SECULAR V. DENOMINATIONAL EDUCATION.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 246, 23 July 1872, Page 3

SECULAR V. DENOMINATIONAL EDUCATION.

To the Editor o£ the Thames Gcardiax. Sir, —Mr McTllione in supporting his motion in favour of denominational education, stated that it meant that the heads of churches or pastors should have the opportunity of seeing the religious training. Well, sir, under any circumstances, Roman Catholics would have their schools, which usually are supervised by their priests and bishops, but what guarantee will there be that the children are properly educated under such supervision ? It is a well-known fact that ail clergy do not possess every qualification which would lie required from supervisors of schools supported mainly by Government. Again, some modern clergy hold very lax ideas of what they consider innocent amusement. For instance, I will quote what the Right Rev. Dr Goss, Roman Catholic Bishop of Liverpool, said, when addressing some young men and women at a confirmation service, as follows : “ The working man works six days a week, and lie must have some enjoyment on Sunday, and ought to make himself merrv one day in the week, as, do what lie will, at tile end of the year lie finds it hard to make ends meet. A working man on Sundays should have some enjoyment. Me did not mean the enjoyment of the pothouse, where there would be cursing, swearing, lighting, and quarrelling, ending with being brought up on Monday before the magistrates and lined five shillings and costs —that being 1 lie fine they paid for their folly. He would like to see football and other games resorted to on and lie questioned whether there was any law in this countiy against it. He defied any man fo keep the day in 1 gloom and sadness,’ and often those who professed to -ead the Bible, lay in their bed or got drunk in their own houses, and although not allowed to play at cricket, they found some way of recreating themselves. It was better for a man to have a g une at football, and have a glass of beer at the end with his family, than to get it at a public-house where it has been drugged. The law of the church prescribed the way of keeping it. It requires us to bear mass, and after hearing mass to sanctify the .day in some way, oitlim by attending afternoon service, learning the catechism, or by reading some good book at home; but to hear mass only was not keeping tt’.e Sunday. Lie was in favour of music and other recreations on Sunday, so that it would be kept by the working men in this country in the way it had been kept by their ancestors.” Now, sir, what guarantee have we how our youth shall be educated when we hear such views as above enunciated by one of the heads of the Roman Catholic Church, respecting the Christian Sabbath—they profess to teach tke same now as they did centuries ago. llie question arises, will Roman Catiiolic teachings agree with Protestant on this p iot?

No sir! ‘* Deiioininatiomilisin is a inir-fjo-c.” We believe it to be the luty of Government- to leach pure morality in a common school. But because we believo this are wo to he stigmatised as supporting Dem minationalism ? No, sir, let the Government build schools, supply books and teachers who will fulfil their duties without interfering with any of the disputed points among Christians; then we may expect to sec onr youth educated in a manner unbiassed with the prejudices and intimidations of any sect, creed, or ism, so that our youth may choose for themselves conscientiously how Limy will worship their Creator. After all this Debating whether the Church or State 51i3.1l control this grave question, which seems to raise such scrupulous objections, I ask, Who are the Government, that we are so mistrustful ? The literature and the Press point us constantly to the fact that our constitution is so framed that \vc really govern ourselves : then, why are we so exceedingly dubious as to whether our representatives in power will do us justice? If we put Mormons or Turks in power (as some of the speakers at the late meeting referred to) we must put up with the consequence!. 1 quiLe agree with some of the speakers that the Government should not take upon themselves the responsibility of teaching religion (as commonly understood,) but there is a wide difference between teaching what is demanded by the Government from its subjects, viz., morality, and religion as taught by the different sects aud creeds set up in our midst. 1 ask, is it because we differ so in opinion concerning certain theological points respecting how we worship God that we will entirely deprive our youth of the Bible in our schools ? or, are we afraid our own particular way of thinning will be but sparely propagated ? If so, surely we, in this nineteenth century, are retrogarding. For many centuries England lias llourished ; we are a branch of that nation, and re-echo that answer which Queen Victoria gave to the Indian, when asked the cause of England’s greatness, referred him to the Bible. I ask what just cause is there for taking it from the day-school? True, there arc mauy offered ; but, sii, first make it plain that the Bible has done I 1() good —show where it has caused evil in our schools —before entirely refusing it to be tin.re any longer. Who are the agitators asking for the Bilde to be withdrawn from our schools? What historical book will they put in its place? Where have we a book to supply the place of the Bible? Certainly you may point to this or that historian, but bow long will it be before we bear of complaints from some “ Church Head,” complaining that the lustorv in use was especially antagonistic to bis church ? To my mind, sir, the tiling seems absurd, after centuries of national prosperity —producing innumerable blessings that we should snatch from our youth that which has been onr guide, and source of our nation’s prosperity. Surely, sir, before the inhabitants ut tne Thames send forth a petition they will consider this one grave question more liberal than, the decision come to ufthe late meeti y' though no sympathiser with Deiiot' lioualism.—l am, &c.,