THE BIBLE IN NATIONAL SCHOOLS.

Southland Times, Issue 1205, 4 February 1870, Page 3

THE BIBLE IN NATIONAL SCHOOLS.

(From th& Scotsman, October 28.) A rat in a Dutch dyke may cause the drowning of a province ; and in some political or legislative questions a hole pot even so big as a rat-hole may give admission to fatal disaster. It seems to us that just such a hole has been left or made in the otherwise compact and water-tight bulwarks of the National Education League, which has been holding its meetings at Birmingham. The puncture may seem small ; but, in such matters, a very narrow opening has often been found sufficient to let in like a flood the bitter waters of sectarian strife. The principle on which the League is based, is the keeping separate of religious from ordinary instruction — the things on which men difler from those on which they agree; but, giving way to a natural but most dangerous weakness, the Birmingham Conference have departed atone point from that principle — and the principle is of such a nature that, if not stiffly maintained at every point, it cannot be maintained at all. The seductive aspect of leaving something, even within the religious department, to be determined by the " local majority," and of having the Bible read, in the ordinary school hours, " without note or Comment," has overcome and blhiided them. They would leave each local majority to decide for the whole district whether or not the Bible should be read, provided only that the use of the Book be restricted to the mere reading. However well motived may be this v concession," it is a concession of a most objectionable and perilous principle, and is, moreover, an act not of respect but of disrespect in regard to the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine lately come so much into fashion, of empowering the local majority to decide for the local minority in matters where it would be lield inadmissible and even outrageous for the national majority to decide tor the national minority, is utterly repugnant to justice and common sense, and could not have a worse application than to the case of religous differences. The nse of the Bible as a mere reading-book is not an act of deference, but rather of distrust, in regard to religion, and would, at the very first, and in its daily working, give cause and opportunity for those bitter and distracting dissensions which it is the main object of the Birmingham movement to shut out from the field of education. The proposal substantially is that, where the local majority shall so desire, the Bible shall be read, but not taught. Such a restricted use or abuse of the Bible is at once derogatory to it, and in a supreme degree superfluous or useless for any good purpose whatever. It excludes the Bible from its proper use, and degrades it even below the position of a reading-book or spelling-book. The proper use of the Bible is a religious use, and it ought not to be put to any other use, much less to one so humble or degrading as this, of being read without ondersjfcandnig^nay, of being read on the. jexpres¥ condition that no means shall be used to make it understood. When profane history, or geography, or anything but the Scriptures, is read, there is of course to be explanation and catechizing — in short* these things are to be not merely read but taught. The Bible, too, is to be read — but then the pupils are to be left unassisted to guess at its meanings., and unquestioned as to the manner in which they understand it. Is this either useful or seemly ? It can do no good to the children ; they would gain more by learning to read upon any other book, of which they would be taught the meaning as well as the spelling. It is no act of respect to the Bible that, alone among books, school children/ though made to read it, should not be asked nor allowed to ask as to its meaning. Can it be doubted that they will see at once that the reason or unreason of this is, not that there is no need of explanation, but that among their seniors there are so many conflicting explanations that no explanation can be given to all in common. But the strongest part of the e&-e is, that there is not the slightest necessity or excuse for any such device. If there were no choice between having the Bible read in this way, and not having it read at all, perhaps something might be said in favour of the so-called concession ; but the whole plan of the National Education League proceeds on the hypothesis that religious instruction, though not provided for by the funds and machinery of the State, is to be provided separately and by separate means. Surely religious instruction includes as its first necessity the reading of the Bible. Why, then, do the same thing twice-^onceJn the wrong place, and once in the right— first inefficiently, and then efficiently. Why adopt the principle of separating the ordinary from the religious departments of education, and then assign or permit to the ordinary department a piece of work which k the most fundamental and essential work of the religious department? It may be pleaded, indeed, that the ordinary department is to do that part of the religious work to no religious end — to which the obvious reply is, that work not done to its right end is better not done at all, and that there i3 no excuse for so doing it or misdoing it when there are other means by which it is to be done aright Then see how weshould almost immediately find ourselves landed just where we are now, if any national system were introduced, left open at this point. The procedure begins by the local majority deelcfing that " the Bible shall be read." The/first and instantaneous question that will then arise is — which Bible? — the version authorised by the Protestant King James, or that authorised by the Soman Catholic Church. There, it will be seen, are at the very first step controversy and separation between Protestant and Roman Catholic — in other words, half the work is at once undone or

rendered impracticable. In the case of Ireland thirty years ago, the device was resorted to of taking neither one version nor the other for ordinary use in the schools, but employing certain selections or lessons, to which, as was fondly and foolishly supposed, neither Protestant nor Roman" Catholic would object. The consequence was, that not only did both object and raise the cry of " mutilation," but that the controversy from being one between Protestants and Eoman Catholics, grew also into one between different schocl3 of Protestants. In this question of National Education, both experience and reason teach us that there is no possibility of mixing the religious with the other elements without causing strife and separation ; and it looks like mere wanton mischief, though it is far otherwise designed, to seek to mix up with the other elements, the mere name , or semblance of religion, under express j ! conditionsagainstits reality and substance. • I This is not merely running our heads I against a wall, but deliberately building a j wall for no other use but the knocking of heads.