Bible in Schools.

Otago Witness, Issue 2200, 30 April 1896, Page 39

Bible in Schools.

TO THB EDITOU. Sir,— ln the Witness of April 23,, under the heading of "The Week." I have read your editorial on the Women s Convention and the Bible in schools question. As regards the former it seems to me that you have expressed the sentiments of the great majority of well-principled and well-informed people, both men and women ; but the remarks on the latter are open to very severe criticism, and I hope that others more capable than myself will deal with the article according to its deserts. In the meantime, however, I wish to comment briefly on it. You thoroughly endorse the action taken by the Women's Convention, and assert that they opposed Bible reading and supported the secular system on " intelligible and reasonable grounds. Truly their grounds are intelligible enough, for a considerable num'.r of them are sceptics, and the whole of *hem, by their assumption of the infidel uogma of the equality of the sexes have placed themselves in open rebellion against the word of God, which CMdem&a betb themselves and. their works { bat

their grounds of opposition are no more reasonable I than are your own, with which I have now to do. In the firot placa, you aay that "to teach religion hone thing, to teach dogma is quite another" : but this is not a reasonable statement, for all religions, whether true or- false, are founded on dogma, and without such foundation are mere castles in the air. For instance, the Christian religion is founded ou the true dogma that "Jesus is the Son of God," whilst Mahometsraism is built on the fal«e dogma that Mahomet U tho prophet of God. (2) You rightly say that *" religion is a spiritual thing, which must ba spiritually taught," and tt»n most unreasounbly oojtet to its being taught by the Scriptures inspired by the holy Spirit of God, and containing the vary words' of our Savjour himself, which he himself says art " both spirit and life." (3) Then you grossly misrepresent the character of the Irish Scripture Sectionary by asserting that the use of it would have the effeot "of introducing more soulless dogmas, inhumanly torn from their living places in the Scriptures," <tc, wheroasthisaectionary resembles thatcoutained in the Church of England prayer? book, and gives portions of holy writ complete, both as to texts and contexts, and dealing fully with the dootriues or precepts contained in them. (4) It is because the schoolmaster, under our present education system, is not the proper person to teach religion in the way of explanation or com* ment that it ia provided that the Scriptures shall be read without note or comment. (5) Yoa aßsert'that no religious knowledge can be gives to the'chiidreo until ull sects are agreed as to the "shape the teaching is to take" ; but this is a mere 'captious objection, which- you would not raise against the teaching of other subjects on which opinions are divided. And, moreover,- all Protestant sects are agreed as to Bible-reading, and the conscience clause removes any grievances that might occur if the reading was compulsory on the minority instead of being, «s proposed, voluntary for all. (6) We do not forget thai ' though religion may be bani hud from tht schools, it is not necessarily bauiihed from tha homes and lives of the children," but we knotfr full woll that it is banished from some homes, and that if some children do not read or hear tk* Bible in the schools, they will not get any knowledge of it elsewhere. — I am, &c, t InvircarsiU, April 26. Old Colonist.

[Our correjpoudent has not taken a very clear view of uur position. He says tfoat all "Pro tea. tant " sects are agreed us to Bible readtag in schools. That may be true, but Protestant sects are not "all the sects," which was our expression. The Catholic body do strongly object, and would hays a genuine grievance by tht introduction of Bible reading, which would destroy all hope of ultimately reconciling them with our school system. Iftfhe exclusion of Bible teaching from our schools means, as our correspondent declares, the exclusion of reKgioa altogether^ (which we do not believe) tho statement is a very nerious reflection upon the clergy, the parents, and the Sunday school teachers.— ld. j