THE BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS’ CONTROVERSY

New Zealand Tablet, 5 June 1913, Page 23

TH E BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS’ CONTROVERSY

The following letter from his Lordship Bishop Cleary appeared in Monday’s Otago Daily Times: — Sir, —Long after date I have received a copy of the Rev. Gray Dixon’s letter in your issue of May .20. The rev. gentleman seemingly thanks the Lord that he and his League are not like the rest of menespecially Bishop Cleary. (1) He represents me as quoting the Presbyterian Confession of Faith for the purpose of proving that the Church of Scotland denies to the civil authorities the right to deal with the religious instruction of the people.” I must regretfully describe the • reverend gentleman’s statement as a flagrant misstatement. (a) I did not make, much less did I set out to “prove,” the statement thus attributed to me by the Rev. Gray Dixon, (b) There is not so much as a word either in your condensed report of my lecture or in that of your evening contemporary which, by any stretch of legitimate interpretation, could be twisted into an attempt to prove, from any source whatsoever, “ that the Church of Scotland denies to the civil authorities the right to deal with the religious instruction of the people.” This statement has been evolved by the Rev Gray Dixon out of his own inner consciousness. It is a statement of his coining, not of mine, (c) So far from setting out to “prove” what he states, I once in the body of my lecture, and once in reply to a question, declared the very opposite—l stated the Catholic and common Christian teaching that the civil authority has both the right and duty to “deal with” the religious instruction of youth, in the following several ways: By pressing on parents and the churches their Godordained duty in this matter; by removing, as far as possible, obstacles thereto; by affording parents and the Churches a favorable environment for the due discharge of this sacred and divinely appointed obligation. The right and duty of the civil authority thus to “deal with” the religious instruction of youth has been asserted by me in at least half a-dozen separate publications, and scores of times in editorial articles in the New Zealand Tablet. ‘2. Both you and your evening contemporary quote me, in greatly condensed form, as follows: “The Scriptures throw the duty of the religious instruction of children upon parents and the Church. The Presbyterian Confession of Faith, and Christianity at large, denied to the Government the right of the ‘ administration of the Word.’ It likewise affirms that, although the civil power has no right to carry on the administration of the Word,” “yet” (disjunctive) it has authority to take order” for the preservation of true doctrine and the suppression of heresy, abuses in worship, etc. But this old, familiar appeal to the secular arm is disjoined from the “administration of the Word,” and in no way constitutes the civil authority as, by right or duty, a direct administrator of the Word of God. There is no need to dwell further upon this point. It has been made the subject of (I believe) unaccepted challenge by the Tablet editor, in your columns, to the Presbyterian clergy in the Bible-in-Schools League and I leave this part of the discussion in his very capable hands. ‘ I cannot find in the formularies of the Presbyterian faith any doctrinal or moral principle justifying the following League tactics:—(l) Its false descriptioS of itself-—for obvious campaign purposesas “The ■ Bible” in State Schools League; (2) its sinful and immoral forcing of Jewish and other teachers to do p what they consider blasphemous, or as otherwise con- , trary to the dictates of conscience; (3) the persistent ding-dong of misrepresentation (even in the face of repeated exposure) by League officials and official League publications, which has provoked repeated protests by Presbyterians and others even in the Outlook and other journals, filled certain honorable leaguers (to my knowledge) with shame and disgust, and covered the League with indelible disgrace. My own courteous and repeated appeals and proofs to the League Executive have not up to several days after my leaving Auck-

land, and weeks after my representations had been made, even met with the small civility of an acknowledgment from the League secretary. If the Rev. Gray Dixon desires to purge the. League of this crying scandal, I can guarantee him enough material to keep him busy for several months to come. He has only to say the word. —l am, etc., ‘ * Henry W. Cleary, D.D., ‘ Bishop of Auckland. ‘ Wellington, May 28. * P-S. In any case, I shall take occasion to deal further with this and kindred topics if time and opportunity permit of my addressing a second public meeting in Dunedin.—