throughout the county, while some of them have a much wider reputation. Nor could they be suspected of being antagonistic to religious teaching, or of having any wish to throw discredit on the Bible; we are entitled to assume the contrary, and that they were not only concerned for the proper intellectual development of the children in the committee's schools, but that they should also be spared the mental confusion which must unavoidably ensue from the mixing up with religious instruction, doubtful cosmological or historical representations.

The specific point urged in the memorial was that the syllabus of religious instruction issued by the Gloucestershire Education Committee included "simple stories" from the Old Testament, such as the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel. The memorial stated, "The effect of this procedure would be that while the children were being taught under the guise of religion that these 'simple stories' were actually true, they would be informed in any subsequent education that these narratives were contradicted by acknowledged scientific truths. We would ask you to imagine (said the memorialists), how confused the children's minds would become in consequence, and we should suggest that under such a system the backward condition of education in this country is likely to be made worse."

The memorial then referred briefly in detail as to the grounds of the objection to these "simple stories" being taught as true. The Creation story is in flat contradiction to astronomy and physics; the story of the results of the Fall is in contradiction to biology, geology, botany and anthropology; the story of the Flood contains physical impossibilities; and that of the confusion of tongues is disproved by philological research. The memorialists further pointed out that these conclusions have been accepted, not only by Biblical scholars of repute, but by the majority of educated persons, including most of the leaders in the religious world, both Church of England and Nonconformist.

There was nothing remarkable in this memorial; it was in every respect a perfectly proper one, the case was stated in moderate terms, and expressed in a respectful manner.

But its reception was extraordinary, and reflected little credit on the Gloucestershire Education Committee. "It was decided to courteously acknowledge the receipt of the communication, and to take no further steps in the matter." This was, perhaps, as much as might have have been expected, and if no more had been said we should probably have paid no attention to the subject and have hoped that even an Education Committee would know better in time. But before the decision was reached speeches were made by the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman which distinctly call for comment. The Chairman commenced his remarks with an obser

vation which was very much like a sneer at the memorialists, and which was received with laughter by the Committee. He said "he first heard of the memorial about six months ago, and he fondly hoped they would hear no more about it; but after taking something like six months to incubate, it had at last arrived with thirty-one signatures." Such a remark from such a quarter, considering the character and position of the memorialists, was, to say the least, discourteous.

The Chairman then went on to defend the syllabus, which he did in terms which showed that he did not grasp the objection of the memorialists. First of all he said "he did not think it was his business, or that of the Committee, to attempt to reconcile as part of their duties the teachings of primitive science as inculcated in the Bible, and those inculcated by men of science at the present day." That was a proposition which no one will dispute, especially as such a reconciliation is impossible. What the memorialists asked was that primitive science should not be taught as religious truth. The Chairman continued, still missing the point, that it was not their business to say whether or not everything in the Bible was verbally inspired. "It was quite sufficient to know that the Bible had been a perennial fount of inspiration in the thoughts and hearts of men for thousands of years." But evidently this gentleman does not understand why or in what sense the Bible has been a fount of inspiration; certainly not on account of the simple stories the Committee had included in their syllabus. The stories of the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel have been the source of much bad philosophy, and worse theology. They have been obstacles in the way of the progress of knowledge, and have injured rather than helped religion. This is not the fault of the stories themselves, but through their having been regarded until lately as infallibly true. But as we shall see, the religious value of the Bible lies in another direction. The Chairman concluded his observations with a remark which calls for still stronger criticism. He said that though the memorialists "might hold a very poor opinion of them as County Councillors on matters of science, according to a recent article he had read written by Lord Avebury, they could call as a witness such an eminent authority as Professor Huxley in support of the line the Committee had adopted with regard to their syllabus of religious instruction."

This was the culmination of the series of non sequiturs which run through this address. The Chairman assumed that because Professor Huxley had advocated the reading of the Bible in schools, therefore he would have approved of the syllabus drawn up by the Committee.

We shall return to Professor Huxley in a moment, but the remarks of the Vice-Chairman of the Education Committee deserve notice, as containing in a briefer but still more emphatic form all

the fallacies contained in the sentence we have quoted. The ViceChairman said that "while he unhesitatingly accepted the conclusions of modern science, he held at the same time that on the whole the Bible was the very best book for teaching religion, and therefore he did not think the Committee could do better than adhere to their syllabus." The speaker failed to see the inconsequence of his argument. Let it be admitted that for religious teaching the Bible is the best book available, this does not relieve education committees from exercising a wise discretion in the selection of passages they appoint to be read in schools, or justify them in disregarding in their public and corporate capacity the facts they accept in their individual and private capacity.

We have dealt at some length upon the way this important subject was treated by the Gloucestershire Education Committee, because it is of far more than local interest. It is an illustration of what is done, or is likely to be done, by such authorities generally; in fact, one of the speakers quoted above said he believed the syllabus they had decided upon was practically the same as that adopted by the London School Board. The County of Gloucester is a large and important area, and the Committee is a great administrative body which has shown itself thoroughly in earnest in taking up its educational duties as part of a great national system.

