THE The New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1886.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7552, 3 February 1886, Page 4

THE The New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1886.

It is very remarkable that all discussions on the subject of introducing religious instruction into public schools appear to be lame and unsatisfactory. No one need therefore be surprised that the debate on this question in the General Synod of the Church of England on Monday night partook of this character. This arises in a large degree from the fact that the persons agitating in this matter hare no common platform on which to stand. They have enough in common to make them unite in finding fault with the existing scheme of education, but so soon as they proceed to define what they want confusion worse confounded is forthwith produced. In illustration of this it is only necessary to cite the statements of the several speakers during the discussion referred to. The series of resolutions moved by Archdeacon Harper, despite the studied care with which they had evidently been framed, mean nothing more nor less than the establishing of a denominational system of education under which the ministers of relgion would be at liberty to enter the schools whenever they chose and teach religion as they pleased. The Bible-in-school system, though that is what a large number insist on, would not satisfy him nor, according to him, the denomination to whieh he belongs. In Britain that system generally prevails, but with that he and those in New Zealand who think with him would not be satisfied. " Even if the State offered them the Bible in schools thpy would not be satisfied with it." These are his words, and they are a brief embodiment of all that his resolutions contain. As opposed to this view may be cited the opinion of Mr. Boardman, who may be said to represent the ideas of those laymen who, while desirous of seeing religious instruction imparted in the public schools, are yet opposed to reverting to the denominational system advocated by Archdeacon Harper. " He would prefer the present system to the wretched denominational system of the past. Surely we could leave our little • isms' on one side in order to gain the instruction that was so much desired. He thought nearly all denominations would agree to the reading of such portions of the Bible as the Sermon on the Mount," <fec. Such is the layman's view as opposed to the clerical view. The one is in favour of and the other against denominational schools; the one claims the right of clergymen to teach religion in the schools when and as they have a mind to, the other desires simply the reading of the Bible in the public schools during school hours without committing itself to the agency by which such religious instruction is to be imparted. These two sets of opinions represent large divisions not only in the Church of England but in the general community, who are agreed upon the general principle, that it is desirable to have religious instruction in our public schools, but who, as to the modus operandi, occupy positions the opposite of each other. The practical question, therefore, is this: Is there any probability of these extremes meeting?

An attempt at a solution of this question was oflered by Sir A. Stuart, ex-Premier of New South Wales, who, being present at the Synod, was asked to state his experience on the question of imparting religious instruction to public schools in that colony. The value of his statement is considerably diminished by the fact that he spoke, not as a statesman, but simply as a member of the Church of England. In referring to the Sydney School District, he designated it the Sydney

Diocese, and no one could gather from his statement what the general feeling of the community was on the subject he was treating of. One thing, however, he bore explicit testimony to, namely, that in the contest hetween the denominational "and national systems of education, the former had clean gone to the wall. The denominational party to which he belonged, had, he said, been obliged to capitulate and make the best terms they possibly could. These terms, as vouched for by him, were that "permission was given to the various Churches to impart religious instruction within school hours." Of this privilege the Church of England, he said, was largely availing itself. No information, however, was communicated as to the extent this same privilege was availed of by other denominations, or as to the arrangements made to prevent undue encroachment on the school hours by the rival claims of different denominations, or whether the hour for the imparting religious instruction was or was not fixed by the educational authorities. This is the more to be regretted that the practical difficulty connected with the communicating of religious instruction in public schools really hinges on these very points. In so far, therefore, as the harmonising of the arrangements of the various denominations for this object, and the non - interference of these arrangements with the ordinary work of the schools, the statement of Sir A. Stuart threw no light upon the difficulty.

From such vague generality we turn with relief and satisfaction to the practical views on this subject taken by that able man, the Bishop of Melbourne, very aptly quoted by Mr, Upton. Bishop Moorhouse is not merely an ecclesiastic, but a man possessiug a large experience of the world, and therefore capable of rising above the conceits which, unfortunately, are apt to be cherished by all professional men, and his deliberate opinion was that religious instruction, if it is to be imparted in our public schools cannot be overtaken by clergymen, and must be placed in charge of the teachers. This is the only sensible view that can be taken of this question, and every dispassionate man will be prepared to endorse it. And the practical way of giving effect to it is that recently narrated by the Bishop of Brisbane as having been adopted by the London School Board, of which for years he was a member. A Scripture committee i representing all denominations, including Catholics and Jews, was appointed by that body to draw up a syllabus, which was read under the superintendence of the teachers, and no other religious instruction was allowed in the schools. . Why this plan should not be adopted all over this or any other country it is impossible to understand, 1 save on the supposition that some who are in the habitof thoughtlessly denouncing secular instruction as " godless," attach less importance to the facts or religion and more to the agency of imparting them. And yet the facts of the Bible, as was well observed by Archdeacon Mules, and not the deductions made from them in theological treatises, or, we may add, by theological teachers, are the real basis of religion, it is an ignorance of these facts and not of theological opinions that to a lamentable extent charac- ! terises the youthful generations of these colonies. This, we think, is indisputable, and, if those who lose no opportunity of denouncing our present national system of education were practically in earnest about correcting this ignorance, they would have no hesitation in accepting the only means, as pointed out by Bishops Moorhouse, Webber, and many other distinguished men in all countries, by which the object desired may be satisfactorily accomplished. It is entirely owing to their unwillingness hitherto to agree to this that no system could be devised for making the public schools the channel of communicating to the youth of the country a knowledge of Biblical facts as the basis on which the specific religious instruction of the several churches might thereafter proceed. In saying this we are not to be understood as rinding fault with the excellent educational Hystem established in this colony. All that we aim at is to accentuate the question on which those who do find fault with. it must be agreed, if they would have that system made available for the higher purposes which they desiderate.