THE EDUCATION BILL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5137, 10 September 1877, Page 3

THE EDUCATION BILL.

TO THE EDITOR OE THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sib, —May I trespass a second time on your very valuable space to notice the remarks of one of the critics who have replied to my recent letter on the Education Bill now before the House ? In your Monday’s issue “ A Christian” says: “It has often been contended by those who advocate the opening of schools with prayer and the reading of a portion of the Bible, that for the State to prohibit these is to endow the secularist sect at the expense of the rest of the community.” And again; “The implied claim that this is the religious sect that ought to be endowed by the State.” And lastly: “ Christians will object to have their children taught to believe the soul degrading superstition of the great scientific church of the Pantheists.” For myself I do not belong to any sect, secularist or otherwise, nor am- I Pantheist. But passing that by, I may remark that nowhere in my letter have I asked that the secularists or any other sects should be endowed by the State, and “ A Christian” knew perfectly well when he penned those lines that the nonChristiau party iu the country have not the slightest wish that their neighbors should be taught iu the national schools. On the contrary, their wish is that theological subjects should not be referred to at all during school hours. “ A Christian” was quite aware of this, and it is difficult, iu view of what he has written, to acquit him of the charge of wilful misrepresentation. As to the extraordinary argument that to forbid the leading of the Bible iu schools is to endow the non-Christian party iu the State, surely “A Christian” must have great faith in the stupidity and credulity of the public to suppose that any one will :be influenced by such a transparent fallacy as that.. All will be endowed who engage to abstain during school hours from any reference to theology. Does “ A Christian ” mean to affirm that all who accept these terms will thereby become secularists and members of a (supposed) secularist sect ? Only on this supposition can his words have any meaning. Yet the writer of those words kuovva very well that a large proportion—probably the great majority—of the inhabitants of these islands, who are certainly not secularists in any lawful acceptation of the term, would welcome this nontheological system of national education. Further, there are no more thorough-going Bible worshippers than the great Npnconformist body in England ; they beat the Churchmen hollow in their blind idolatry of this book; for the latter have some good critical scholars amongst them, and all the traditions of a learned Chproh. Yet ever since the passing of Mr. Education Bill, the Nonconformists of England have been agitating most enthusiastically for a thoroughly secular system of education, which shall exclude Bible-reading and every theological element whatever, in the national schools, and do not intend to cease agitating till they get it. Now, I will ask “ A Christian,” will he dare to call these men secularists ? aud will they, when they have got their way and are receiving the Government grant for their teachers —will they be an endowed secularist sect ? I challenge “ A Christian” to reply to that question. The fact is, that whilst parading his logical acumen, he has fallen into one of the most common of logical errors —he has used a phrase ambiguously. The term secularist was originally applied to a small body of men holding extreme negative views on theological subjects, and organised for the propagation of these opinions. As their views have reference to theology, “ A Christian” may perhaps be justified in applying to them the term “ secularist sect,” and they may be reckoned amongst the religious denominations of the country. But since the subject of national education has been under discussion at Home, the nation has divided itself into two great parties, those who wish to combine theological instructions with secular teaching in the national schools, and those who think that the theological instruction should be confined to the home, the Sunday-school, and the pulpit. The latter party bids fair to vanquish its opponents,, and includes amongst it men of all religious denominations, and some of the most distinguished and pious ministers amongst them—men moreover who look with horror and dread upon the theological opinions of the so-called secularist sect. In looking at the nation from the standpoint of education, this latter great army of educationalists are often spoken of as the secular party. “A Christian,” then, has taken advantage of this double meaning of the term secularists, and has chosen to identify the secular party in education, in spite of the vast array of orthodox theologians found in it, with the so-oalled secularist sect, with it has no connection whatever ; and he asserts that for the nation to adopt the principles of the one is to endow the other ; aud this he has done, in the interests of religion and Christianity, in order to throw odium on the party to which he is opposed. I would commend to his attention the following Caucasian proverb;—“One word with two meanings is the traitor’s shield aud shaft; and a elit tongue bo his blazon.”. There is very much more I would like to add on the general question, but I will forego it that I may not forfeit all right to have this reply inserted.—l am, &0., Wairarapa.