MORAL TRAINING AND THE BIBLE IN THE SCHOOL

Otago Witness, Issue 2569, 10 June 1903, Page 80

MORA L TRAINING AND THE BIBLE IN THE SCHOOL

By J. MacGeegok, M.A.

VIII. . , justice, good and truth were still if, by some demon's will, Hatred and wrong had beea proclaimed Law through the world, and right misnamed."

As to the transce-ndent necessity for moral training in the public schools there can bo no .question. The State, in assuming responsibility for the education of its future citizens, proceeds on the fundamental postulate that education is essential to a capacity for self-government, and that moral training is a necessary element in such education. But the State, whilst undertaking this function, does not place itself in loco parent-is towards tho children; it is at liberty to draw tho line at religious education, on tho ground (now almost universally admitted) ithat a man may be a moral man and a good citizen without being a Christian. Now, the present movement amounts to an attempt on tho part of the churches to force the Stato to undertake the teaching of religion on the ground (a mere pretext) that moral training i 3 impossible withoiit teaching religion — i.e.. Christianity. Even if it were true (which it is noU that religion (Christianity) is essential to morality, that ■would be no reason for the State under- • taking the teaching of religion ; for tho State has the same right, to assume that the churches will do thc-ir duty by the children in- teaching them religion as tho churches have to assume that tho State will do its duty in providing moral training. The function of the churches is entirely different from that of the State: tlie •churches are, and must be, dogmatic in their teaching, for their object 13 to impart truth, whilst the object of the State is to create and cultivate in tho th-.ldren the power to find truth for themselves. The present movement is an admission by parents and churches that the duty of imparting religious instruction to their children is being ■neglected, and an attempt to shift the blame ■and responsibility upon the State. I claim to have shown clearly in my last article that tho blame rests on the parents and •the churches, with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church, which has at least ;given nroof of its sincerity by itself providing the funds for ihe religious instruction of its children. The remarkable thing is that the other churches think to piove .their sincerity by putting their bonds in the pockets of other people (Catholics included). I contend, furthermore, that the iresponsibility for the inadaquacy of tho jnoral training in tho schools rests mainly those who seek to in f roduce rplipious •instruction on the pretc-xt of teaching (morality, and ye-t whose disagreements make xhe reading of tho Bible as literature imipossible. Their insistence upon the Bible «a 9 the only means of moral instruction is accountable for the present inadequacy of rational moral training. As to the urgent meed for moral training we are at one, but /we differ, toto cgplo. not only as to the jiieoessity for an appeal to religious sanctions, tout as to tho very nature of morality as .veil.

"What, then, is the origin and nature of morality. Probably Paley's definition expresses the idea of the majority of those ■who advocato the reading of tho Bible as the best (or only) means of moral education. That definition is as follows: — ■*' Virtue is the doing good to mankind in cbedience to the will of God, and for tho sake of everlasting happiness." The flogieal English divine had 'no difficulty about ,*he matter at all, for he believed in the plenary inspiration cf the Bible. But if jwe once admit the possibility of a doubt as to the Bible being a revelation of the ■■will of God, what becomes of his beautiful structure? It becomes a crumbling ruin. Probably very few of tho clerical advocates of the Bible in schools accept Paley's 'dogma of the plenary inspiration of Scripture, and yet they build upon the same foundation, and do thc-ir best to hide the ruins with tho ivy of sentiment.

In opposition to Paley and his modern successors, I deny the correctness of both liis propositions. Virtue is not the doing of tho will of God ; right cond-uct does not consist in obedience to a law (imposed from without), and tho observance of certain precepts. " Righteous men are not they who obey moral precepts, but they who=e conduct is the foundation of moral precepts." That w to say, things are not right because the Bible says them, but tho Bible says them (when it doe 3 say them) because they are right. * . . . Justice, good and truth were still - Divine, ,f, by somo demon's will, Hatred and wrong hnd been proclaimed Law through the worlds, and right misnamed." is a product of human nature, and has grown up independently of, and often in spite of religion. "So far from thinking that religion creates conscience, I rather incline to the view that conscience creates Teligion." Thus wrote Dr Rrueo, Professor of Apologetics in the Free Church College, Glasgow, a man m>fp<l for aJnluy, learning, and candour. "This is tantamount to admitting," says Dr Bruce, " the capacity of ethics to Bland alono without thoistio or theological buttresses. The admission is made willingly. Tho dilapidation of the buttresses would not, I acknowledge, involve the tumbling into rims of the moral edifice. I do not believe that the decay of religious faith would necessarily lead to demoralisation of conduct."

