MR, TRAVERS ON EDUCATION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4595, 11 December 1875, Page 3

MR, TRAVERS ON EDUCATION.

TO THIS EDITOR OP THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, —More letters on the important subject of education. I propose to make a few remarks which will apply to that portion of the speech of Mr. Travers on education, and to that letter signed “E. T,” as published in this day’s issue. First. Mr. Travers comes forward as a disciple, leaning on the •authority of Professor Huxley, whom he quotes with delight. So much worse for the opinion he advocates, for in the sacred cause of education words of unbelievers or free thinkers are of very little weight. Mr. Travers says vaguely “It is the duty of the State to provide for the general education of the people.” Then more pointedly, “ It is their duty to lay tlie foundation upon which all the children of the State may ultimately build up the superstructure of extended knowledge.” Therefore, the State must be a teacher. Religion must be excluded from the programme of instruction that is to bo delivered by the State. Strange assertion ! Religion, the most important groundwork, is rejected from the foundations that will bo laid by the builder State. Under the management of the State religion, the paramount knowledge will bo no i>art of the extended knowledge, which, ultimately, will be added by Government as the great superstructure. Well, Mr. Travers will pardon me if I run counter to his favorite assertion, if I tell him that the State has no right to become a teacher. They can, and they must encourage, and, in a certain manner, provide for the teaching of the people. That is their sole mission. Otherwise it would be usurpation and detestable monopoly on their part. Who has right to teacb? It must create no surprise if I say that the Church has a right to teach religious doctrine and morals, and that she cannot be forbidden to teach the rest, that has for its immediate object the temporal welfare of the people. The Church has made its proof. She has tamed barbarians, and among them the Saxons themselves. She has rescued ancient literature and science from destruction ; she has founded universities, that have cast upon all branches of knowledge an undying lustre. Her ancient poor monks were the greatest engineers. She has replaced society on its proper foundation—the basis of the pyramid downward, and the point upwards. And now, forsooth, that Church is told by the destroyers of the old social fabric and the builder of the Babylonian tower, that her services are no longer wanted; that now-a-days they are not admissablo. But I perceive that our modern sages will not. assent to what I ftflirm. Well, then, suppose the Church would have not the right of teaching, should that function devolve on the State? By no moans. Children belong not to the State, but to parents. That is grounded on natural law, to which we must conform, if we wish to distinguish ourselves from Heathens, who assumed that children were the property of the commonwealth. I repeat it, parents are the natural teachers of their offsprings, and. in choice of teachers and things to bo taught they must be guided by divine law, • to which, in virtue of cnptlsm, they have submitted. Certainly, in countries which have deviated from Christianity, and whore the nation is Church of England, Presbyterian, Methodist, or Quaker, it is dlllicult for Government to meddle with religion, and it is absurd to connect Church and State. But where there is still unity of belief, and the ancient faith prevails, would it bo tolerable to attempt at separating State from religion, which should remain united for both the temporal and spiritual good of society? would it be advisable to convert into a principle the fact of a divorce, which ia only a dire necessity of times and a consequence of religious divisions, unknown before the sixteenth century ? In regard to education, so intimately connected with religion, why should the State usurp the right of Church and parents, sweep away all denominational schools, and establish the monopoly of exclusively secular instruction? In great centres of population there is nothing more easy than to maintain religious schools. Give freedom—encourage and subsidise all schools attaining a certain standard as to number of children and their progress in secular knowledge. In country districts, thinly populated, I confess the cose is quite different. There, for a good while at least, schools must remain mixed schools, in consequence of the great difference of religious persuasions. I would deprecate strongly what is proposed by your correspondent “E.T.” to leave to local committees to decide w’hothor religion, and what religion, should bo taught In those district schools; for, indeed, Catholics being in feeble minorities would have no chance to see their tenets respected.

Let the committee have solely the temporal manage ment of the schools, whilst the Legislature of the colony will protect the religion of parents and children. The Catholics form a minority. That should command a great sympathy, as they clung faithfully to the ancestral faith of England, and are a noble remnant of a long persecuted race. _ Mr. Travers would recommend the lecture of the Bible in schools, and yet he is a secularist. Pray, suppose it would not be objectionable to make the Bible a school-book, what version of the Holy Writs would be put in the hands of the children? The Douay Bible? Certainly not. Then, the school Bible must be the Protestant version, in the preface of which we see described Queen Elizabeth as the “ bright occidental star ” that had just set, and her successor, James 1., the “sun in its full strength.” How could Catholics submit to reading or hearing a Bible condemned by their church as mutilated, perfidiously translated, and most arbitrarily interpreted ? Besides, did Mr. Travers consider that our community, being composed partly of sects which reject Christianity, reject also the Now Testament. Mr, Travers seems to adopt the views of Professor Huxley, that the Scriptures should be perused without comment, without any guide whatsoever, in order to receive pure instruction and unalloyed impressions, I ask him, did he, or could he learn the English law by merely perusing it himself alone ? Is the English law all reduced in a written code? Well, if he could not presume to sutiice to himself in that study, how could he flatter himself with the idea of being able to master the Divine code and revelation, without comments, without instruction, without tradition of any kind? Ah! the venerable patriarch Jacob finds no advocate in Professor Huxley and Mr. Travers. Permit me to advise them not to speak in such flippant manner of what St. Augustine explained with care, reverence, and dread. He, a holy doctor of the Church, know he was treading on sacred ground. The profane act in a far different manner, to their confusion and discredit. Those who pity and praise Esau at the expense of Jacob, are too apt, I fear, to imitate the former, by renouncing their Christian birthright and its eternal blessings, since already in this world they sacrifice religion on the altar of secularism. Take ray last word, secularism, pure secularism in education, is practically impossible, Books cannot be totally secular. Beligion is constantly mixed with history : from the study of nature, from literature, and fine arts, religion is Inseparable. Where to find also matters purely secular ? they will bo either hostile to religion, or they will be members of Church or sect. Therefore they will feel, speak, and act accordingly. The Education Board, for instance, are very careful, I suppose, to select elementary books for their schools. Well, take all the histories of England that are put in the hands of the children in their schools, I am persuaded that not one of them is tree from some gross insult or misstatement against Catholics.—l am. So., A Christian.