THE CLERGY AND THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XX, Issue 1166, 5 December 1863, Page 5

THE CLERGY AND THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LYTTELTON TIMES. Sik, —When the Education Commission was first proposed, I published, by your favour, my thoughts on the subject. Since then I have held my peace, though at times (on the publication of the Interim Report, for instance), with some difficulty. At last the Commissioners have finished their work, and have been metamorphosed into members of the Education Board. My mouth is therefore again opened, and I hope from time to time to be allowed space in your columns for some criticisms on their report and some remarks on their doings as a Board. I am conscious, however, that the fact that I am a clergyman is likely to detract in some minds from the value of what I have to say. We are supposed, as a class, to have a blind prejudice against State Boards; I therefore propose to, devote my first letter, to an attempt to prove that we are not without reason jealous of the present proposal to take the primary education of the people out of the hands of the Church (I use the word in the widest and most comprehensive sense), and give it to a department of the State. Few people will deny that the church was instituted for the double purpose of evangelizing and educating. Many will admit that she is to evangelize in order that she may educate. In a Christian land, therefore, her work almost resolves itself into that of education. Here, however, we must pause, for we shall be met by the objection that the word " Education has two different meanings. We use it for that process by which a man is taught why he came into the world, what are his duties responsibilities, and f a om" ties, and how those faculties may be put to the best use. We also employ it for the more mechanical work of furnishing the mind with those instruments, viz., reading, writing, and arithmetic, etc., with which it is to work. The former, say many, is the business of the parent and clergyman; the that which the State has to look to. But the Education Commission have distinct y recognisedthat the chief interest of the State lies m the forme aspect of education. They write as The great object which the State has m view, it will probably be admitted, in promoting education, is not so much to benefit the particular individual who reSt £ J Tinonje the munity of which he forms a part The State, as such does not chiefly concern itself with the number of those who can read and write; but rattoer inquires whether those who can do so turn their aoquirements to right ends, — whet , with their book-learning, there has been implanted in them, right principles ; i and v they have been made good citizens, thereby raising the general tone of society, and making its members sensible of their duties, and responsibilities. I he mere commercial value of education—the advantage, that h, which its possession acquires over those who are deprived of it, is rather a matter of private.

interest than of public concern, and is therefore peculiarly a matter of consideration for the individual ; in short, the State looks rather to the indirect and impalpable advantages of education in its influence on the community as a whole, while the individual takes account of those advantages Avhich are more personal and direct." The Commissioners also admit that practically the two aspects of education are indissolnblv connected, that the education of the heart, and of the head, must go on simultaneously. If, therefore, it is the duty of the Church to educate the hearts of . her younger members, it is clear that the whole of their school life must be handed over to her. And here, though without doubt, so long as the education of the people is entrusted to the Church, the clergy will be found foremost among our school managers in theory so long as the schoolmaster is recognised as a church officer and placed in connection with the church system, it is not necessary that the clergyman should enter the school at all. However practically as we have said, the clergy would have the control of the schools, and would be robbed of the pleasantest, and probably the most useful part of their functions if they had not. A clergyman, worthy of the name, does not consider his duty discharged by reading decorously, preaching elegantly and visiting in an agreeable and gentlemanly way, those sick persons who may send for him. His duty is to win souls for Christ; to enlist servants for God for time and eternity; to teach men to glorify their maker, not only in solemn services, on Sundays and high-days, but in every thought and act of their daily lives. Every man of sense must feel that his best hope, of effecting this, lies in dealing with the young of the flock. He must bend the twig while it is tender. The clergyman who spends much time in his schools loses indeed many opportunities of advancement. From a worldly point of view he may perhaps more profitably give the hours substracted from this duty to his wealthier or more influential parishioners, without injuring his professional reputation. He may even seem to effect more in this way, than by labors of which he can rarely live to see the full fruit. But if he resists the temptation of present advantage he may rest securely on the promise, " Cast thy bread upon the waters and thou shalt find it after many days." Let us however grant, for a moment, that the work of the clergyman lies with the souls of adults, that the responsibility for those of children belongs aloue to the parent and schoolmaster. Even then, that clergyman loses immensely who loses the control of his school. If he has to deal, as in almost every case he has, chiefly with the working classes, he will find that the shortest and safest road to the affections and consciences of his charge lies through the schoolroom door. I can say for myself that I have found many a house open to me cheerfully, and many a smile welcome my visit, through what had previously occurred in the schoolroom. Forbid a clergyman, if you will, to teach any dogma or any directly religious truthatall,he will still find it trulya part of his spiritual work to teach history or geography or any secular subject whatever, so long as he has thereby the opportunity of winning the affections of the little ones, and through them those of their fathers and mothers. Thus far we have taken high ground only. For the sake of practical men, it may be well to mention one or two other ways in which a clergyman loses, by losing his school. Those who would take it from him, and forbid all distinctive teaching in the day school, are loudest in their talk of what the Sunday-school can do. But a Sunday-school needs a place to meet in as well as any other school, and if the school-house is shut against it, it must either be held in the church, —which all practical Sunday-school teachers will protest against, as most undesirable, or the liberal must be taxed to erect a building for this purpose alone. Again, the bibles, the forms, and other school furniture will serve for both under our present system, must be provided for each under the new. Take another instance: where the clergyman and schoolmaster are both competent men, and willing to act-heartily together (which, as human nature is constituted, can hardly be the case where their respective positions are not accurately defined as they are when the clergyman has the appointment of the schoolmaster), their united influence for good is very great. It is not too much to say, that in many respects the clergyman will find his schoolmaster more useful than an assistant curate. And here, churchmen in general, have a point of interest in common with the clergy. One of the questions of the age is how to introduce into the ranks of the clergy men of a lower social standing, and less advanced education, than is mostly the case at present. Many of those who have considered the subject will agree with me that deacon's orders, and the mastership of a church school, are a literates best probation for the priesthood. I could add more, but think I have shown cause sufficient, for the aversion of the clergy to any such system as that proposed by the Commissioners; and, if my case seems fairly strong to my readers, let them consider what it might have been, if stated by an advocate in health and vigour, and not by a mere invalid. Hereafter, I hope ; to show, what interest all of us in common, clergyi men and laymen, have in the maintenance of the existing system; and how poor a thing it is, which we are offered in its place. For the present, I remain, Yours &c., CHARLES ALABASTER. Cranmer-square, December 2nd, 1863.