rro TRH EDITOR OF THE " SPHOTATOR.1 you allow me
to remind your correspondents who write in praise of "simple Bible teaching" that no one has suggested that it should be forbidden, or placed at any dis- advantage? The least friendly proposal that has been made in regard to it is that those who admire it should pay for it. All that is asked of undenominationalists is that they should show their faith in the teaching they love by taking on them- selves the cost of giving it.—I am, Sir, &c., D. C. LITHRURY.
[We do not think that our correspondents mistook the position. What we take it they desire, as we ourselves most certainly do, is that the giving of simple Bible teaching in elementary schools shall be regarded as the duty of the State. The giving of simple Bible teaching by the State is being condemned by extreme opponents of the Education Bill as "the establishment of Nonconformity." Much as we respect the Nonconformists, we cannot agree that they are thus to be given a kind of monopoly right in the Bible. In spite of all that is said in direct or indirect support of this view, we claim for the Church of England her full share in the Bible. If, however, it is said that undenomina- tionalism is the "establishment of the Bible," we readily agree, and we trust that this establishment will last as long as the establishment of the Church of England. That the "establish- ment of the Bible" is inimical to the establishment of the Church we absolutely deny.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
