THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5563, 27 January 1879, Page 3

THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

Yesterday morning, at St. Paul’s, Thorndon, the Yen, E. J. Thorpe delivered a sermon upon tho Education question. As the matter is of great interest just now, and Mr, Thorpe's remarks represent the views of a large section of the community, we give a tolerably full report :

My subject to-day is Education in its religions aspect. I shall probably trespass a little upon your attention, but the importance of the subject and the gravity of the present state of the case must plead as an excuse. As you are aware, a Koyal Commission is engaged in drawing up a report on the educational systems pursued in the colony, to bo presented to Parliament at its next session. Moreover, there are plain tokens that an organised effort is being made by an influential section of the community to effect a serious change in the present system. It is therefore of real moment that we seek to thoroughly understand the question at issue, if we would not have our judgments warped by the heat of a contest, and would deal with the subject in a manner worthy of the b’gh interests at stake. The question, I need hardly say, involves the intellectual and moral wellbeing of a people that is rapidly becoming a nation. Those who are now influencing the destinies of the country have for the most part been brought up amid associations that have helped to make the nation from which we are sprung a nation whose moral grandeur is readily acknowledged over the world. What we propose to ourselves is so to mould tho rising generation that, despite our not being able to hand down to it the advantages we have ourselves enjoyed, those who follow us, our own flesh and blood, may at least have any knowledge we may have to impart. And seeing that right principles cannot be too early impressed upon the mind, we wisely look upon education as the most important matter that can engage our attention. After referring at some length to the plastic impressionable nature and character of a child, the rev. gentleman proceeded:—Of course, if these views of the matter be just, “ secular ” education is a misnomer. Education, to be education, must be religious, must recognise the noble parts of tho child’s nature, and seek to draw them out. To treat the child as though he were simply a piece of intellectual mechanism is to ignore the higher powers with which God has so richly endowed him, leaving them to be stunted in their growth, and perverted in their action. The student of history will remember a period in the decline of the Eoman Empire when brute force and bodily strength were absolutely deified, and no more hideous, more repulsive object can he imagined than the man so developed ; but train him to be a mere calculating machine, and though less gross yet would he be out of harmony with the rest of God’s creation, and would stand alone, hateful in his supreme selfishness. Turn to the relation in which the State stands to the child. The increasing interest that has of late years been taken in the subject of education over the whole of our mother couu'ry and her colonies is one of the most hopeful signs for the future. We have often been twitted with our devotion to material progress, as though we had no higher object in view than to trade and get money, and for this were ready to grind down the weaker classes at Home and sacrifice the national honor abroad. But hero is indisputable fact, and the best answer to such charges, that in the zenith of our commercial greatness, and while the air has been thick with rumors of war, we have as a nation devoted ourselves to solving the problem how to secure to the humblest child within the Queen’s realms the blessing of a fair start in life. Nor, as a colony, have we been backward in following the example, for amidst all the interests that crowd upon us, there is not a session of Parliament in which tho subject does not receive a fair share of attention. I know no more Christian work than that of trying to correct the untoward circumstances of poverty and misfortune, and to prevent vice, by fitting each and all to pursue an honorable and useful life. It is true that the most perfect system of instruction cannot ensure all we desire, even as no system of tillage we know ensures an uninjured crop. But one thing is clear, we shall not get the harvest without the tillage. And we have awakened to this fact. We see that there will not be a just administration of law; there will not be an intelligent obedience to authority; there will not be a comprehensive dealing with crime, nor an effectual restraint upon the selfishness of class interests, until each member of the community learns to have sound views of his relationship to the community, and is prepared to do the part that is demanded of him. Eroude says: “ To make us know our duty and do it, to make us upright in act and true in thought and word is the aim of all instruction which deserves the name, the epitome of all purposes for which education exists.” It has come to be generally accepted that the State is so directly interested in the well-being of each individual composing the State that even the child must be legislated for. But, without doubt, the work of education is the gravest responsibility the State can possibly undertake, much more grave than the building gaols, and regulating taxation, and constructing railways. I will go further and say that strong necessity should be shown before bringing the law, with its natural rigidity and rigor, to bear upon the sacred rights of parents, the essentially spiritual relationship between the teacher and the taught, and the eternal welfare of the cnild. But when necessity is shown, for the State interfering, it must legislate for education in its highest, most comprehensive sense, or confess itself unequal to the task. It is a Nonconformist leader, who will not be supposed to bear any hereditary prejudices in favor of Church and State, who says : —“ If you are going to enlarge and complicate the province of law so as to include matters with which religion is closely and vitally connected, and duties in which Christianity affords the only safe guidance ; if legislative and executive action are to share with theparent the sacred right and responsibility of training the child, developing his intellect, disciplining his character, teaching