THE BIBLE AND EDUCATION.

Clutha Leader, Volume IV, Issue 161, 10 August 1877, Page 6

THE BIBLE AND EDUCATION.

TO THB EDITOR. Sir,— l havo road your course of leading articles upon education with some interest, and must admire the able manner in which you argue, from your standpoint, the necessity of Biblical instruction in schools. From your standpoint, I say; because, from the standpoint of one who does not accept tho inspiration of the Bible, your arguments simply seem a beating against the wind.

You adduce, in favour of your argument, what you state to ho tho fact that the Bible was to bo thanked for the high advanced state of education among the masses in Britain, and particularly England and Scotland, compared with that existing among the masses in Spain, Italy, and Franco. But it is a great question how far tho Bible deservos thanks in the matter. If you simply argue that, because it was a book to be found iv every house, it was therefore likely to cause a taste for reading among tho members of every household, and so prove a factor in tho spread of education such as is at the present day a serial like the Family Herald,— if you arguo on no higher ground than that, then ovory sensible and reason" rtblo man must agree with you. But if you take higher grouud, and argue that tho Bible, because of the grandeur of its moral lessons, and tlie nobility and enlightenment of all its sentiments and teachings, has been the potent factor in raising Britain to its eminences in intellectual advancement and its position among the civilised nations, ' you will find it hard to support your argument, and harder stili to find anything in support of it from the pens of any of the abler historians. Historians do not say that tho Bible has ever had a hand in such results. They put such results down to tlie liberal character of the British constitution, which gives the people :tho privilege to so great an extont comparably with other constitutions of governing themselves ; to liberal measures forced by tho people from tho governing powers from the time of Magna Charta downwards ; and to that factor in the education of tho masses far greater than the liberty of reading the Bible, the liberty of the Press.

Tho simple and incontrovertible fact is, that the Bible has proved, and is now proving, a terrible drag upon the education of tho masses, and upon |tho intellectual and scientific progress of tho world. For instance, take the case of witchcraft. Can it be denied that tho Bible proved the case against and therefore burnt many an unfortunate old woman in England and Scot- ! land ? Iv ignorant Ireland, bo it remarked, ! wbere the Bible was not read by the peasantry, few, if any, witches were burnt. How hard it was for common sense to fight against Biblical teaching in this matter is seen in the case of Sir Matthew Hale, who finds easo for his mind while condemning a witch in the fact that the Scriptures teach that witches do exist. And take tho case, again, of slavery. Can it be denied that tho Bible furnished the upholders of slavery with almost their only really valid argument ? It has been the same thing always ; the Bible has barred the way against every great and important discovery. Galileo was humiliated to the extent of •disowning and renouncing his theory that the earth Went round the sun, because it would not •square with {Biblical ignorance. Geologists had to fight for years 'against Biblical chronology. They proved that the world was older by millions of years than inspired readers dreamed of, "that animals had lived which God's history of the worlS'took iio acfcottwt of, and that a Universal flood was an eastern fable ; but, simply becatiso the Bible 'had spoiled and warped tho education df its readers, their proofs were derided for years. When common sense at last asserted its s#ay, the Bible meaning waa squared to suit the new theory. A day was allowed to mean ]ust whatever term of time would suit the geologists, from a thousand to a hundred million iof years. And just now what a struggle is going On— a struggle which it ia to be hoped will be the death struggle of the bold upon human nature of these so-called inspirod writings. The Evolution theory — a far grander and more important discovery than Newton's lav*, of gravitation — lias had terrible work to find a footing, just 'because tho world, made ignorant by Bible teaching, could not easily step out of the belief*lsas^Ald' was a special creation. Oniy ono utterl^f^fiM'Mf j of scientific advancement in Europe^wSfmi^l j hold that Evolution is not an accepif^l^^l All tho growing scientists and natu&MfS&SP?/ growing men of education— accept itM^SplJlre; grown ones cannot frame their formed^l§jqs[|raj suit it, and therefore revile it. In^^^f^^l generation it will as certainly bo mj^&|Si0 J schools as GaliWs and Newton's d^^^nW. \ No doubt the attempt will be Made~wiOT^a|pi 1 been instances of it already — to squaro'|^^^^K | with the new theory ; but even you, SlKpß]ra: ' admit that a terrible straining of termsMps||| } occasioned. Yet we are asked to perp<|pra|||pf ! absurdity of cramming the forming MK^S»'^ children with the teachings of ignorancs|p|||HF < ings utterly opposed to all the great^^^^l scientific laws. I hope, Sir, tho day io®^^' j when the Bible will be acknowledged t<|ii§S|§; ] it .is — a wonderful enough book in its W^^^Ml

as Chinese records of three thousand years ago are -Wonderful, but not by any means God's— tbe Creator's— history of Hia handiwork. I speak as one Who was taught so in all sincerity, and who has had a aefrere task to shake himself clear of its superstitious thraldom.— l am, &c., Reason.