The Evening Star FRIDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1873.

Evening Star, Issue 3338, 31 October 1873, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1873.

We have every respect for the evidently good intentions of the Anglican clergy, ns evinced by the consideration in the Synod of how to give religious instruction to children in our public schools; but we do not consider they have solved the problem. The difference of opinion expressed by them as to the best mode of procedure is of itself quite sullicient to raise a doubt on the subject. Not a word was uttered to throw additional light on it, nor a suggestion made that could be tolerated in a country in which all religious denominations arc on an equality, so far as tjioir relations to the Government arc concerned. The idea of a minister of anv denomination being allowed to enter a school at any time of the day to impart religious instruction, as proposed by Archdeacon Edwards, betrays utter unappreciation of the current of thought as it now exists. It is the hallucination of a well-intentioned man. who does not really grasp the position in which he stands in relation to the world and other denominations of Christians. Did lie but reflect that 7-ival Churches have equal right to claim like privileges with the Church of which he is a member, he would arrive at the conclusion that sectarian zeal might and would manifest itself so strongly, that instead of realising the objects for which day schools are established, the teachers would have little else to do than to listen to homilies on every phase of religious dogma. When children returned home, and parents inquired what progress they had made in Rule of Three or Syntax, they might have to reply, “ Oh, Parson A. came and talked to ns for half an hour, so we had to put our slates by and listen to him; and then when he had gone Parson B. came, and wo had to miss our grammar class ; and soon after Parson C. carac and told us a lot, so we have scarcely done any sums; all we did was to write a copy and read a bit of history.” Suppose the parents to be curious enough to question the children further, and to ask what the various clergy taught who had thus occupied the time of the school with what they deemed religious instruction: “ Who is Parson A. V asks father or mother. “ Ho is a clergyman of the Church of Rome.” “ What did he tell you 1” “ Ho told us that we must be very good and believe that all the Holy Pope says is true. And we were reading about a man called Martin Luther ; but Mr A. told us he was a very wicked man, who taught people in Germany not to believe the priests nor the Pope, nor what they said about the Virgin Mary, nor about praying to saints ; and that we must go to confession, so that we may have our sins forgiven us by the priest.” “ And what did Mr B. say 1— Is he a Roman Catholic 1” “ No ; he is a clergyman of the English Church. He told us the Pope was only a man, and that lie knew no more about God’s will than any other clergyman who had been ordained. He said Martin Luther was a good and holy man, whose writings had taught Henry the Eighth the truth ; and then the king took away the livings from the bishops, and abbots, and monks, and nuns, and put in their places learned and pious men, who taught the people to read the Bible and not pray to saints nor to the Virgin Mary. And he said we were to learn the Church Catechism, and the Apostles’ Creed, and the Ten Commandments. He talked very nicely to us.”

“ And about Parson C. ; what did he say 1 ? Is he a Roman Catholic or a Church of England Minister?” “ No • he is a Presbyterian. He did not say much about other people. He told us some stories about the history of Scotland, and about what he called a Covenant to support Presbyterianism, made more than two hundred years ago. And then he told us about a wicked man they called Oliveii Cromwell, who was an Independent, and how he made war in Scotland and killed a great number of the Covenanters, and caused people to leave their homes, so that when he came to one part of the country very near to England only a few old women wore living there. But the English could never make the Scotch give up their religion, which had been mainly taught by a very great and good man they called John Knox.” “ And what did he say about the Pope and the Church of England Catechism?” “Oh, he said the Pope was Antichrist, and that there should be no bishops in a Church such as are in the Church of England ; and we must not learn the Church of England Catechism because it told us that baptism made ns God’s children, and that that is not true. He said the English Church was better than the Church of Rome, but not so good as the Presbyterian Church : and he gave every one of us a Shorter Catechism and told us to learn it.” We need not follow up the special instruction likely to be given by other denominations ; our intention is to show that such a proposition as that made by Archdeacon Edwards is altogether out of the question, and cannot be entertained for a moment in a country where every man. is free to worship God according to his conscience, none daring to make 1 , him afraid. Or, supposing a room set apart for* the special purpose of instructing children

of particular persuasions, the loss of time and derangement of school discipline would have a far more deleterious effect upon the children than any fancied advantage that might accrue. There would not only be waste of time to the whole school, but waste of the children’s energy who were subjected to such interruption. Day schools have been instituted for special purposes: for instruction and training in secular matters. The one brand) of education with which the clergy have to do is very properly nearly excluded ; and because it would be better attended to and more effective if totally separate, we should bo glad to see it wholly left out of the curriculum of the day school. We have no hesitation in characterising the present substitute for religious teaching “a sham;” but we fear it would bo worse than nothing were Archdeacon Edwards’s proposal adopted.