The Otago Daily Times. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE OTAGO GUARDIAN. SATURDAY, JANUARY 18, 1870

Otago Daily Times, Issue 5276, 18 January 1879, Page 2

The Otago Daily Times. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE OTAGO GUARDIAN. SATURDAY, JANUARY 18, 1870

The Presbyterian Synod lias takon up tAvo "burning questions" in one clay, and Iho majority of the members havo at least shown no timidity in handling them. We aro by no moans sure, howover, that wisdom is not with the more timid minority on both questions. The University Professorship and tho reading of Jtho Bible in our State schools were the two subjects to which avo allude. Taking the Professorship first, we may briefly say that it is to a great extent a private question—that is to say, the Synod has a distinct right to express and to urge ils opinions on the Church Trustees as to what pnvtieu'at* Chair shall be founded and supported by tlio funds at its disposal. We presume the Trustees can say " no," although they are hardly likely to do so. The only thing with which tlie public has to do is tlio I'ublicuttcr.inccs of the members of Synod on the question, and when the very harmless statement of the Professorial Board " that all science has a physical basis" is stigmatised by a member of the Synod as the " grossest materialism," it is certain that nearly all thoughtful men outside the Synod will endorse the indignant protest of Dr Stuart. It is perfectly well understood that the majority in the Synod Avish to see a man in the new Chair who shall teach something more in accordance "with Presbyterian standards of moral truth than the present Professors are likely to teach. This wish has led them to ignore the expressed Avish.es of the University Council, the Church Trustees, and the Professorial Board. These bodies would all unitedly have accepted a Professorship of English Language and Literature and Rhetoric in preference to one of Moral Philosophy and Political Economy, which subjects are already taught by the present Professors as far as the three-years course will permit. Mr Borrie urged some very good reasons why the recommendation of the Council and the Professors should be adopted, and among others, that no Chair would so closely bind the higher schools and the University together as that of English Language and Literature. But as the Synod has chosen by an overwhelming majority to take the contrary course, it is their OAvn affair—they ought to know their own business best; only we cannot help thinking that they have strongly reinforced the arguments of those avlio consider that all power of appointment to Chairs in the University should be taken out of the hands of a sect and vested in the University Council. " A house divided against itself cannot stand," and it will be almost the reductio ad ahsurdum if the University is deprived of the power of prescribing and arranging the curriculum of study, and is liable to tho, intrusion? of a foreign body. Leaving this, however, for the present, the other question is one of far more general interest. Por one person avlio will take an interest in a University Professorship there will be a thousand who Avill feel an interest in the discussion as to whether tho Bible shall or shall not be read in schools. To sum up briefly the arguments on both sides, Aye have first those on the secular side—the logical \ riew that the present system being a secular one, no religious teaching can be admitted. But if the Bible is admitted, that, says the secularists, is religious teaching, ergo the Bible cannot be admitted. In support of the uiujni* promises a variety of arguments have been used, the most popular being that the Slate cannot pronounce |authoritatively, or discover by any absolute evidence, what religion really is; or find among the different forms of it, which is true. Further, says Mr Stout, " You cannot refuse a teacher's certificate to a Jew or a Freethinker, and you cannot suppose that they would consent to teach your Bible." Whatever appearance these arguments have of reason and strict logic, they do not satisfy the minds of those avlio regard the religion of the Bible as, to a great extent, discoverable, and, in fact, agreed on and accepted by the majority of the people as to its main features and general principles, however much minor details may be a cause of difference. Of course the devout Roman Catholic takes the view that authority unmistakeably prescribes his course, and that this one course, and no other, is the one he must take. If we could separate the Roman Catholic money in the Treasury from all other money, Aye could say, " Take that is thine own and go thy way." But inasmuch as every penny is as much Presbyterian, or Episcopalian, or Baptist, or Wesleyan, as it is Roman Catholic, and all these bodies object to any portion of their moneys being taken to teach a system AA'hich they believe to be opposed to all liberty and enlightenment, the controversy is irreconcileable, and tlie Roman Catholics cannot be satisfied without trampling under foot the convictions of nearly all the other bodies. But since one argument of the Roman Catholics is that our present system is a godless one, it does somewhat weaken their ground if Aye can agree to make it more godly.

We have maintained, and still maintain, and Avere glad to observe that the Rector of the Normal School, Mr Fitzgerald, fully bore out our assertion, that our present system, judged by its OAvn books, is not a godless one. The system, as worked in Victoria, is so because all allusion to God has been expunged from their books, but it is.not so in New Zealand as yet. As, then, we do not logically carry out our secular system to its extreme conclusions, and do tot absolutely exclude all mention of God and religion, on what good ground can we exclude the Bible? It lias been a text-book of the English language for centuries; it has over aud over again been referred to in foreign countries as the very fountain of our liberties. Why is it now to be

tabooed? We confess the arguments against it are too refined and shadowy to ■ have much weight. _V.s to Mr Stout's \ Jew and Freethinker, it is quite ' time enough to deal with thorn when they come to tho front and arc aggrieved. We havo more sympathy with ] the real palpable grievances of tlione ( teachers and parents who fool that tho , school without tlio Bible is a world without a sun. Wo declino to narrow i such a question down to ono or two logical propositions * it is a practical one and a wido one. But to deal with it from a practical point of view, wo would point out that those avlio aro advocating tho whole Biblo on tho ground that it is almost impious to mako selections, forgot that evory teacher must make selectionsfor himself, as 110 ono will contend that the whole Bible could or should bo read straight through in mixed schools. They also ignoro the fact that such selections have been for years in use iv Ireland, and that the religious bodies in Victoria have now agreed that it is quite right and possible, and, in fact, tho one thing to bo done, to mako such selections. Once raado, such a Bible primer becomes not merely a book to bo read perfunctorily for a brief half-hour in the morning, but a part of the school course, and a standard of the broad principles of morality, in all the schools. A conscience clause, andeven the "local option" proposal of Dr Copland, by which the school committees Avould have the power of adopting or excluding the Bible course as the local boards have at Home, may be adopted, so as to protect both teachers and scholars and communities of secularists from any coercion. But for the great bulk of the people we consider this simple, unsectarian, historical Bible course is the great desideratum. So strong is the feeling becoming that the entire absence of the Bible from tho school is not a mere negative, but a positive influence —an influence against morality and religion, an influence which will tend largely to increase sectarianism in one of its subtle but not innocuous forms, the sectarianism of so-called " Freethought" —that Aye see good reason to anticipate great danger to the national system if the wishes of the people on this important point are not attended to. All classes who are interested in the matter would do well to unite for the preparation or adoption of a Bible primer to which all could conscientiously assent, and we have no doubt whatever that there are many such primers already in existence. The fight Avith the denominationalists and the anti-religious secularists would then be upon very narrow grounds, and the national system might be preserved without violence to any man's conscience.