THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXXVII, Issue 11734, 11 September 1902, Page 7

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

To the Editor. Sir, —Now that the clergy and a considerable portion of the church-going members of the community are mucii in favour of introducing the Bible into the Stale schools, perhaps a few remarks upon the subject will not be deemed inopportune. In the first place, one would think that the clergy, who of course are thoroughly well versed in the Scriptures, would prefer to keep the privilege to themselves of expounding to the juvenile mind the meaning and significance of the many beautiful and ethical lessons that the Bible contains. If these gentlemen think that one day a week is insufficient for the children to have the Bible taught them, woul difc not be infinitely better for clergymen to devote certain days of the week to the teaching of religion to the children than having it taught second-hand by school teachers, who have quite enough to do to educate the children in the subjects essential to make them com- i petent for the duties of every day life. The Rev. Dr Parker, D.Dr, has tersely summed up his view in the question in the formula : —"Secular education by the State, and Christian education by the Christian Church is my motto." The late eminent preacher, Mr C. Spurgeon, wrote to the "Sword and Trowel" thus: —We should like to see established a system of universal application, which would give a sound, secular education to children, and leave the religious training to the home and the agencies of the Church of Christ." One of England's ablest and most scholarly thinkers was recently quoted in the Daily News as saying: —"With secular instruction only in the day school, religion will acquire freshness and new force. . The clergyman and the minister will exercise a new influence, because their ministrations will nave dignity and definiteness. They will no longer delegate things declared b- • them to be sacred, to be taught second-hand by the harassed, over-worked, and oft reluctant schoolmasmaster and school-mistress, who must, contradict the gentleness of religion by the peremptoriness of the pedagogue, and efface the precept that viod is love,' by an j incontinent application of the birch. It is | not secular instruction! which breeds irreverence, but this ill-timed familiarity with the reputed things* of God, which robs divinity of itt: divineness." I would commend to the attention of cm- clergymen the system of education in vogue in Holland. It is a secular system, the Bible not being read in schools, nor is any religious instruction" allowed to be given. The use of the school-room, is, however, granted to ministers of all denominations for the purpose of teaching religion out of school hours. The schoolmaster is not allowed to give religious instruction, or even to read the Bible in school at any time. No State rears better citizens or better Christians than the Dutteli Could any system be more advantageous? Instead of the overworked schoolmaster having to give reli"ioua instruction to the children the ministers of the various denominations are afforded the desired opportunity to read the Bible for a few minutes each day in the school. It is claimed by "uhe Bible-in-School supporters that the object is to further the moral training of children. No object could be more desirable or more praiseworthy, bufc at the same time it is possible to give , children moral instruction apart from theology. Morality was bora of no treed, nor of any sacred Scripture. Morality is a growth concurrent with the evolution of the human race, and has its basis in the social instincts of mankind;. social instincts that are an inheritance from pur brute ancestry. Darwin, in his immortal chapter on the moral sense in "The Descent of Man," has shown conclusively the natural origin of morality; how it has evolved by natural selection from the warm, beautiful, and" unselfish family affections. Thus we learn that morality is not imposed upon humanity by any supernatural power, and that the term has only relation to human conduct as manifested in the social | actions of the members of society. One of | the ablest exponents of evolutionary ethics has admirably said. "Morality has worn its pre-eminence by the right of the strong- j est," and has no need of assistance or protection from revelation, Church, priestcraft or State. Still less does it owe its j origin or continuance to any of them. And ret almost every religion, every priestly ordei*. arrogates to itself the position of the true originator and only conservator of morality, heaven forbid that it should rest on any such narrow and shifting foundation. Beautiful and inspiring as the spirit of worship is, and valuable and powerful as its influence, morality depends upon no one emotion or influence, but upon all the forces and tpulses of nature. Morality is the flower born of all the struggling impulses of lowly but warm-hearted human nature, just as the violet is of the leaf-mould, the sunHght, and the dew. Any of the influences v-hich had a share in its creation akne would blight it, did not the others come to 53 aid. Gentle as it is, it is irresistible, and will flourish with equal placidity within our bosoms or among our ashes." How beautiful and grand is the new gospel of Naturalism, destined as it is to command the minds of future generations, who wilf be taught to do right for right's sake, and not for the selfish purpose of future reward cr through fear of eternal torment. The religion of the future will be based upon the proven facts of science, and not upon the dreams of visionaries, Its aim will be infinite progress, for the race in this world, as apposed to all supernatural religions that direct the minds of devotees from the actual' to the imaginary pleasures of o> paradisian heaven. In conclusion, I would remark that rationalists are nob blind to the value of the Bible as a human record of the literature, history, laws and religious ideas of the Jews. As such it is a product of natural evolution, and if it were taught to children in that light, no objection could be raised against its use in the schools. In looking upon it as a Jiuman production, every allowance can be made for the errors and crudities that it contains; but there is no reason, why children should be taught that it is an inpjred book, except that such doctrine tends to maintain the power of the clergy over the community. Why sliould not the children be told of theconclusions of the higher critics regarding the growth and composition of the books of the Bible. If the Bible is to be introduced into our schools, then let it be explained rationally to the pupils, apart from any theory of inspiration. Unless this is to be done, it were better to leave things as they are. Apologising for trespassing so far on your valuable space. — I «■>, eta., A rALBOT

