The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VII, Issue 473, 16 May 1857, Page 7

The Lyttelton Times.

Saturday, May 16tk. Tits. l >tov|ridial Council have asserted their adhesion to the principles of what hap been called the denominational system, of education as opposed to the national, or secular lyißtem. There are undoubtedly great difficulties to be contended against in any scheme which may be adopted, with reference to a question so important as that of education. Iso question has in our time occasioned greater differences of opinion, there is none on wliich men have found it so impossible to agree. This is very natural. Men feel strongly pn a matter which involves the well-being, spiritual and lemnoral, of

their children; and* of the whole generation Which is to succeed themselves. The stronger the convictions they hold, the less they will be apt to understand the point of view from which their neighbours examine the same question. AH that can be expected is that we should agree to differ. And this we may surely do without exasperating the discussion bf calling to our aid party feelings or religious animosities. . . '.;. . ; .,' „ In this province, which was originally founded by members of the Church of England, there has happily been a wonderful spirit of forbearance and cooperation, 1 when the joint efforts of other den omi nations have been required, and there is every reason to hope that such may long continue to be the case. We should, however, endeavour to avert any possibility which might arise of bringing religious denominations into collision ■; and m establishing any system of education, our ainv should be to select the one least likely to lead to such a catastrophe, and which would at the same time leave members of each denomination at liberty to follow the dictates of their own consciences in the education of their children. Some compromise there must be. As the world i$ constituted, compromise is ito a certain extent the law of our existence. Compromise should, however, be the exception and not the rule. The difficulty which arises on the threshold of the question is in the interpretation of the ward Education. On the meaning attached to this word depends in a great measure the view which will be taken of any general scheme by different bodies of men. We doubt that any such difficulty would have arisen before this century : for, although men might differ widely of old as to the means and minpr objects of education, they would have agreed at least theoretically as to its end and aims, gut times are changed and we .change with them. Even if a Fagan Greek had been asked what he meant by educating his sons, he would have answered that jt was .to leach them above all fo obey and reverence the Gods. In almost all countries until lately we should have found that education meant the inculcating by daily teaching and practice the highest truths known to the time and people. But *' Nous, avons thdnge tout cela" The nineteenth century has discovered that such an interpretation •f the word Education is as far behind the age as the spears of the Theban Phalanx, or the Ptolemaic System. Ours is no doubt, in many senses, a most enlightened and scientific age,-—an age of vast progress and refinement, but it is also in many senses a most material and unbelieving age. When we confess our inability to understand the expression ' Secular Education,' we are aware that it lays us open to a charge of being ' behind the Age. But we are lagging behind in company with good and great men who.have refused to believe that the learning of figures and of ' ologies ' can in any way be palled an Education.

.We find it 9|9 difficult tq believe that the scheme of " one. day'} religion "; proposed by the Government resolutions would hate Wended the matter. .What is this but adding one more"'ology" to those taught all the rest of the week? What effect is it likely to have 6n the children if this ology be theology } We all Jcnow how careless children are generally as to all matters relating to religious instruction. They are naturally materialists, and we must rather look to the future effect which the whole tenor of a, Christian education will have, than to the fruits of a dry, systematic teaching on a given day of the week. Is religion to be taught to children then as a separate science ? One day for arithmetic, another day for writing,another for reading,and ..'.■ .» -.. c :._., '~Lu~.s. n w > Tr. tUo schoolmaster aiiutnci lut icii^iun t »■» ■ vnw. i. l- .„= -? ->:• to be carefully watched Jest he should drop a word in his instruction which should show the children that he is not a pagan ? Let us, if we adopt the system, deal honestly by all denominations. Let us send home for expurgated editions of English History, lest perchance some Christian or even perhaps protestant idea might be inculcated under the mask pf " secwlar" instruction.

It is very true that we j.might have larger schools established on an apparently firmer tew, if the fundswere not separated, -and some '*secular " Bystemwote adopted. But this is not an answer to those who are prepared to deny that such a system wquld afford an education at all; who would lock upon" it as an acknowledgment that this young province was prepared to hand over its children to a school practically of materialist philosophy. We ourselves, as Initiators of the system, might know very well what we intended by it; it perhaps might do ourselves no hajrrn ; butweshoTjld b,e taking thefirst step towards acknowledging that education might be a mere secular matter; towards encouraging the ignorant and thoughtless to believe that they were educating their children, when they were only teaching useful arts for a life bounded by a grave. . First steps are dangerous things when tending in a wrong direction. We see examples enough around us every day of beginning with good intentions works which are certain to be perverted and abused. The denominational system appears to be the laast objectionable that can be devised. Where there is ho state religion it would seem to be the only means of givjng state assistance to education without doing violence tp the consciences of men of various forms of cveecli We all contribute in proportion tq qur respective numbers towarcjU the revenue; nothing can be fairer than that ip proportion to our respective numbers we should receive back that: portion of the revenue devoted to education. The responsibility \vi\\ then lie where it properly should j^e. The Church mil educate her children, the Wesleyans theirs, the Presbyterians theirs. What dp we mean by different religious denominations, if we do not mean different schools of education ? Or are they merely machines fov getting up pubjic worship on Sundays, and perhaps teaching creeds and doctrines on Saturdays?

We abstain purposely from entering at present into the details of either of the systems which Have been proposed. These are comparatively immaterial. But we are anxious to enter a protest, against an acknowledgement in this province of a belief in the so-called *V secular" education. Can we not for a moment isee without '? an eye to the, main chance," and dare to believe that the mere acquisition of knowledge is not education ? Of course we are now speaking of the education of the young, k fpr whom schools, are supported or assisted by the state. We profess to supply that which is absolutely needful. What is needful and what dp we supply ?