BISHOP HADFIELD ON RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIII, Issue 215, 19 October 1878, Page 5

BISHOP HADFIELD ON RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.

The following is an extract from the Bishop of "Wellington's address at the opening of the Synod of that diocese : — I last year expressed an opinion to the effect that a system of public education which not only absolutely excluded all religious teaching, but even all recognition of religion, was one with which it was impossible the Church could remain satisfied. Since then I have had reasons to believe that my opinions are shared by many persons throughout the country. As I then mentioned, the operation of the law in reference to Koman Catholics — who conscientiously decline to send their children to the public schools — is a palpable infliction of injustice. But there are many others who, though their objections are not so absolutely insuperable as those of the Reman Catholics, nevertheless regard the system as essentially unjust. There are, I believe, persons who profess themselves wholly unable to understand wherein the injustice consists. They allege that the education afforded is what they call secular knowledge ; that this is avowedly desired by all, and that they leave religion to be taught elsewhere, as parents may desire. The answer to this is — that the two cannot be separated in the education of children without serious moral injury to them j that when their attention has been occupied with secular matters exclusively for five hours a day during five days in tbe week, no time is left for religious teaching, even if children could be got together for the purpose of affording it to them. But there ia another aspect of (hie subject, which no wise statesman ought to overlook. Public education, carried on at a very heavy expense to the community, ought at least to be effective. It ought therefore to be made compulsory; but how is a Government in these dsys, when religious toleration has become, as it were, a household word among us Englishmen — to oompel the attendance of children at schools to which their parentß, on religious grounds, conscientiously object ? The right to object on such grounds is admitted. No Government would venture to ignore if. Tossy that none butßoman Catholics .object would be an unwarrantable assumption. At present, indeed, tbe schools may not appear objectionable. But no one can pretend to foresee what the character of schoolmasters under such a system may become in tbe course of a few years. Those who have given the subject long and [patient consideration can at least foresee that a system of education which ia essentially defective and faulty must eventually bear pernicious fruit. History must have been studied to no purpose by those who entertain any doubt as to the disastrous results to society consequent on such a system. There ia so intermediate position between religious education and irreligious eduoation. Until public opinion is more enlightened on this momentous subject, we must avail ourselves of what' ever opportunities are afforded for religious instruction. I would urge that increased efforts should be made to establish and improve Sunday-schools. The importance and value of these under present circumstances can hardly be overrated. Tbe clergy would act wisely in enlisting, as much as possible, tbe zeal and energy oi tbe laity in support of these. lam aware that it is impossible for tbe clergy, especially in the country districts, to do much in Sunday-schools. No more legitimate sphere of useful work is open to the laity of both gegeg than efficient teaching on their part in these. I would advise that some of ihe younger Sunday • school teachers should be encouraged to read ior the inferior grades of the thet logical examination. Such a course of readiog would be highly beneficial in fitting them for tteir important work.