him at least the rudiments of morality, and preparing him for the work of life and the duties of a citizen, then you are rendering the strict separation of the province of law and the province of religion both unreasonable and impossible. In a word, if you invest the State with duties essentially, to some extent, religious, you cannot logically demand that the State shall ignore religion in the discharge of those duties.” And then, anticipating the plausible objection raised to the paying public money for religious teaching in schools, —that it is the same as paying it for the same purposes in a church, he puts the difference, I think unanswerably, thus —“ The State does not control the Church, and has no business to regulate its internal management, but does control the school, and must therefore regulate its internal management.” But at this point I am fully aware a difficulty meets us, which many suppose insurmountable, viz., that arising from the religious differences of the sects. I do not underrate the difficulty. I have by me an eloquent utterance attributed to one who went out from us—“ Who will not say that tho uncommon beauty and marvellous English of the Protestant Bible is not one of the great strongholds of heresy in this country (England) ? It lives in the ear like music that can never be forgotten—like the sound of church bells which the convert hardly knows how he can forego. Its felicities often seem to bo almost things rather than words. It is part of the national mind, and the anchor of national seriousness, The memory of the dead passes into it ; the potent traditions of childhood are stereotyped in its verses ; the power of all the griefs and trials of man are hidden beneath its words. It is the representative of his best moments, and all that has been about him of soft and gentle and pure and penitent and good, speaks to him for over out of his English Bible. It is his sacred thing which doubt has never dimmed, and controversy has never soiled. In the length and breadth of the land there is not a Protestant with one spark of religiousness about him whose spiritual biography is not in his Saxon Bible.” What more sublime tribute to the excellencies and power of the Scriptures.” And yet Dr. Newman and bis Church, on this very ground, urge the danger of an open Bible. What can the State do with two such contradictory positions ? Face the difficulty ; having reduced the opposition of the sects to a minimum, embrace where you cannot reconcile. To cut the knot by prohibiting religions teaching altogether would be not only, as I have before stated, shirking its higher duty, if the State will educate, but it would be a State interference of the most arbitrary and illogical description ; it would be saying to two parties who conscientiously differ as to the mode of conveying information which each holds to be essential, that their differences shall be composed by a prohibition to give any such information at all. I am assuming, it may be thought, too much in stating the case as though the State had only to take account of two religious bodies, but I think I am justified in

arguing that, for the object we have in view, the line may be broadly drawn between the Eoraan Catholic Church and the other Churches represented in the colony. It has been again and again asserted by the organs of the Eoman Catholic Church that they will only be satisfied with a denominational system of education; nor do I see how they can consistently take up any other position, holding as they do that all knowledge is evil unless filtered through the channel of their Church. In England, as you are aware, the work of education has, until thelast twenty years, been mainly in the ha di of our Church, c 11 d ai we were to the duty by our connection with the State. And even now that the State has taken upon itself to educate the children, we still continue to work side by side with the State, and with increasing success. But, however desirable, however incumbent upon us, that we should use the best means at our disposal in England entrusted to us for tho very purposes of education ; and granting, as may well be urged on behalf of a denominational system, that a wise statesman will not ignore but rather strive to enlist in his aid so powerful a factor as religious zeal, it is plain that the State cannot admit denominationalism if it impair the efficiency of its own work, and that in to sparsely populated a country as a new colony it is only admissible, if admissible at all, in large towns. But I think the bulk of men in our Church, a Church that may bo supposed to favor denominationalism, are satisfied that the State should take the burden of imparting secular teaching off their shoulders, aud leave them free to do tho Church’s proper work. There was a time when the clergy alone could fulfil the highest offices of the State, could alone practice at the Bar, —indeed, as the word “clerical” still applied to all writing work reminds us, were the one class that possessed the rudiments of knowledge. But we do not consider that the Church has lost ground, or is abrogating her functions, because laymen perform those secular duties, and more efficiently. And in like manner, we may no more than contend that the State shall see to the physical and mental training of the rising generation. But we do protest against the State depriving the Churches of the power of supplementing the secular teaching with the elements of religious truth. And the State does so deprive us when it monopolises the schools, the discipline, and the time. Even the miserable concessions that have from time to time been made and withdrawn are nothing less than a taunt. We have been told to gather the children together before school, when it takes all the discipline of the school to make them attend at tho school hours ; to keep them after school, when they otherwise would be at play ; to utilise the Saturday that has already been given up to the parents that they may have the assistance of the elder children in household duties; to be content with the Sunday-schools, when it is well known that we cannot enforce learning, and would not if we could make a task day of the Sunday. Language very like to that of the Egyptian taskmasters has been used towards the clergy—“Ye are idle, ye are idle, therefore ye ask for the aid of the day-school ; go therefore now and work, for there shall no opportunity be