Wo aro not required to do right merely lieoause the Bible comands us, and it is because the Bible reflects the moral ideals and aspirations of man, not because it has created them, that the Bible belongs to the sacred literaFure of the world.

It 13 only the unthinking, and those who deliberately shut their eyes to the light cf truth and Eoieace, that can believe tint the Ten Commaaidin.cnts, simnosed to have hean WTitton by the fip.ser of God and delivered to Mo?es on Mount Sinai, are the superhuman source of all morality ; that the ancient Hebrews ]X)sse^sed in their Dreoepts a divine revelation of the who!© duty of mail. Rrccnt res 1 ":) relive ia Assyrioloary bear out what the principle of evolution wou'd lend us to expect; there is now good reason to belie\e that the Ten Com-ina.n.<:lmc-r.ts wrre snb-tantially existent in Babylon long before the time of Mose3. We know that t'lero is more than one text of them, and the oldest has recently been discovered in the C'oi'e of Laws promulgated by Hammurabi, King of Babylon, 2255-2242 nc. This discovery supplies strong evidence of tho mythical c 1 aractcr of the story of tho proceedings cv Sniai. " The 'egend re=.bs on that very erroneous euppo-i-«a that the moral law is an arbitrary

pronouncement of a supernatural ruler. The truth is that men began to perceive the necessity of th© Decalogue as soon ss they entered into the early stages of scc'al life. It was not produced in a day amid fhe thunder 3of S<mai: it grew up slowly amid the social life of humanity ; it was codified by tbo leaders and Eage3 of the nations; it was enforced by the common perception of its vital necessity for human progress. The precepts of the Decalogue are a purely human discovery and enactmmfc." But £0 persistent is tho tendency to trace the origin of the moral law to a supernatural souro© that it is now tuggested that Hammurabi mu4 have b-en inspired by Gcd in preparing his code. Hence wo find ths> Emperor of Germany promulgating a list of inspired sages, priests, and kings, beginning with Hammurabi and ending appropriately enough with his own grandfather, the Emperor William (dubbed "tHo Great" by his grandson), who is included in the list on the ground that he was in tho habit of dewrihing himself, in \>is characteristically picti'tic manner^ as merely an instrument in the hand of God ! Presumably, we are therefore to understand that William, King of Prussia, was merely an instrument in the hand of the Lord of Hosts in crushing France!

