The Evening Star THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 1873

Evening Star, Issue 3092, 16 January 1873, Page 2

The Evening Star THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 1873

Excepting so far as tho proceedings at Synods and Presbyteries are intended to influence the opinions of men on subjects of common interest, we do not think they are fair subjects for journalistic comment. So far, therefore, as the regulations of tho affairs of the Presbyterian Church of this Province is concerned, we have nothing to say; hut the Moderator’s address is calculated to go beyond this, and is intended to influence, not only the members of the Church itself, but the community at largo, It thus becomes a fair subject for public discussion. Wo are not sorry that the Moderator has directed the attention of the Synod to some subjects, in which the religious becomes mixed up with the social and political doctrines that should guide tho community. NoCburch would fulfil its duty wero there no effort made to base human conduct on sound moral principles. The great fault of our political and social practice is that principle is too often lost sight of, or not apprehended-; and society is allowed to drift into an endless maze of expedients, intended to fulfil the desire of the moment, without reference to tho wrong and perplexity that every false step entails upon generations to come. We cannot say with the light of history that the Church has been free from these errors. Much as the Church has done for the world, aud even assuming that tho doctrines taught by it have formed tho basis of that degree of civil and religious liberty at present attained, leading politicians have ever been in advance of it in a thorough appreciation of human rights; and in modern days, since education lias become more general, and every doctrine, theological, social, and political, is thoroughly sifted by the faity, the Church is in danger of resting ■m the fame of the victories she has won, itpd of becoming a drag upon advancement, instead of taking her place in the front rank. This tendency to rest is evident by resistance to adapting to. modern requirements and by marshalling its forces, and making a stand upon theories that have had their uses, ’but yrhidi Fere

only steps in tlio onward march of society. The Moderator's address affords more than one illustration of this torn!envy, • • is able, earnest, and would have been very liberal even fifty years ago, when there was a generally accepted beliet in such a myth as a national religion. Where a Czar or a Monarch is the supreme head of a Church, and where national law is allowed to become the dictator or the duty man is to pay to his Mailer, such a theory mav be tenable until people learn better; but if it be true, then Protestantism stands on no higher ground than Mahomcdanisni or Buddhism. As rai as we can understand the Moderatoi s reasoning, it amounts to this ;--U.hat m matters religious as well as matters social, the opinions of the majority, as expresses in the enactment of laws, are binding upon the minority. We have stated this as the necossarv consequence ot his theory, for on it lie bases his opposition to what lie terms “ secularists ” in education, and we think we are justified in our view, for he said Such is the principle of national life, and such the necessary inode of its action in opera ion lor the common weal. In no other way can the nation act consistently with its duties and its interests as a nation, and on this—the common principle and mode of action-we have good reason to repudiate and oppose the demand that lias been made, that in providing for the common weal a national system of education, the views, wishes, and aims, whether of secularists or of the Church of Rome, should determine the charact r and limbs of that system, to the extent of excluding the presence and influence of the Holy Scriptures. For the wishes and aims of neither are in accord with the requirements in this matter of the Protestant Christianity that prevails throughout our borders, and of which it ia a first principle that the young should be trained in the knowledge, and to the practice of what Scripture communicates, as essential to their being fitted for fulfilling the duties of life, social and private alike, when young and in after years.

Whether we agree with the end and purpose of the plan of education suggested by the Moderator is immaterial; we object to his proposed mode of carrying it out, as inconsistent with liberty. It is based upon the assumption of the right of a Church, no matter whether Protestant, Homan Catholic, 01 Confucian. to give a bias to the human mind not authorised by its relationship to the individual—it may be a bias for good, or it may bo for evil; but whether for good or evil, no theoretical nationality in any form of religion can justify such an assumption of spiritual power. And herein is the stronghold of what the Moderator condemns as secularism. It asserts the equal right of every man to worship God according to his conscience, and to train up his child in that form of doctrine in which lie believes. On this basis secularism seeks to separate what is common from wbat is special in education. It finds that, in order to fit a human being for fulfilling social duties, certain intellectual faculties requiring training, developing, and strengthening, and certain branches of knowledge must bo acquired. Secularism does not say that here all instruction must stop, but it says, “ Society has no right to go beyond this.’' It has a’right to expect of every member training, and the acquirement of such knowledge as will fit him to support himself without becoming burdensome to others: the spiritual belongs to the Church, and for this branch of education it was instituted. The illogical view of the Church is, that she cannot succeed without becoming a branch of the day school. The secularists say that the Church is better out of the day school : that to attempt to fulfil her mission there is falling short of her duty: that her ministers and teachers can do their work more effectually by making special arrangements, and that thus the plain lino of duty of the Church agrees with the true principles of liberty. The functions of the schoolmaster are really as far apart from those of the clergy, as those of the professor of gymnastics from the. military instructor. The well-trained gymnast is likely to become a more active and useful soldier than one whose muscles are not trained and fitted for exertion; but his knowledge of the art of war may be imparted by different professors to different children, whose theories may perhaps as widely differ as those of the first Napoleon from -Ton Moltke. Wo do not undervalue instruction in religious truth ; it adds grace and dignity to the human character, and ennobles all learning; hut in imparting it, the very first principle—the equality of all men should not be violated ; yet this must be whenever the Church of the majority assumes the right to dictate the terms on which national education shall be founded.