THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16485, 26 February 1914, Page 4

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

TO THK KDITOK. Sir,-I note that the Rev W. J. Williams has been challenging Rev T. A. Williams to produce a declaration against Bible in schools by Sir W. Robertson Nicoll, the editor of the great Nonconformist paper, The British Weekly." Here is one. In the "British Weekly" Sir W. R. Nicoll said: "Tho whole drift of liberal opinion seems steadily drifting in this direction (that of secular education). It is the one solution of the problem. All the rest are makeshifts. We are quite willing to accept a penultimate solution of the problem, if it can be arrived at. No doubt many earnest Nonconformists are fitill very much opposed to the abandonment of State religious instruction, and they are, in all probability, strong enough to enforce a temporary and not a lasting settlement. Be' it so. But the temporary settlement will not .give satisfaction, and there will be unrest until the inevitable goal (that of secular education) is attained." Other great representative ministers, such as Drs Dale, Parker, Fairbairn and Clifford and Rev Spurgeon and Principal Henderson have expressed similar and even stronger views. A manifesto by a number of leading Anglican clergymen in England also urges the secular solution. They say the Church should "mind its own business and leave to the State what the latter can do much more effectively." Also a manifesto in favour of secular education has recently been issued, signed by 557 prominent ministers or all the Protestant denominations in England:— . . "We, the undersigned Christian clergy and ministers, support the 'Secular Solution' of the education question, i.e., that religion should not be taught in the public elementary schools in school hours nor at public expense. We have not arrived at this conclusion through under-rating the importance of religion in the education of children. . '."■".' • We hold equally fstrondv that it is-not the function of the State to impart such teaching. We hold that it is contrary to the principles cf justice and righteousness either that Protestants should be forced to pay for Catholic teaching or Catholics for Protestant teaching, or Freethinkers or Rationalists to pay for any religious teaching. The only solution is that no religion at all should be taught at public expense. Even were it possible, without injustice, for the State to teach religion, we believe that the attempt would be fatal to the best interests of religion itself. . . • The only bodies qualified to give such teaching are the various Christian denominations which exist for that very purpose. ' So far from the secular solution endangering or enfeebling religion, we believe that its direct effect would be to awaken the Churches to a sense ot the duty and responsibility which are theirs and theirs alone. We are too deeplv convinced of the vitality of the Churches to deem it for one moment probable that they would not rise to what would in reality be their great opportunity." The above is somewhat abridged. Anion? the 557 signatures wo find those of Silas J. Hocking and John Bishop Mitchinson, Master of Pembroke College, Oxford, and Canon of Gloucester. A re these men enemies of the Bible and of religion? Are thoy trying to ' rob the children of their heritage? Are they secularists because they advocate secular education as the only just course for the Stat© to follow?—I am, ctc -' LUX.