THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 2504, 28 July 1888, Page 3

THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

TO THK KDITOR Stß,—Some great writer has defined man ns a religious animal, and certainly it is one of the strong tendencies of his nature to acknowledge his dependence upon some higher power. We learn that this tendency was manifested in the earliest ages of the world, without going to tho sacred writings, for we find it evidenced in mined temples, mouldering altars, and rudely sculptured stones. And this tendency is not only antique but it is universal, for under whatever sky man may have reared his tent, there ho has bent before the shrinw of some Supreme Being whom he has worshipped God. These acts of devotion he has felt to hv. solemnly obligatory upon him, wliilo they have developed his higher nature and ministered to his internal peace. But his<rtteligion has not stopped here, it has taken cognizance of the social relationship enjoined upon him, the performance of certain duties and the pursuit of a given line of conduct. These may have been vaious, sometimes opposing, but in Christianity holiness has become incarnate in the most perfect form and righteousness enforced by the weightiest and most solemn considerations. No wonder then that the importance of religions instruction to a community should always be recognised, and that our rulers should always feel it to be their duty to encourage it as well as to foster in the minds of children that reverenoe for sacred things which is the inherent birthright of Christianity. But while giving their countenance to the Church to foster the teachings of Christianity, they have no right to make the secular system of education subservient to the teachings cf the Church unless, like the British constitution, we possess an established Church. But as New Zealand is most essentially a Democratic State, nnt recognising any form of religion as the State Church, the duty of the Government to provide for the religious wants of thn people is in no way recognised by the Parliament of this country. Again we must bear in mind that of all the multitudinous sects or cieeda which comprise the pupils of onr public schools, not one but would have some objection or other to the Bible being made a class book of, for it ia quite evident that only one branch of the Bible would suit the majority of pupils while the rest would altogether be excluded from participating in the benefits even of secular instruction. Then the question to be asked is ■who is to teach or read the Bible in the schools ? Not the teachers of our secular schools, for they arc not under any obligation to Church or State, that they should be forced to teach what of right belongs to the Church. Not the ministers of the Gospel, for the Government has given every facility to them to give that instruction in the doctrines of their various creeds, which is as much as they can expect. But far from availing themselves of that opportunity they asserted that the paucity of attendance did not warrant them losing their time unless the Bible in schools was made compulsory. Just so, and once get the Bible in schools then good-bye to our free system of education. It stands to reason that if the Government gives their sanction for the Bible to be read in the schools they must also appoint teachers to instruct the pupils in the word of God, and this will entail additional expense, and this, too, when the Government are retrenching in every department. For few of the teachers in our public schools are qualified to teach theology. It would therefore be the duty of tho ministers of tho gospel to teach the pupils of their respective creeds the Bible according to the laws of their own Church, or else find a substitute equally qualified to do the same ; but the consequence to the Government would be equally disastrous as their retrenching propensities in the way of education would be put a stop to by the grasping cupidity of the Church. Next we must allow some indulgence to those who are altogether opposed to the Bible and its teachings, for it cannot be denied that there are a great many pupils attending the schools whoso parents are agnostics, freethinkers, or infidels, aud who are therefore on conscientious grounds as much opposed to the Bible as they are to religious worship of any form. In fact to enable the Bible to be made a class book of, all tho pupils would have to believe alike and interpret alike, while the fact is so apparent, that of all the different number of sects atteuding the public schools, no two sects believe or interpret the Bible alike. Oh ! but we are told the only way to meet the difficulty is by reading portions of Scripture without note or comment, and this would not violate the conscience of any of our fellow citizens. This is altogether an absurd argument for the friends of the Scripture Gift Association to resort to in order to make a profit from the Government. They altogether ignore the clpims of others as well as Scripture itself for you might just as well read Homer's Iliad without note or comment as to leave Scripture without its proper interpretation. Besides the Bible was never meant to be used as a class-book for the fancy or to be submitted to the gross vagaries and monstrous imaginations of every blundering and ignorant blockhead. In fact take the matter in all its bearings, the Bible ia not at all suitable for any system of secular education. We should therefore strenuously exert ourselves to oppose any such glaring innovation, as it is simply an attempt to once more resort to the denominational system. It is utterly absurd to place the Bible in the hands of anyone totally incapable of interpreting it. But when the Bible is placed in the hands of the children attending our public schools without note or comment, it goes beyond the bounds rj absurdity, for it becomes absolutely dangerous, inasmuch as it fosters in the mind of the child an utter disregard for the truths which the Bible, when properly interpreted, alone can give. But our Christian friends of the Scripture Gift Association don't think of these things. They propose to get the sum of £1 per head annually from the Government and place in its stead a Bible without note' or comment, leaving to the pupils themselves the task of interpreting Scripture as they like. In fact their language when interpreted simply amounts to this. Mγ dear and Christian friends, our beneficial Government have allotted to our Association the task of supplying you with that religious instruction which former Governments have neglected to give. We therefore gladly comply with that request, and as an earnest endeavour to instil the principles of religion into your minds. Wo herewith present each pupil with a copy of the sacied book, assuring you, my dear Christian friends and pupils, that by using your own private judgment in interpreting the Bible you cannot go wrong even if by so doing you may happen to enlicit a new religion, for it is enjoined in Scripture that " from a child tbou hast known the Scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation." Such is the language used by some when /endeavouring to obtain access for the Bible to be read in our public schools. There is not a single text in Scripture to give any warrant for anyone to use his own private judgment in interpreting the Bible. But there is good Scriptural warrant to show that to the priests and ministers of the Gospel the teachings of Scripturo and its interpretations are to be left as they are properly qualified by education to be the expounders of the written Word of God. Just look at ths different number of sects which the private judgment of individuals has elicited from their own interpretation of the Bible and ask ourselves, does the Bible support the contentions of all the sects to claim it as their own, either eingly or collectively? Certainly not. And yet it is proposed by a few inconsistent friends of religion to allow the Bible into the schools to be made a mockery and a byeword for the pra of unthinkiog infidels. But all

elaborate and sustained attacks on the Bible fail because they show its inherent strength, acl leave tiie fortress of truth unaffected. It would be strange indeed if some of these attacks did not contain sound reasoning. It is the sound reasoning which does harm, and shows how good tools may be misused. Of course, many onslaughts on the sacred Scriptures are clever, but they fail in spite of their ability, because they are misconceived and'misapplied, because their own private judgment elicited these onslaughts. Men heap straw and stubble on the foundations of Truth, and when these burn they cry out that the whole structure is in danger. So it it is with our brethren of the Biblein -Schools system, because the vast majority are opposed to the grasping power which the Church is once more endeavouring to exercise over our present educational system. They accuse one section of the community of having excluded the Bible from the schools, while the other section is taunted with trafficing with the enemies of the Bible in order to maintain their ascendency over our present free system of education. My contention is that the Legislature of New Zealand has no right to assist any denomination in its religious instruction. Nor has it any right to force the Bible into the hands of children whose parents may be altogether opposed to its truths, because, being a Democratic State, our Legislature has no right to give prominence to one religion any more than another, and by placing the Bible in our public schools it is simply favouring the pretentions of a dominant religion on the same basis as the British constitution.— lam, &c, McGILLIPrIABRIR.