The Wanganui Chronicle "Nulla Dies Sine Linea." SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1902. THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS QUESTION.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXXVII, Issue 11743, 20 September 1902, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle "Nulla Dies Sine Linea." SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1902. THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS QUESTION.

Fob the test three or four weeks we have thrown our columns open for the full discussion of this much-controverted question. We are perfectly well aware that- by doing so we hare exposed ourselves to a great deal of misunderstanding, and even hostile comment. The sensibilities of many of our constituency have been wounded, and they have been troubled at the possible effect on unsettled minds of such letters as have from time to time appeared in our pages. From some of our subscribers whom we hold in the very highest esteem, and whose opinions are certainly entitled to great consideration., we have received letters of sharp remonstrance and protest; and to us it has given the utmost pain to be compelled to differ from their judgment as to the wisdom of the course we have pursued. It. seems to us to be inevitable that in connection with the proposal to introduce the Bible into our State schools opinions more or less extreme are bound to be expressed. But while we are still firmly of opiuion that the more fully and freely a subject is discussed the better it will be in the interests of truth itself, we are bound to say that we were hardly prepared for the vast amount of pestilent nonsense that has been -written by some of our correspondents. When, for example, one undertakes to affirm that no highly educated man to-day believes in the inspiration of the Bible, and the essential Deity of Christ, the statement is so outrageous, and exhibits such stupendous ignorance and folly, that the writer only makes himself supremely ridiculous. Wo are insensibly reminded of the three tailors of Tooley Street, who designated themselves a.s "We, the people of England." Many of the other statements' made by some of those who have set themselves to argue against the Bible as an inspired and divino revelation have been so exceedingly wild that their very extravagances discredit them in the eyes of every dispassionate reader; while the absolute "cock-surediiess" of t^ose who make them, and their complaisant assumption of superior enlightenment, would be quite comic if ft were not so tragic. For, after all, the question of the bona fides of the Bible is not to be sealed within the narrow—the necessarily restricted —limits of a newspaper correspondence, nor even by those

who are the most anxious to conduct it. The question has to be fought out and settled by the great Pundits, who have the apparatus criticus at their fingers' ends, and with whom the investigation of the evidence has been a life-long study. One fact, however, impivs.ses the most unthinking, and it is this, explain it how you will: that although Christianity, has been assailed and criticised as no oth°r system has been, though age after age has seen every conceivable form of destructive enginery turned against it, it manifests the most wonderful vitality, and has. a firmer hold on the world to-day than it ever had before. Just because it is what it is, not an abstraction, nor a system, nor an idea, but a- life ; because its final vindication must come, not from the world of thought and speculation, but from the world of conduct and life, it has needed no propping. It has stood by its own unaided strength. This is a phenomenon which has no parallel in human history. It is co-extensive today with political and military power, and culture, and progress. Iti is not too much to say that Christianity has saved the world. During the first thousand years of our era, it alone prevented the burial of civilisation under the tread of barbarous invaders. At its dawn the world was helplessly and hopelessly sinking. For many long centuries it has been rising, and for this great change no cause can be found except the influence of Christ and His followers. If Christianity is a delusion, then* a delusion has saved the world. These are facts that can be estimated and appreciated by the simple student of history, even though he is not a trained critic. It seems to us, however, that a great deal of the controversy that has been raging round the subject is altogether irrelevant. It is not germane to the question as to whether the Bible is inspired or whether it is not. The point at issue is whether the wishes of the majority are to be respected or whether they are to c subordinated to the few, and the whole of our educational policy to be framed so as to meet the views of the small minority of the community. No one v/ho is open-eyed to the signs of the times1 can for a single moment doubt that the vast majority of the people in this country believe that the Bible is not only a recognised classic, the "well of English undefiled" ; that no one can be said to be liberally educated or can understand the great facts of history without a knowledge of its contents; but they moreover believe that no higher standard of morals is to be found anywhere. It may be said that they are mistaken, but that is then: opinion. Whether in the earlier period of its formation and development it was. influenced by Buddhist teachings and the teachings of other philosophic systems, just as a river is swelled by the streams that flow into it on either hand from the surrounding watershed ; whether Christ derived His best and purest maxims from the ethical precept* of former agej* —'all this does not matter one whit; it does not in the very smallest degree affect the question. Rightly or wrongly, they believe that, taking the very lowest ground, Christianity is the most effective moral force that is extant, and they desire tha.t their children shall have their minds imbued and saturate! with its moral teaching ;. and being in the large majority, they naturally insist that their wishes shall be given effect to. They have no desire to force their views on other people. Those who object to such teaching ai-e at perfect liberty to avail, themselves of the "conscience .clause," but there is neither equity nor reason in setting at naught the wishes of the large majority of the people because of the clamours of a loud-voiced minority. That, then, is the gist of the whole qmstion. Not whether the Bible is all that some people claim for it, but who are torule in a community that boasts to ' c democratic, the few or the many?