i. - 1 3b.

59

J. CAUGHLEY.

as secular instruction. The shifts to which the supporters of this system are put should make us wonder. The same people decree that the Bible is to be used as a secular book, but that its introduction is to break down the secular system; that this secularized Bible must be introduced into the schools because it is the final authority and ground of all true religion; that the Bible should be recognized by a Christian State \\hieli is to forbid its teachers to teach the religion of the Bible; that it is the only authority for morality because it is ihe Divine revelation to man, but it is to be treated on a lower level than a play of Shakespeare; that the finest literature in the English language is to be treated as a string of words and phrases, while the essential spirit that makes it literature must be most studiously avoided, even tabooed. The theological gymnastics attempted by the League advocates in their vain endeavours to show that they want the Bible as the Word of God and foundation of religion, and at the same time that it is to be used as a secular hook, arc somewhal interesting. Only a few can be given : — Canon Garland (Outlook, II 11/13): " Kven the Scripture lessons under the supervision of the State-school teachers would be 'secular, inasmuch as they would teach no denominational or dogmatic religion, but simply be confined to the literary and moral aspects. , ' Rev. 1 , . B. Fraser (Presbyterian) {Otayo Daily Time*, 22/4/05): 'This League easis the Bible out as a Divine book ami Divine law and brines it in as a text-book of morality. We have never made any separation of its doctrine from its morality, and never conceived thai we should live to see a Christian Church begging the State to permit it to place a Qon-religious morality into its schools. We always thought that was the peculiar province of freethought associations." Rev. John MeKenzie (Presbyterian) {Outlook, 28/10/13):- 'Religious instruction in the public schools is an absolute necessity as a foundation of morality. , ' Bishop Sprott (League Paper, 1/7/13) : " Doubtless the Bible contains much excellent moral teaching, but morality and even religion are not dependent upon the Bible." Bishop Averill (Hawke't Jlai/ Herald, 19/6/13): " The simplest questions on the why and wherefore of your moral teaching reveals to you at once that your lips must be closed unless you can point the inquirer to the religious sanction for I ality." Rev. R. Waddell (Editorial, Outlook, 11/11/13; reprint from Outlook, 7/11/96): 'That is our case then—(l) We have shown that the State must,, in the interests of good citizenship, teach morality in the schools; (2) that morality needs for its efficiency and force religious sanction and inspiration; ('■)) thai these sanctions ami inspirations can best be given by the Bible.' , Rev. I. Jolly (Ex-Moderator, Presbyterian Church) (Ohinemuri Gazette, 13/8/13): "The teacher's business was to see thai the children read the lesson and understood - it from a dictionary point of view. , ' Bishop Neville has declared thai the terms " Bible-in-sohools " and " religious instruction " are synonymous Restore the Bible. This further cry is leally a demand to restore denominational schools under the State. Nowhere in the world is religious instruction given by the State withoul having State denominational schools. Germany, England, Scotland, Switzerland, Uussia, and the States of Australia where the League's system operates are proofs of this. In New South Wales several Churches are provided with the kind of religious instruction they want at the cost of the State. Any other branch of the Christian Church to which this system is repugnant is refused the kind of religious instruction they want, at the cost of the State. Thus the Slate schools are truly denominational schools as if it provided separately ior some denominations, instead of by a system which suits several combined, since it discriminates between the denominations. The only possible way for the State to give religious instruction without creating denominational schools would be by the finding of a system that would satisfy all denominations. That has never been found. The Commission report of I<SG-'S quoted above shows that in the Auckland Province the Board had no power to prescribe religious instruction. In Wellington the Act expressly prohibited religious instruction being given in any school maintained wholly or in part by money raised under the powers 'if the Act. In Auckland. Wellington, and Nelson there was permitted a practice almost identical with the present Nelson system. In Otaeo and Southland it was expressly stipulated that the doctrines taught must not be at variance with those commonly known as " evangelical Protjptant doctrines. '' Vet those who clamour for the alleged restoration of the Bible to the schools tell us that parents in New Zealand wvvc robbed of their children's heritage, and that a great unrest was created. Even under the Provincial Government as above described there was no official religious instruction in two-thirds of New Zealand. Concerning Canterbury, the Commission shows that the parents were careless or ignorant of distinctive points of Christian doctrine, and were so anxious to secure for their children the benefit of a generally useful education that they sent their children to the school where the instruction was most efficient, regardless of the denomination under which the school was conducted. That is why they keep to the present efficient State schools until stirred ti]> by ecclesiastical zealots. The Battle for the Bible. This is the League's description of its campaign. In Queensland it was "Vote for God and the Bible.'' It talks of little else but the Bible, though it stands for a great deal more than the Bible, and for much that is contrary to the Bible. The great part of the League's membership was secured by asking people only if they wanted the Bible read in the schools. Canvassers who worked whole streets rlid not mention the right of entry. The great civ has been for the Bible. One would really think that this was a heathen country into which the Bible had never been permitted to enter, and thai some wicked people were preventing New-Zealanders from reading it; that parents were prohibited by law from reading it to their children; that there were no Sunday schools, and that the Bible could be read only in the gaols. It should be cause for wonder that all