New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5050, 31 May 1877, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1877.

The Presbyterian Synod of Canterbury have had a deliverance on education. At a recent meeting of that body a resolution was passed strongly approving of religious instruction in State schools. This resolution was supported by a series of propositions, which would be sufficient to convince tho most hardened secularist in the world. The only hitch in the matter was that the so-called facts which were advanced in support of these propositions were not true. They were of the usual dogmatic style, peculiar to such productions, and which emanate from such bodies, which give forth their utterances after the manner of an Imperial ukase or an utterance from the Vatican. The propositions referred to contain nothing new. They are of a piece with all previous deliverances of the kind, and are merely a repetition of the wornout and threadbare arguments which form the stock-in-trade of tho ultra-reli-gionists and the advocates of religious instruction in public schools. Not a single argument they advanced but has been successfully refuted a thousand times over, and the facts and conditions which they assumed, and upon which they relied, have been abundantly disproved by the logic of experience. When they put forward the assumption that tho necessity of religious instruction in public schools is a foregone conclusion, that its exclusion from the schools will produce a godless generation, they are but repeating old wives’ fables, and assuming to bo true what experience has over and over again disproved. When they affirm that religious instruction is a distinguishing feature of the American school system, they only demonstrate their utter ignorance of the system of popular instruction which obtains in that country. The fact is that to this day America possesses no national system of popular instruction properly so called. The schemes of public education in the United States are as numerous and diverse as the States which form the Union ; and the Federal Government is cither unable or unwilling to exercise any control over them. Each State or locality is left, to a large extent, to do or not to do in the matter of public instruction as seemeth it best; and, to say the least, the results of school work, taken as a whole, in that country are of a questionable if not of a negative character. That there are many schools of a high order in America none will bo prepared to deny ; but that these represent even the major part of public schools in America even the Americans themselves do not admit. Not long since we were confronted with the assertion that “tho public school system in America is amenable for tho almost universal godlessness which characterises the people, in that religious instruction is excluded.” We do not admit that our American cousins are loss godfearing than other nations. But this assertion was made with unblushing effrontery, and the cause of it laid to the charge of public instruction. Now, we are told in effect by this reverend and learned body that our dear cousins are all saints, that tho country is a Utopia, a Paradise, and that the cause of this millennial state of things is attributable to the fact that religious instruction is insisted on in the public schools. Surely both those assertions cannot be true. Wo are inclined to think that neither the one nor the other of these would-be wise informants knows anything whatever of tho state of public instruction in America. We were astounded tho other day, in reading our files of tho Canterbury papers, at the intelligence which came to hand of tho further development of the complaint which has attacked the Presbyterian Synod., We learn that schoolmasters and local bodies have also succumbed to its influence. At a meeting of teachers, ministers, and members of local bodies held in Christchurch on the 12th inst., a resolution was passed affirming the desirability of religious instruction in our State schools, or of “Scriptural instruction.” Wo must admit that we are at a loss to understand the difference between the “religious” and “Scriptural.” Tho meeting, it appears, refused to affirm the necessity for religious instruction, while it insisted on the necessity for “ Scriptural” instruction. Seeing that the Bible is the recognised authority on matters of, religious belief, it occurs to us that to teach tho one is to teach tho other. And herein the meeting showed either their want of candor, by wishing to carry the principle of religious instruction in schools under a feigned and less objectionable name, or they showed their inability to grasp the subject with which they proposed to deal. But, to speak in all seriousness, it really is passing strange that a meeting composed principally of public teachers should have tolerated such a resolution, much less have passed it. When tho general conference of teachers was hold in Christchurch, about a year and a-half ago, at which, we believe, there were representatives from Wellington, Auckland, and other provinces, an association of teachers was

formed, which was intended to bo represented by branches in various parts of the colony. Since that time various branches have been formed in connection with the confederated association. The fundamental principle upon which these associations have been founded is that education should be “ free, compulsory, and secular.” But the Canterbury Association, of their own accord, and without consulting the other confederated associations, call a meeting, which they honor with the name of “conference,” although not a single representative from any other association was present, nor had the opportunity of being present, nor any teacher, as far as wo can learn, outside of Canterbury; and yet they take upon themselves to subvert a vital principle of the united associations. That the selfconstituted conference (so called) was a mistake is clear in more ways than one. It was a mistake to invito ministers of religion and members of local committees, as it tended to hinder free discussion. Can it be possible that the whole thing was a got-up affair for the purpose of carrying what was with them a foregone conclusion ? Certainly, looking at the surface of things, it has very much the appearance of something of that kind. We cannot say; but we very much regret the action the Canterbury teachers have taken. That they have seriously stultified themselves there is no doubt, and that it will be productive of disunion among the teachers of the colony (many of whom hold very strong views on the subject of a purely secular instruction) we are quite prepared to hear. As an evidence of public opinion outside of that immediate locality it is of no value whatever, even in that particular district it may he regarded as questionable. The meeting was called by circular, and it would be quite possible by such means to pack a meeting of sympathisers. The teachers were anxious to get certain resolutions passed affecting their own interests, and the advocates of religious instruction were willing to agree to that which would cost them nothing, provided they, got their own pet theory advanced a step. It such be the case, and we strongly suspect it is, then these parties have united to manufacture a “rope of sand,” and their utterances will provoke ridicule and expose the authors to contempt. We have all along advocated the principle of secular instruction, not because wo are the opponents of religion, but because we hold that the State has no right to teach religion; also because the appliances at command of the various denominations are sufficient for the religious instruction of the people. And further, because society is composed of men of all shades of religious opinion, so opposed to each other in many cases as to render it impossible to devise a scheme of religious instruction that would meet with the approbation of all. Lastly, we contend that a purely secular system of instruction has not an immoral or irreligious tendency.