The Evening Star THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1871.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2742, 30 November 1871, Page 2

The Evening Star THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1871.

The Rev. L. Stanford, in his lecture on education last evening, shewed more courage than prudence. He ventured upon the experiment of condemning that which he evidently has not understood, and of defending that which all history proves has been detrimental to civil and religious liberty. The great bugbear in his mind is what he terms secularism, a theory, which, with the characteristic onesidedness of his profession, he confounds with the teaching of no religion. Ho persists in only taking one view' of the matter, and in trying to force that view upon the acceptance of other men. We should have no objection to this if he confined himself to explaining his own ideas, but when he takes upon himself to misrepresent those of other people, he not only commits a social wrong, but shows the weakness of his own position. We, who hold that the schoolmaster has no right to be a teacher of religion, and that secular education alone is the duty of the State, base our conviction upon other grounds than the narrow sectarian prejudices advocated by Mr Stanford. We hold that the State, being a purely civil institution, has no business, whatever, with those spiritual theories involved in the relationship of man to his Maker ; and moreover that that which Mr Stanford considers sufficient religious teaching, the reading of the Bible in schools, is the merest sham, if the doctrines of the Bible are to become rules of life, clearly understood, and intelligently applied. Surely the assertion of the secularists that they desire to see religious instruction more thorough and effectual than it has over yet been, by making it special, and placing it in the hands of acknowledged and authorised teachers only, is worthy of more serious consideration by those whose profession it is to see that it is thoroughly understood by children under their spiritual guidance, than the flippant denunciation of it by Mr Stanford. If the clergy are sincere in their profession, the slightest hint that their mode of teaching is insufficient and capable of improvement ought to meet with immediate and earnest consideration. There is no difference of opinion between Mr Stanford and the majority of secularists with regard to what education should be ; but he seems to consider very little religious instruction necessary, whereas those whom he professes to condemn affirm that if it be, as they believe it to be, essential to a complete education, those who have undertaken to teach it should see to it that it is thoroughly taught, by instituting special classes conducted by themselves. What nonsense it is to talk about “ the inevitable two or three “ sermons ” to the adult being worthy of the name of religious teaching. We do not imagine for a moment that Mr Stanford cun see it; but those who have drudged in the Sunday school for twenty or five-and-tweuty years, striving often vainly to do the work treated so lightly by the clergy, could tell him that those homilies would bo very profitably dispensed with altogether, if class instruction adapted to the young were given by them, as it ought to be, several times during the week and at home. When children became adults they would not need the homily. Sunday school teachers could tell the clergy that good secular instruction in the day school is the best help they can have in their •work, and that those children w'ho best understand language, and whose minds are trained to think, most readily accept religious truth. They could also tell of the errors that came from the day school, not so much through the default of the schoolmaster, as because he has other duties to fulfil than dealing in religious doctrine. Men, as individuals, cannot tell the clergy that their duties are imperfectly peiformed ; but the Press must be faithful to its trust, and, in the interest of Society, we say it is time that they were made to feel that the Church is looked upon as an educational institute, and that the mode of its teaching may be much improved. Mr Stanford’s notions of the functions of the State, too, are very confused and hazy. He lays down the maxim that because the Roman Catholics and the Wesleyans pay taxes, as the “ State, in undertaking to keep school,” has taken upon itself abnormal and “ im- “ proper functions,” “ the only system ■■ offered them is one which they can-

“ not accept.” We do not cordially approve of the Government scheme, because it is not purely secular ; for we hold that a purely secular oue is tins only proposal that moots the case, as being that which every oue might accept. The State, contrary to Mr Stanford’s theory, should know nothing of the religion of any one of its subjects. It is an institution for dispensing equal privileges to every citizen, no matter what his creed ; and, as a consequence, one important duty is to secure to each equal religious liberty. Thus Episcopalians, Presbyterians,, Homan Catholics, all Christian and heathen churches, are ontitL cl to equal consideration ; and no one or two sects have the slightest claim to have one farthing drawn from the general taxation bestowed upon propagating their special doctrines When this is departed from, Civil liberty is infringed. Secularism, as Mr Stanford terms it, provides foundations on which any one of these systems can be built by the Churches to which the children are attached. It is, therefore, the only plan that can meet the justice of the case. It remains withHhe various Churches to add religious teaching to the mental training given in the day school. The clergy of all denominations must realise this rapidly-spreading conviction and prepare to act accordingly. Men nowadays will not accept mere formalism for religion : they ai'e gradually learning the truth that to be worth anything, it must be what ils name imports, a ride of life \ and if it be not that, then the money spent in supporting the clergy is merely wasted in propagating superstition.