Rationalists & the Bible

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 51, 24 November 1930, Page 13

Rationalists & the Bible

Sir, —In your issue of November 12 I read with interest the letter by your correspondent, “A New Zealander,” giving some extracts (quoted from the late Edward Ulo'dd’s “Memories”), of the opinions of three distinguished English Nationalists, Edward Clodd, J. A. Bicton, am. Professor Huxley, on the merits of the Bible. Commenting in a footnote on the extracts quoted, your correspondent says: "The aoove should stimulate our clergy to strive to get the London School Board Plan (whicnProfessor Huxley supported) adopted as an objective at the general election next year. ;. We will come later to Professor Huxley’s position and the nature of his "support” of the London School Board plan, but just here I should like to point out to yobr correspondent that he has not revealed adequately the complete estimate”of the Biole held by any of the authorities quoted. It seems to be the incurable practice of some controversialists to take from their context isolated passages (as your correspondent has done irom Clodd’s '’xVlemories"), and then pronounce the particular views expressed as endorsing the defence of the case it is being sought to establish. 1 do not, of course, attribute to your correspondent deliberate falsification of the opinions of the distinguished nationalists he quotes. He did, however, omit the five Significant words, “nowadays confined to the illiterate,” which Clodd used in the original extract quoted (see "Memories,” p. s)—words used by Clodd in application to those who believe "that the Bible is, inspired in every word and letter,” and 1 venture to state, on the. strength of long acquaintance with the writings of the three authorities referred to that the extracts given by your correspondent do not fairly represent their views upon the Bible. They refer rather to the least important aspect of-the case ,so far as Clodd, Picton, and Huxley are concerned. For example, in the very book quoted by your correspondent, Clodd writes: "My waning belief in the Bible as in any sense a revelation was shattered by reading Jowett’s article on the ‘lnterpretation of Scripture’ in 'Essays and Reviews.’ ” Clodd says that Jowett’s counsel in regard to the Bible was "Interpret it like any other book.” He goes on to say: “But the two books, through which ultimately, I was to grasp the force of the ancient word ‘Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free,’ were Huxley’s ‘Man’s Place in Nature’ (published in 1863), and Sir E. B. Tylor’s ‘Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art, and Customs’ (published in 1871).” Would your correspondent admit that it was not from the Bible, therefore, that Clodd received his moral guidance and inspiration? Now let us turn to J. A. Picton and see what he has to say. In his “The Bible in School: A Question in Ethics,” J. A. Picton, M.A., formerly M.P. for Leicester, and a member of the First School Board for London, says in the preface to the second edition, page 6 : “ « . . The main thesis of the following pages, in a few words, is simply this: that to teach in the schools of the nation, and .by authority of the nation, a transcendental subject on which the nation is for the present ■ irre ncilably divided in opinion is worse tha.. impracticable; it is only a waste of time and money: it is a peren-. nial source of strife, a, deadly injury to citizen education, a cause of hypocrisy, falsehood, and all the forms of immorality propagated by these vices.” . , . The above words are unmistakable in their portent and leave no doubt whatever as to where J. A. Picton stood, in regard to the Bible in Schools question. And what was Professor Huxley’s attitude? Your correspondent states in the footnote to his letter that Huxley “supported” the London School Board plan of Bible in Schools. But did he? Huxley, as a prominent member of the London School Board, took a leading part 'iri’the discussion oty the motion of Mr. W. H. Smith, M.P., which sought to make provision for Bible reading and religious teaching in the schools under the control of the board. In his speech on that occasion Huxley very carefully and definitely set out his reasons (see Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley by his son, Dr. Leonard Huxley, vol. 1, p. 342) for supporting the motion. Aftdr referring to' the .fact that the public mind assumed the question of religious instruction to be a little family quarrel between different sects of Protestantism on the one hand and the Catholic Church on the other, he said; “Side by side with this much shivered and splintered Protestantism of theirs, and with the united fabric of the Catholic Church, there was a third party growing up into very considerable and daily increasing significance: which had nothing to do with either of those great parties, and which was pushing its own way independent of them, haVing its. own religion and its own morality, which rested in no way whatever on the foundations of the other two. . . . The action of the 'board (he thought) should be guided and influenced very much by consideration of this third great aspect of things, which he called the Scientific aspect for want of a better name.” , Mr. Leonard Huxley says, in voting for Mr. ■ Smith’s motion, that h’e (Professor Huxley) “supported what appeared to be the only workable plan in the circumstances, though it was not his ideal; for he would not have used the Bible as the agency for introducing the religious and ethical idea into education if he had been dealing with a fresh and untouched population.” (Life and Letters of Huxley, vol. 1. p. 343.) Again (in the same volume) Mr. Leonard Huxley tells us that Professor Huxley's “Appreciation of the literary and historical value of the Bible, and the effect it was likely to produce on the school children, circumstanced as they were, is sometimes, misunderstood to be an endorsement of the vulgar idea of it. Biit it always remained his belief that the principle of strict secularity in State education is sound, and must ultimately prevail.” Considerations of space forbid my enlarging on the subject in this letter, but T think sufficient has been said to vindicate the teal attitude toward the Bible in Schools question on the part of the distinguished Rationalist* named by your correspondent. All of them stood solidly for the maintenance of the secular system of education, apart altogether from their high valuation of the Bible in its nurelv literary asnect.—l am. etc., ANOTHER NEW ZEALANDER. Wellington, November 15.