THE ANGLICAN SYNOD AND EDUCATION.

Evening Star, Issue 7360, 4 November 1887, Page 4

THE ANGLICAN SYNOD AND EDUCATION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Your corespondent “ Libertus ” thinks every friend of education must regret the statement made by the Rev. A. B. Fitchett in the Anglican Synod on the subject of the state of education before and after the Reformation ; but it seems to me that not only is the statement objected to abmlutely coirect, but true friends of the cause of education have reason to be thankful that the rev. gentleman has spoken out, and disclosed the real attitude of his Church towards the subject of education. First, as to the correctness of the statement “that before the Reformation the' Church, which then had charge of education, did the work well, and that after the Reformation there was a great falling oil in the education of the people, especially the lower orders.” The following extracts from a first-rate authority will perhaps be sufficient: “As I have already stated, there is good reason to belier o that before the Reformation what we call primary education was much more widely afforded than people think. And there is equally good reason to believe that after the Reformation the quality and the amount of this education greatly deteriorated.” “It cannot be denied, and it ought not to be concealed, that, whatever may have been the ultimate benefit of the Reformation, and the benefits were great, its early stages very nearly brought about the ruin of the nation The Scotch Reformation

busied it-elf early with the education of the people. Coeval, or almost cceval with the now system of ecclesiastical government, in Scotland, was the parish school, which, though associated with what became ultimately the national Church of the Scottish people, was independent in its existence, and always aimed at a high standard of teaching. The English Reformation, unfortunately, did not plant schools in any parish, and did not therefore do anything for the education of the wbrkiDg classes." But riot only i? the statement objected to by " Libertus" hifctoricaljy correct, according to the historian above quoted (Thorold Rogers), but the friends of education, instead of Having cause to regiet the making of buch a statement should bo thankful to Mr Fitchett for having spoken out as he has done, because nothing could show more clearly that the tendency of the agitation got up by the Bible-in-Schools Association is towards the breaking down of ow national system of education; for here wo have a clergyman saying that l ' it might be a good thiug to get the Bible in schools, because it would assuredly break down the present system." Mr Fitchett seems to have felt that this was a somewhat Machiavellian thing to eay ; and that this is so there can be no question. But the discussion in the Synod shows that the action of the Anglican Church in this matter has been something jyorte than Machiavellian, for it has been absolutely disihonest and immoral. A few months ago we saw the Bishop presiding at a great meeting of the Bible-in-School's Association, and apparently approving of its objects and adopting its platform. Kow, however, it appears that he never did approve of its objects, but simply tried to .make use of the Association for quite a different purpose—uamelj, to break down our whole system of education. Nothing can be clearer than that the Bishop has been trying to make uso of the Association for a purpose of which the members little dreamed, and the wonder is that the insult has not been resented. This however remains: that the friends of education—/ c, the upholders of the present national system—have reason to be thankful to Mr Fitchett for showing that logically there is no middle ground between the present system and denominationalism.— lam, etc, Didaskalo.s. Dunedin, November 2. i '■ :