Religious Education.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 257, 30 October 1877, Page 5

Religious Education.

if it results in the Church awakening to its duties to the little ones of its own fold.

All honor to those who have already devoted their time and efforts to the work of Sunday School teaching when it has been, as it will not. henceforth be, a matter of small interest to the Church collectively, however much it may have been fostered by the individual Clergyman.

We do, however, fear for the rising generation unless some special machinery be put in motion for the regular and systematic instruction of children such as attend our Government day schools in the duties and history of religion. The country would, if it were appealed to on that point, I am confident, return but one answer — ' We wish the children to read the Bible, and to be taught in it all that is necessary to understand the plain sense thereof.' England was canvassed and it has given its voice very decisively in favor of religious teaching in national schools. If the Bill now before the Upper House becomes law, it will be our duty loyally to carry it out when it is law, and to labor to supply its deficiencies, but this will entail new labor, and somewhat heavy labor on the clergy. No objection can now be made to any number of competing schools. If the Government will not supply schools to give the whole of education, it must not be thought unnecessary opposition or hostility to try and occupy the ground even where Government schools are already erected. At the same time the Christian education of the child is the primary duty of the parent. Government might have contented itself with saying, We will subsidise all schools which reach a certain standard of intellectual efficiency, but we will not take upon ourselves to pronouuce that a perfect education which two-thirds of the people at the very least have pronounced imperfect. I have not seen any valid argument against the plan of leaving the matter in the hands of the Local Committees. It will be a sore injustice to take away from some of our schools the blessings they now enjoy in good teachers reading and explaining the Bible. The arbitrary proscription of what is deemed esseutial is just as unjusfc as the arbitrary imposition of what is nonessential. The present duty is, first, the recognition by the Church of the duty of religious education. This stands out, thanks to this Bill, clearer than ever it has done. The duty of the Parent, the Sponsor, the Clergyman, the Master or Employer, stands out in bold relief to take care that the young be taught so soon as they shall be able to learn the rudiments of their faith. Parents may be henceforth reasonably expected to make special arrangements for their children's religious education both on the weekday and on the Sunday. The men of our congregations — both young men and men of maturer age, men of culture and intellect — will not be ashamed to be engaged in a work which has been almost hitherto treated with contempt. Buildings will have to be erected, libraries founded, teachers trained, model classes exhibited — all this must be done, otherwise the result will be that the greater number of parents being either occupied, or weak, or ignorant, or venturesome, the children in our Government schools will grow up ignorant of their Heavenly Father and of the revelation made by Him in the person and work of Christ, and destitute of the moral principles which even the most limited study of the Scriptures leads the mind to adopt. Even this offence may be overruled for good,