The Evening Star FRIDAY, JULY 28, 1871.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2635, 28 July 1871, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, JULY 28, 1871.

If there is one phase of social tyranny more annoying than anothei’, it is that of the weak over the strong : yet there is nothing so common. We do not use this word “ weak” in its merely physical application. Viewed in that aspect, there is something noble and generous on the part of a man conscious of his strength submitting, without retaliating, to some puny effort to secure what could not be obtained by force. But in the domain of mind, the same rule does not apply. They who are weak through education or superstition are numerous : and their claims are frequently put forward with a show of learning that passes for strength with those who are unable to weigh the worth of their opinions. This weakness is not confined to any particular class of men. Mostly it is associated with those who, through timidity or absence of training, are content to accept as true, the utterances of persons who assume to be, or are placed in the position of religious teachers. No matter of what faith, there is no denying that, together with the respect which is due to their sacred calling, there is a tendency to concede to them influence on subjects outside their special field of action. We do not question that this unreasoning concession was formerly beneficial, perhaps unavoidable —but in these days there are many reasons why they should not be allowed too much authority in social arrangements. The ground for this somewhat uncomplimentary opinion is very ably stated by Professor Edward S. Burster, M.D., of the University of Vermont, who says : The clergy are our traditional teachers. They have not only personally engaged in the work of education, but have directed the method and dictated tbo studies to be pursued. They practically, even at the present monopolize all the high posts of learning. * But arcaction has set in against their authority, and the unquestioning readiness with which assent has been yielded to their guidance is giving way to a positive refusal longer to submit to their control. Why is this ? Not because they are clergyman, as has been flippantly asserted by some, and ignorantly supposed by others. The office of the clergy is no disqualification for the office of the educator. It is because they have failed to take into account the changes which the advance of civilization has forced upon education, and have neglected to so alter their own education as to make it conform to the growing demands of science. “Content,” says Dr Draper, “ witli such a knowledge of Nature as might have answered a century ago. the imposing and ever-increasing body of modern science they decline. And yet it is that science and its practical applications which are now guiding the destinies of civilization.” The training of the divinity-student for the highest functions of his office excludes much of that training which is so important an element in the new education. Having ultimate reference to the fitting of man for another life and another world, it overlooks in a measure the fitting of him for this life and this world. The languages are the predominant elements in this training, for they are the foundation of all his knowledge, the means which enable him to read and expound the revealed word ; the keys which unlock for him the stores of patristic and scholasticlitcrature ; the media which acquaint him with the body of contemporary philosophy and of doctrinal and Scriptural exposition, which are such prominent features in his education. The sciences are unessential in his work and his culture. He derives no aid from them, takes m account of them, docs not even recognize them. Nothing can be .plainer than that Dr Moran abides by the traditions of his faith, and sees no advantage in that division of educational labor which would remit to the clergy the exercise of their proper functions as educators, and leave the remainder to the schoolmaster. We have no objection to DiMoran holding the creed of his Church, so long as it does not interfere with social liberty. But when he assumes to dictate to the community as to the mode of exercise of a social duty, he assumes a position which we are not inclined to concede to him. On behalf of the Roman Catholic Church he claims to have the control of. the “ religious and secular ” education of children whose parents hold that faith. We claim as a social duty that means shall be provided for secular education wholly irrespective of religious dogma. We claim it on behalf of every citizen, no matter what his creed : wc claim it on behalf of the Roman Catholics themselves. Having provided this means of intellectual training, we consider that to yield to the demand of the clergy of any sect the support of a denominational school at the public expence would be a wrong done to the whole community, whose educational power would be weakened to the extent of the cost of it. It is time that Dr Moran and every clergyman arrived at the conviction that intellectual training by the schoolmaster is the fittest preparation for comprehending religions and moral obligation when taught by them. If they have a duty to perform, so has the State, and the one need not necessarily interfere with the other. It is the fault of Dr Moran and those who think with him if his Church does not accept the provision. Wc are not prepared to affirm that the educa-

tional system in our schools is perfect, but we are prepared to assert that it is far in advance of that which Dr Moran asks to be substituted for it. We have even yet scarcely got beyond the region of superstition in our schools and college, and are asked to allow ourselves to be dragged back to it again. We trust that in this instance at least, we, as a community, shall not submit to be tyrannised over by the weak. Professor Dunster arrived at the following conclusion : It seems to ’me apparent that the high position which has hitherto been accorded to the clerical profession, in their relations to education, cannot be maintained. _ In their capacity as conservators of learning, anas teachers under the old order of things, where a large part of their duty was to train up candidates for their own calling, they have accomplished,a vast good, and they are en 1 itled to all honor for it. But the qualifications which fitted them for this important office, in a former state of things, are no longer sufficient. The direction of their studies is faulty, so far as relates to the new education, and the tendency of their studies is not in accord with the spirit of the ago.