given you, yet shall ye be held x-esponsible for the full education of children.” The matter has been treated as though the clergy were alone interested, whereas there is enough religious sense all over tho country to wish that the children should not grow up in ignorance of moi al obligations. How is it that the day-schools opened by religious teachers are so well supported, even when the religious teaching given is opposed to the convictions of the parents who send their children to them? Mainly because they think that a greater interest is taken in tho moral welfare of the children. And if it be asked why there has not been a general remonstrance against the elimination of religious teaching in the' State schools, I reply simply because it has been taken for granted that any provision for it is impossible, that the choice lies between secular teaching pure and simple and none at all. But “ impossible” is no word for a statesman to use when the end sought to be gained is of vast magnitude; at least it is not a brave word to use before even an honest attempt has been made to grapple with the difficulty. Is it wise to alienate the confidence of those who desire to 00-operate heartily with the State in its efforts to educate the people ? Is it wise to drive moderate men into the ranks of denominationalism ? Is it wise to shut out teaching that directly fends to foster obedience to law and consideration for tho interests of the community ? And yet before deciding that to embrace the sects is impossible, have the Churches been addressed on the subject; has any tentative plan been put forward for their acceptance? In the year 1871 and again in 1873 a Bill wasbroughtdown to the House embodying the clause of the English Education Act which provides that religious instruction may be given, but when given shall be either at the end or at the beginning, or at the end and beginning of each day’s work. I may add here that the London School Board, which has, it I remember aright, 333,000 children under its care, sanctions a voluntary examination in religious knowledge, and that at a recent examination at which prizes were provided through one of the religious societies, only 2000 children, or 1 in 165, absented themselves. But from one cause or another both attempts to legislate tor education were abandoned. When the present Act (1877) was framed there was a feeble attempt to concede something to the acknowledged prejudice in favor of religious teaching being imparted. The previous proposal was watered down so far as to provide that the schools should be opened with the reading of the Lord's Prayer and a portion of the Scripture, but at the first sign of opposition the obnoxious clause was quickly withdrawn. The fact is, then, colonial politicians hang so loosely together that no Government can afford to lose a few votes. While, if there is one matter more than another that needs to be dealt with on its intrinsic merits, apart from party questions, that one is education. We may hail with satisfaction the appointment of the commission already referred to. Is it too much to expect, now that the discussion is removed from the arena of party politics, and that the question is placed in the hands of men chosen for their special qualifications to deal with it, that wise and thoughtful and comprehensive counsels shall prevail. I understand that the commission is appointed not only to report upon the present status of the educational institutions of the colony, but also generally to inquire into and recommend any improvement which may be calculated to increase their efficiency. It is not for me to presume even to appear to dictate to so august a body of men, but surely if they discover an egregious defect, at least they will fearlessly deal with it, undeterred by platform difficulties or religious prejudices. They do not need me to tell them that a so-called secular system is only non-religious in name. Teachers cannot but exercise a personal moral influence for good or evil, tho only difference being that where direct religious teaching is given, it is in the light of day, when it can be excepted to be controlled. Moreover the moral effect of the present system of stimulating scholars by competitive examinations in one direction only, is to exaggerate the importance of mere cleverness, and to foster the idea that all they have to live for is to get on. In other words, self is made their god. I will venture to affirm that if they will meet the religious difficulty fairly, it will vanish. There is a growing conviction, even on the part of men who in despair of reconciling religious difficulties have hitherto advocated a strictly secular system, that the fruits are unsound. And with the exception of the Eoman Catholic Church, which clings to denominationalism, the sentiments expressed by the other various religious bodies lead me to judge that they have come to the conclusion that it is of such paramount importance that the child should be treated as a moral agent, that sooner than he should grow up in ignorance of the accepted standard of morals and ofDivineteaching—theßible—they would be satisfied to avail themselves of the opportunities afforded outside of State legislation for inculcating peculiar doctrines. Possibly some such proposition as that half a day in tho week be set apart for religious teaching by the ministers of the respective Churches or their agents, might be accepted even by the Soman Catholic Church, failing their effort to obtain a denominational system. Nor can such a proposition be fairly objected to by the secularists ; for while a fair field is offered to all religious bodies, the State still keeps the control ; the master or mistress is not necessarily the teacher, and a conscience clause would meet the case of the Jew, infidel, or Mahommedan. I for one am too loyal to the State to think lightly of hampering its action; but it does seem that now is the time for entreating that a great hope shall not be disappointed, and for reminding in all humility those upon whom the responsibility of the matter rests that they are legislating for a Christian people. We are drifting into a most nn-Christian position; let us not wait till we reap the consequences of such a course before we make an honest and statesmanlike effort to grapple with the difficulty, and provide so far as we can that the nation we hope to create shall be a happy and virtuous people.