Dr WALLIS, H.M.R., on SECULAR EDUCATION.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 222, 19 September 1877, Page 4

Dr WALLIS, H.M.R., on SECULAR EDUCATION.

\JHansard No. 13.] There cannot possibly be a more intense form of seatarianiem than secularism. I will not cay taht a schoolmaster should be always telling a child about his moral nature and his soul; but the system should not imply that there is no moral nature in the child, and no soul. I would be the last person to suggest that the teacher should communicate theolpgical doctrines to his pupils, but the system on which he rests ought not to be a system which in its essence implies that there is no such thing as a God or a future state. Nothing could he more sectarian than tbat. lam aware that secularists do not like to be charged with sectarianism. Their plan has been this : They professed to be UDsec.ariau, and tried to fasten that unpopular epithet upon those who advocated the common style of education. The Churches having been from time immemorial the leaders and upholders of education, the secularists raised the cry that the education which the Churches directed was necessarily sectarian. Intensely sectarian themselves, they blinded the public mind to their own sectarianism by stigmatizing the common style of education as sectarian. But tbe trick is very stale. We all know that when we nre addicted to any vice we are apt to charge people around us with being addicted to that vice. I have known dishonest men maintain a character for honesty by charging their neighbours with being dishonest. And who are the loudest in denouncing denominational ism and sectarianism? Why, Sir, the worst of sectarians themselves. Secularists are nothing else thau a denomination. They are an unecclesiasticil ecclesiastical sect, an unreligious denomination. They have their creed, their platform, their principles. Aud what do their creed and their platform mean? Tbey say, "Educate your children ; teach them reading, writing, and arithmetic." So say I. " Teach them all the things that tend to their advancement and welfare in the present life." By all means teach them these things, Bay I. "Cultivate that part of their intellectual nature that will enable them to take their part in ell the affairs of the world." Do all that, say I; but is that all that is to be done? Is there nothing more? Nothing more of s positive kind, but a great deal more of a negative kind. I will show you Borne of the negative things implied in a Secular system. Secularism stands up and addresses its teachers in some such manner as this: " Gentlemen, in teaching all that we bave here pointed out, you must be careful not to teach children that there is a future state. Let your leaching silently imply the gigantic falsehood, that there is not a God above, or a heaven, or a hell. That is the teaching you must give them. If you dare name that Name which is above all other names, we will cast you out of our schools." Such is the secular system. That is their creed; these are their principles, positive and negative; these are the planks of their school-platform. Now, are we, the representatives of New Zealand, to try to impose upon the people a system so pernicious as that? We ought not. But suppose these clauses about the Bible and prayer are eliminated, and a system of an entirely secnlar kiud are introduced: even then, I say, a system of an entirely secular kiud cannot be carried out. The thing is impracticable, and I" will show you how it is impracticable. You may try to carry it out, but you will only outrage the best feelings of our colonists by attempting it. For instance, I suppose the time will never come when the Minister of Instruction or the Minister of Justice will be so atheistic that he will take all the school- books and erase the name of tbe Deity — the name of God — (rom them The books used in education are sure to contain that name. Its meanioi- must be explained to the children, ami .he moment the teacher oxpUins that name he passes out of the secular aphore into a religious sphere. Sir, is the name of God to be erasad from all school-book- ? I say you cannot possibly carry out an entirely s r *cular system. Or suppose she word •' immortality " occurs, will not. the teacher have to explain what immortality means*? That must, be txplainel to the child; but the moment you explain that won! you pass out of secularisim-into religion. And more tban that. You cannot eliminate from school-nooks dales — such dutes as the conquest of England, which took place in the year 1066, if ! remember rightly; or Waterloo, 1815; or the great Vogelian era 1870. when our pernicious system of borrowing on the gigantic scale began. They are all marked " A.D," and you hove to explain Ihat tbat means "Anno Domini'" — in the year after the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. And the child asks, " Who is Jesus Christ ? " Sir, I defy you to teach a child un.ler a secular system of education, without bringing religion into it. Aud then again, in all our schools we teach aueient mythology of one kind or another — Greek, Roman, or Scandinavian. You must mention their Gods; and that is religion surely. Again, you cannot uieution the days of the week without making reference to religious matters, For instance, this ia Friday — Friga-dayj the day before was Thor'sday; the day before Woden's day. These are all gods and if .the children are to be allowed to speak of Greek gods, Roman gods, Saxon gods, and Scandinavian gods, why should they