Theologians of all churches talc© delight in trying to prove that without religion (Christianity) nothing of morality would lx^ loft but the mere hu^k, and the clerical advocpte3 of tho Bible in schools imagine that they advance their cause by taking up the sarno tile. To define the exact relationship between religion and morality is beyond my province, and probably beyond my power; but this much may be eaid. that whilst religion as a mcra unintelligent belief in divine r/geney and a cult of propitiation did exist prior to moral consciousness of any kind that affected this religion, the refined and nobler conceptions, sheltered by modern Christianity, were conditional by the higher conception of morality, which transfigured it. The character of the divine, which is an object of worship to religion, is a reflection of the- moral development of th<? ago, and that is the outcome cf rwon. It ia only in so far a.s it has been the outgrowth and blossoming of morality that religion has been a blessing to mankind. As Kaut raid, morality is tho foundation ; religion only adds the new and commanding point of view. Tho moral capacity of man k the foundation and interpreter of all religion. Religion and morality are alike products of the human nature which thco'ogiana to assiduously seek to belittle in the interests of their systems- of theology and " schemes" of salvation. There can be no hope of any rational syetem of lroral •education until we teach our children that they must act morally, not for the sake of everlasting happiness — from fear of hell, or hope of heaven, — but Mile'ly for the sake of the society of which they are members, and tho welfare of whie-h is a'so their welfare, — for the sake of their fellow men; unt'l we cease to teach them that their conduct towards their fellows is a matter of merely second-Try importance, and that thoir supreme moral end is to glorify God, their primary duty to believe certain dogmas; until we get rid of " that black folly of superstition" according to which education is conceived a.5 a process of eradication and suppression of the mystical old Adam, and come- to regard it " less as Hi© suppression of the. natural man than his strengthening and doielopment ; less as a process of rooting out tares, more as the grateful tending of shoots abounding in promi?© of richness." This inclination To belittle other motive principles and natural sanction, as compared with those based upon religious belief, which we- see in Protestant advocates of the Bible in schools, is in its whence identical with the sacerdotalism of the Romi'-h Church. Such doctrines aro the outcome of a. profound distrust of human nature as expressed in ill© dogma of original «in — " a dogma ac unsustainable in reason aa it ia derncrali.-ing in practice. Disbelief in human mature ii> the worst form of ■*>tpt>iei*m, and more pernicious than atheism or disbelief m deity." As Guyan has shown, people in a hypnotic fatato can be madn to believe that they are pig.°, and when they are under that influonco they wallow and grunt like pigs. For centuries lruinaii nature hae been hypnotised by this dogma of natural depravity, and it ha.s proved a ■ U-nigh insuperable obstacle in the way i . rational systems of moral education. We jp.ust cease regarding moral education as a conflict with evil, and mu^t look upon it rather as the drawing out of the divine germ of good; it moans tJio training of the young to see the beauty of virtue, and not the present or future benefits to be reaped from devotion to it. Not the fear of punishment after death, but tho joy of doing good for ltd own sake is tho real " sanction" of morality. ThTe is no supernatural pnn-o-iple wl alever in our morality: it is from life itself, and from tLe foien inherent in lifo that, it all spring?. Life mokes its own law by its aspiration towards idcp^ ant development; it rnkes its own obligation to act by its very powe-r of notion. Instead of saying, "I mu-t, therefore- I crme," it ia more true to say, " I come, therefore I um>?t." But llPl'P WO .ivr> »nPt w'lih t';o farrili.-ir argument that mc!\ o aicvality in destitute of all sanction*, ami therefore unworthy of tho name Now, it i« n.'c" <; «aiy to deal rlainly with rh''s prrt of t'>o subiect, for no greati_r efr\ico rould be rondorrd to humanity than by remming from tho minds | of the pcoplp th" idea that mor.ihty <-cn-'«-t« in doing right Ijpchubp the Bible fo mmivands, ami tl at hideous fiction of hrll ac tho punishment for di«obedipnre It it necessary to bhow that morality is roniethincr ir>oro than a mere l>ody of rule? grarded by sanctions, and to got rid pjitin-lv of the habit of associating any kW of "punishment," in the ordinary ser-p, with tho divine admnu-tration of the uiiiM^r'-e. For tho iflra of puni-hmnnt wp mil' 1 , "-üb-t! tutr> tho uloa of moral piu<-p .mil ctfrc'^. nii(l tiarp tho connection between (If d-s .-infl dost:ni"<- — a vnal, organs connciti«n t'-at cannot Ikj broko.i. Our deed 3 still travel with up from afav, And v.hat we he\e been makes us what v.c arc. As Sir Leslie Sfpphen «ay=, "it is a v, ikl and monstrous d r !u=ion to sunpo-e that the fear of hell deters from vice. The dcclnno is rot only revolting, hut in tho highest degree immoral and pernicious." "Even the late ! Canon Farrar declares that " if the popular dcotrine of hell were true ho would resign all hope of immortality if ho could thereby save, not millions, but one human poul from what fear and superstition, and ignorance, and inveterate hate, and slavish lettorwcrship have dreamed and taught of hell He would ask God that hp might dip as the br-a^ts that perish, rather than that hii wor=t euemy bhould endure the hell described by

Jonathan Edwards, or Dr Pusey, or Mr Moody, or Mr Spurgeon for a single year."' Some people who have themselves ceased to profess a belief in hell hold that it is necessary to maintain this ancient fiction becauso it is directed to a useful purpose — than which it would be difficult to iraagine a more immoral position. And, besides, the maintenance of imaginary sanctions, is not only immoral, but impracticable. The more you seek to enforce wholesome precepts by fictitious reasons the less will the real reasons bo attended to; and when at last the fietitioiii reason bivaks down the greater wi'l be the danger of the precept itsolf being involved in its rum. Indeed, it i 3 impossible to place moral education upon a solid foundation so long as wo admit in any i< cm the conception of offending Gcd or dt awing down upon one His anger or Acngeanoe. It is unnecessary to rely upon external sanctions of any kind, because morality io tho nature of things, and tho world is so constituted that in order to h\o in society man must live morally. The fact that man has become a social being carries with it the genesis of morality. If anyone chooses to express this fact by saying that after all we have had to como back to the position that to live morally is to live according to tho decree of God, as expressed in tho constitution of the world, th^ro is no occasion to quarrel with the phrase. My concern is not to debase religion, but rather to exalt morality by showing that it dori not proceed from religion, believing, as I do, that a religion becomes the nobler and purer in proportion as it rests upon a morality which it did not create.

" Dieu se trouve n la fin cle tout."