The question of religious instruction is the most difficult and delicate one with which the educational authorities have to deal; it is therefore incumbent upon them, as far as possible, to avoid doing anything which will bring it into discredit. By judicious selections from the Bible they could make the scholars in the schools acquainted with much that is of permanent historical and human interest, as well as with much which would help to develop genuine piety and conduce to the moral improvement of the young; but they should refrain from including in their programme those primeval traditions which are discredited by our present knowledge; without it is understood that the teachers should be free to explain them in accordance with our better acquaintance with the history of the world and of man. But if this is not possible, either on account of the prejudices of school managers or the incompetency of teachers, then such subjects ought to be omitted altogether, even in the interests of religion itself. We need scarcely add that no special theological or doctrinal interpretation of the Bible ought to be allowed to be given by any teacher, though that is another matter. Some explanations certainly are often needed by teachers qualified to give them. There are no doubt some passages in the Bible simple enough for a child to understand, but on the whole the Bible is a difficult book, it was not written for children, and it cannot be understood by children; but there are many stories in it from which impressive moral lessons could be drawn by wise teachers, and many

precepts which it would be a benefit to the children to learn and to remember. But the first step must be taken by Education Committees in exercising more judgment than they appear at present to do in drawing up their syllabus of religious instruction.

But the most serious statement made by the Chairman of the Gloucestershire Committee was, that he could claim the support of Professor Huxley of the line the Committee had adopted in regard to their syllabus of religious instruction; a claim which, if allowed to pass unchallenged, would no doubt be reiterated by other educational Committees.

That Huxley defended the use of the Bible in schools is perfectly true, that he would have supported such a syllabus as that which we have been discussing is a most unwarrantable assumption; on the contrary, Professor Huxley has left unmistakable evidence to prove that it is the very thing he would have condemned. It was in the early days of the London School Board that Professor Huxley expressed his opinion of the Bible which is so often referred to. But we need not go so far back to discover what he then said and meant. He certainly did not say nor mean that the Bible was to be used without judgment or read without discrimination; he certainly would not have placed upon the same level the moral precepts of the prophets, the ethical and religious lessons to be learned from its history and poetry, and its primitive cosmogonies and its stories of the supernatural. To Huxley the Bible was of value for its deep and perennial human interest, which can readily be separated and distinguished from its incidental, and, considering its age, not unnatural accompaniments of tradition and fable, which, though no longer credible, still retain the freshness of early times.

As far as we are aware Professor Huxley's latest expressed opinions upon the subject are to be found in the prologue to the volume of Essays on Controverted Questions, published in 1892. Thirteen out of the fourteen essays in this volume were written between 1885 and 1891; they include the papers he wrote in his famous controversy with Mr. Gladstone, as well as his important essays on Agnosticism in the controversy with Dr. Wace. In these papers Professor Huxley made quite clear his opinion of the legendary and traditionary parts of the Old Testament, especially those relating to the Creation and the Flood. It is unnecessary here to quote from or to summarise these essays, as in the prologue to the volume which contains them Professor Huxley himself, in a few sentences, made his intention perfectly clear. We quote, therefore, the passages

which relate to these particular subjects:

"In the essays on the narrative of the Creation I have endeavoured to controvert the assertion that modern science supports either the interpretation put upon it by Mr. Gladstone or any interpretation which is compatible with the general sense of the narrative, quite apart from particular

details. The first chapter of Genesis teaches the supernatural creation of the present forms of life; modern science teaches that they have come about by evolution. The first chapter of Genesis teaches the successive origin-firstly, of all the plants; secondly, of all the aquatic and aerial animals; thirdly, of all the terrestrial animals which now exist-during distinct intervals of time; modern science teaches that throughout all the duration of an immensely long past, so far as we have any adequate knowledge of it (that is, as far back as the Silurian epoch), plants, aquatic, aerial, and terrestrial animals have co-existed; that the earliest known are unlike those which at present exist; and that the modern species have come into existence as the last terms of a series the members of which have appeared one after another. Thus, far from confirming the account in Genesis, the results of modern science, so far as they go, are in principle, as in detail, hopelessly discordant with it."1

Of the Deluge Professor Huxley said:

"My purpose in the essay which treats of the narrative of the Deluge was to prove, by physical criticism, that no such event as that described ever took place; to exhibit the untrustworthy character of the narrative as demonstrated by literary criticism; and, finally, to account for its origin by producing a form of these ancient legends of pagan Chaldea, from which the biblical compilation is manifestly derived." 2

It may very naturally be asked, after a perusal of these passages, how it was possible for Professsor Huxley to justify the use of the Bible in the schools. He was able to do so, because he was also able to make a distinction which School Boards and Education Committees refuse to make, or appear to be incapable of making. But we will let Professor Huxley speak for himself, in the hope that Education Committees may yet learn something from the man whom they admit to be an eminent authority:

"Twenty-two years ago I pleaded for the use of the Bible as an instrument of popular education, and I venture to repeat what I then said.

"Consider the great historical fact that for three centuries this book has been woven into the life of all that is best and noblest in English history; that it has become the national epic of Britain, and is as familiar to gentle and simple, from John o' Groat's House to Land's End, as Dante and Tasso once were to the Italians; that it is written in the noblest and 'purest English, and abounds in exquisite beauties of mere literary form; and, finally, that it forbids the veriest hind, who never left his village, to be ignorant of other countries and other civilisations of a great past, stretching back to the furthest limits of the oldest nations of the world. By the study of what other book could children be so much humanised and made to feel that each figure in that vast historical procession fills, like themselves, but a momentary space in the interval between the eternities; and earns the blessings and curses of all time, according to its effort to do good and hate evil, even as they also are earning payment for their work?

"At the same time I laid stress upon the necessity of placing such instruction in lay hands, in the hope and belief that it would thus gradually accommodate itself to the coming changes of opinion; that the theology and the legend would drop more and more out of sight, while the perennially interesting historical, literary, and ethical contents would come more and more into view." 3

1 Essays on Controverted Questions, pp. 31, 32.

2 Ibid.

Ibid., pp. 51, 52.