not be allowed to teach or to speak of the true God, the Father of us all ? Perhaps, after all, the Secularists wiil say, " Ob, but no one but a theological hair-splitter would ever think of making such objections as these!" but what does all this mean ? You do not mean to exclude the names of the mythological deities, or of the other things I made allusion to ? No, sir. Then what will be the result ? You admit everything that is false in religion, and exclude what is true. This is the system of the secularists, who, like the hou. member for Geraldine, super at the intuitive conviction of a higher power, and the indestructible hope of a future life. They tell us that they do not exclude any true religion, because, in tbeir opinion, there is no true religiou. I differ entirely from them, I bave spent the greater part of my life in the study of religious subjects, and one thing I will say, that I have never discovered one false religion. There is not such a thing. They are all true, aud Christianity is the truest. But that is away from the point. What I was saying was that the plan of the seculurists is to admit everything that is false in religion, and only that is to be excluded which is in the nature of true religion. Secularism, as it were, stands as porter at the door of the school, opening it to what are called false religions, and shutting it against the true or truest religion. I wili picture a State school after the' pattern drawn by the honorable member for Geraldine, whose interesting remarks I listened to to-night. Well, Secularism stands at the door, ond certain people wish to enter. The first person who comes is the old Scandinavian god, Woden, who carries the skull of a slain enemy in his haud, filled with foaming mead. He says to Secularism, " Can I be admitted to your schools to tell your children my stories ? " " Oh, yes," says Secularism, "yon old bloody murderer, you may come in and tell your stories." Then comes the Roman he-god Mars, with the Roman she-pod Venus on his arm. They knock at the door aud ask Secularism it they may be allowed to go in and tell the story of their amours. "Oh, yes, pass in; you will be allowed to tell your story." Next approach a strange looking couple, oriental iv their gait and dress. I know them by what I have read in tha Koran. It is a turbaoed and sworded warrior, with his arm round the waist of a durk-eyed houri, and hia ringers tickling her heavenly ribs. I know them to be Mahomet, and one of the fairest of thos9 celestial nymphs called houris. They ask if they may be admitted. " Oh, yes," says Secularism; and they go in and talk to the children about the bliss and joys of the Moslem Paradise. And next approaches a very different kind of suppliant for admission into the school, oue who looks mora beauiiful and more sacred than the others. It is Christianity. Grace is in all her steps, heaven in her eye, in every gesture dignity and love." Holding the Bible io her haDd she goes up to Secularism, the porter, aud ask 3 if she m.'_y enter und tell the scholars the story of Him who said " Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid ihem nor." Aud the porter SeeuLnsui replies, " No; I will send the police to you. You shall not enter my school" Aud now, sir, I object, on the foregoing grounds, to the elimiuation of the clause about the Bible and the Lord's Prayer. I find from the speeches of honorable gentlemen who bave preceded me that they have objected particularly to the readiug of the Biblo and to the introduction of the Lord's Prayer into the schools. The honorable member for Franklin hns said th.-it the amount of religious instruction proposed to be given was so iusignificaut that it was not worth giving at all. Well, Sir, if I were to j>o to him and Buy, "Give us a great deal more religious instruction," he would Huy, "Oh, ihat is too much." And ii I asked him to give U 3 iln sm-illest hoincopatbic dose, he would say, " Oh, (hat i& too little." Now, th»t is just like what sn Irishraau once said to mo. He was sick, and ho called upon me for advice. I prescribed for him; and, as ho *.v.s Irnvit.-.' the room, I suid, " You huve for«soiton the fee; give me a guinea." "Oh," said he, " I'm a poor man, ttiul can't nff-ird a yuiuea." I said, "Vary well; if that's too u.uidi, I'll make it half-a-crowr." Then he. said, " Uh. a "tsntlemnn like you, wiih a tdack coat on his back, would not tiiko so li i tie na half-a-srowu." The result was that I got neither the guinea nor the hall-ciown. That ia pomething like the present case. * * I cannot see any renson for excluding the Bible Irom the schools, uor iio I see any reason why the Lord's Prayer should uot be read in our schools. I*. the Lord's Prayer sectarian in its character ? Protestants aud Romun Cui.holics both use it,' .-md before it was a Chris i.n prayer it was a Jewish prayer. It \ha most suit-ible f onn ol prayer that could be used in the schools ; aud why then, shonld we not use ii? Do wa not use « form of prayer every day we meet, here? Here we are, youug, mid ;le-3ged, and the old mon, and we feel thm wo need to offer up a prayer for guidance in our deliberations but yet we refuse tho little children a gracious privilege that we ourselves require, It would be most wicked on our part to deny n child the privilege of beginning the clay with prayer — the privilege which we ourselves require and have. I shall not go aoy further into the questiou ut present, but I will conclude with eayiug that if we would avoid the narrowest and worst kind of eeotar-

iacism — the sectarianism of negative religion—we must retainin the Bill the 3rd subsection of the 85th section. Ido not ask that theology — I do not ask that the Christian religion, with its peculiar doctrines, should be formally taught in our State schools ; but I do ask that there shall be a recognition, aod not a denial, of Deity and immortality; for that educational system is essentially infidel and atheistic which does not recognise or imply that man has a moral nature, and that there ia a God who hears prayer, and that there is a future state of existence after life's fitful fever.