To the Editor. 1 Sir,— "Omega," "Kid Atua," and "Pro Veritate" in their letters on the above subiect seem to be unanimous as to the theory of evolution as an established fact, and it is surprising on what grouros they pin their M& too. The founder of the new theory never, in all bis writings, gave it out as Seine an established fact-only as the most reasonable theory; and may I ask, why should the above writers dogmatise, when such men, the propounded of the Darwinian theory, were met with rough usage by ihoir distinguished fellow labourers m tlw

:' fi&7i of physical research. In France, Quar j trefages, and in- German^ we find the philosopher and statesman, Virchow, addressing [ a congress of naturalists, with the express j object of warning them against accepting "the problems of research as actual facts. j the opinions of scientists as established ' science." One may give instances of like nature amongst the scientists of the day: even tiio very founders themselves —Darwin and Dr Hacckel—disputing as to the first cause ; and it is rather amusing that the above correspondents should be guilty of that which they accuse others of doings viz>.. dogmatising, more especially on such slender grounds, as I will show that the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ has an unbroken chain in our own time. The absurdity of Atheism is never so manifest as when it attempts to propound a theory of tne origin of heaven and earth, or at least when the theory is put into naked form, as follows: —""I believe in a chaotic nebula self-existent, evolver of hea- j yen and earth, and in differentiation of the original homogeneous mass; it® first begotten product, which was self-formed into land and water, self-organised into plants and animals, reproduced in like species, further developed into higher orders, and ultimately refined, rationalised, and perfected -in man: 'lie descended from the monkey, ascended to the philosopher, and sitteth down in the rites and customs of j civilisation, under the laws of a developing i sociology; from thence he shall come again j by the disintegration of the heterogenized cosmos back into the original homogeneousness of choas. I believe in the wholly impersonal absolute; the wholly uncatholic church, the disunion of the saints, the survival of the fittest, the persistence of force, the dispersion of the body, and in death everlasting." It is a well recognised fact that science undemonstrated, is ever changing, accepting or rejecting theories, and that one is considered behind the times if he accepts the theory of science ten years ago, and looking at both sides of the question. I find no demonstrated fact of science at all out of harmony with the Biblie. This brings us to another statement referred to by the above writers, in reference to the creation, and as "P.V." has challenged any minister, I presume he will accept others beside, to one who wish&s to prove all things, but to hold fast to that which is good. Would "P.V." kindly let me know where the Bible teaching conflicts with science. lam prepared to admit that the antiquity of human species remains found at various . depths of the earth's surface, and that that 50,000 years according to scientific speculation, and 6000 years of man's appearance upon the earth, is rot out of harmony. 'Now, in closing this tetter, I should like to refer to" "Omega" in referer.ee to the alleged impurity of the Bible. "Omega" must be hard -oushed for arguments to suggest, as an objection to the Bible, that it is impure. Surely venom has here Winded the eyes of reason. The Bible is not a phvsiolagical text-book, but if it were., it could not'refer to these subjects in a more chaste and dignified way— intelligible to all. Its allusions to these things are in every case necessary for our instruction, and the language always in the best taste, and the lessons wholesome and instructive. Did you ever hear of anyone becoming impure through constant reading of the Bible? No, the contrary is always the result. There is nothing lewd or purient anywhere through its pages. Look at the works of Burns. Byron, Pope, Shakespeare. See the mixing of licentious depravity with human brilliance, and the sublime, dulled by coarse vulgarity. These writings are counted amonor the vei*f best works humanity has produced, and certainly their authors are clever. However, I must apologise for taking up so much space, but as the subject is a big one, I may be pardoned. Thanking you in anticipation.l a-^^^ September 7th, 1902.