not to write his last) if he had carefully reac. the revisers’ preface on the value c. the text and of the importance of the marginal alternatives. The revisers, by a majority of two-thirds, placed “ evil one ” in the text, and then they thought that the alternative, “ evil,” was so important that they placed it in the margin. Which meant that the revisers were no more certa; than ancient writers or modern ones as to which wa„ absolutely the correct meaning. Hence Sir Robert’s reference to the revisers, whose names he gives, enables me to establish my position and confound his. Sir Robert, after a politician’s manner, does not do justice to the matter when he tries to place the revisers over against what he calls my opinion. What he so terms was that of the author of the Inter. Crit. Com. on S. Matthew (who, by the way, was an old tut of mine, and one of the finest scholars of his day). Dr Plummer knew intimately most of the revisers. He ki,ew all there was to be said or known about the words in question. He and the revisers are agreed on this, tha' “ it cannot be determined vitith certainty whether ‘ deliver us . from evil ’ or ‘ deliver us from the evil one ’ is right; the Greek will bear either meaning.” As the writer of the Century Bible on St. Matthew says; “The gender of . the word rendered ‘evil one’ is uncertain; it may be neuter (from evil). Klein understands ‘ evil ’ here to mean the evil impulse of Rabbinic theology; hence the clause would mean ‘ free ua altogether from the power of the evil Yeser, so that it may have no t more dominion over us.’ But perhaps " evil one ’ may be meant.” Dr Moffatt, a prince among Greek scholars, in his new translation of St. Matthew, translates “ deliver us from evil.” The evidence of Greek fathers and liturgies is chiefly in favour of the masculine, but mo scholars are divided on the point. Outstanding authorities in favour of “ the evil one ” are Origen, Chrysostom, Meyer. Fritsche, Wordsworth, Ellicott, Lightfoot. Outstanding scholars in favour ol “ evil ” are Augustine, Tholuck, Lange, Stier, Alford, M'Clellan, Moffatt. The revisers preferred the former, but included the latter. So Sir Robert is proved wrong, and I was quite right in my quotations and their use. Sir Robert wonders why there is a reference to Voltaire’s house, etc. In this longheaded city some have seen in my reference a possible suggestion that some day my right honourable opponent’s house might be used as a home whence may issue forth teachers froin the Homeland to teach our benighted children’s children all about a Bible which the secularists had deprived them of. In other words, instead of a New Zealander standing on London Bridge overlooking a decadent people or their remains, a Londoner missionary may stand at Sir Robert’s door and overlook a decadent people because Sir Robert and others had helped that decadence which follows wherever the Bible is not studied by the aid of the Eternal Spirit. Sir Robert wants to know what our children are to be taught about the Bible. : To all his questions the answer is: _ They are to be taught that the Bible is the History of the Revelation of God given by divers portions and in divers manners, and, finally, in His Son, as men were able to receive and declare the same, and in such a way that men can, if they seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit (and not otherwise), learn every truth and all teaching which conveys tho eternal qualities of truth, goodness, and beauty, as no other writings do, and by which qualities as men attain .them they become truly men. The Holy Spirit of God, who guided men to speak in advance of their ago, and yet to speak that their age might understand a higher truth than the people know —that Spirit will c blc any reader to discern that truth and to apply it. Sir Robert considers that the giving up of certain Christian doctrines (which he enumerates) would be considered as a " downfall of Christianity.” Undoubtedly those who do not know the difference between Christianity and doctrines about Christianity might think so in their ignorance. Christianity is not doctrine; it is a life. Christianity is Christ. The doctrines may change and be differently interpreted, but Christianity remains the same now and ever—namely, Christ. You cannot take Christ out of the universe and so there can be no downfall of Christianity. Sir Robert says he never advocated that the State should prevent the teaching of religion or reading of the Bible. No, but he considers tho Bible unfit for children, putting his own opinion against three Lord Chancellors who so believed in its fitness for children that they taught as Sunday school teachers that very Bible to children which Bible Sir Robert would not have them taught. Sir Robert does not advocate that the. State should prevent reading the Bible. If he means not prevent reading of the Bible in schools, then I am at a loss to understand his opposition to the Bible being read in schools. Whilst the present system of excluding the Bible from our schools remains so long Sir Robert is as jointly responsible with others for that exclusion, and they do prevent the reading of the Bible. If Sir Robert means that he does not advocate the State preventing any of its citizens reading the Bible, then, of course, he does not, because he knows, as a student of history, that no State can stop the reading of the Bible —people will read it whether permitted or persecuted for so doing. Sir Robert contends that it is not the function of the State to be a religious teacher. Does he mean, then, that as the State has undertaken the education of the child, it has no duty in giving it a complete education? At present the State educates, or tries to educate, twothirds of the child. It takes up all time that our educationists think a child should spend on. education. The State must either teach religion, or, rather, I would say, the Bible or provide some part of the school hours to be set aside for others than teachers to teach the Bible. The secular school, he says, is not the proper place for such teaching—that is, the school is not to be used for Bible teaching, if Sir Robert has not changed the position of his first letter, where he says: “I object to Bible reading in schools.” As I have said before, the State has its schools for the purposes of education of the child; there is no education without the teaching of what ever is necessary to educate the whole child, body, soul, and spirit. The school is the place of education; the school is the place to teach whatever is necessary for education; the Bible, from the history of the education of the past and from its necessity to man’s development in character, is so necessary, and should be used or taught by whom I am not concerned now, so long as provision is made for teaching the Bible, without the knowledge of which no child is fitted by its education for life.—l am, etc., Archdeacon of Invercargill.