Untitled

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3307, 20 September 1871, Page 2

TO THE EDITOE OF THE INDEPENDENT. i SIE, — I observe that in your paragraph report of the meeting at the Wesleyoan Church last evening I am vuado to say the vory opposite of what I did say regarding denominational education. This I am anxious to correct. I certainly did endorso the remarks of Archdeacon Stock as to the vitnl importance of the religious element in school education ; but I did not suy " that I would prefer a. more denominational system." On the contrary, I said that I would greatly prefer that wo had but one class of schools in which all the youth of the colony should be taught — schools in which God would be acknowledged and his blessing taught— and in which the Bible would be read, and such simple practical religious instruction given as a Christian man would give, without any reference whatever to donomina f ionalism. This is what I think the schools of this country should be. This is the system I should like to see universally established. We are professedly a Christian country ; we believo in God, and in the Bibla as a revelation of his will, and in the great truths and principles of religion and morality ns therein taught. This is the faith of at least the great bulk of the community, and we would all like our children brought up in tlu'9 faith, with a reverence for God, with a sense of depondenco on Him, and with a supreme regard fur the great moral and spiritual laws by which God would have us governed. I believo that even those parents who themselves porhapa don't practically much believe in the Bible or in roligion would yet like to see their children brought up under religious influences, and receiving a religious education. They can see the beneficial effect of such an education on tho charaoter and life of their children, and recognise it as an important element in their real welfare. I soy tho great bulk of the community would regard such an education as in itself a good thing. Why, then, should not we have it? Wo don't wiint our children taught at school the distinguishing tenets of the various denominations. For this, if they choose, they will luivo ample opportunity afterwards. But we do want them to learn tho great, broad principles of religion and morality, that will teach them their duty to God and to one anotber, along with tboae Becular brandies of instruction that will tend to develop and culturo their mind, and to lit them for tho active duties of life. This, then, is what I should like to bco : all tbo youth of all denominations meeting in the eamo school ; sitting side by sido on the same forms, learning tho same branches j and, above all, learning tho same elementary principles of religion from the one common source, tho word of God; Did any parents object to this, we should allow them perfect liberty to withdraw their children when such religious instruction was being given. I believe that in very f«w instances, were parents only let alone, and left free to act for themselves, would they think it needful to avail themselves of such a conscience clause. This, then, is tho system I would prefer, which is certainly not denominalionalism. But I know there is little hope of such a system being established. I know that all parties won't ngreo to it, and therefore I am willing to tako tho next best, a modified denominational system, which 1 certainly prefer to » purely secular gystem. I don't regard more secular education as truft

education. It 13 not the education oi the whole mind and heart; it leads not to the true formation of the character, and to the right direction of the life. Ido not see how, in a purely secular school, from which all religion and religious truth is oxcluded, the youth can be taught that fear of God which is tho beginning of true wisdom, and that reverence for things sacred and divine, and that genuine humility which are essential elements in true nobility of character. I am quite aware that there are disadvantages and evils connected with an out-and-out denominationalism, and therefore I do nofc prefer that system. Were I establishing a school in connection with my own church, I would not seek to have introduced the catechism of our church, much as I admire and prize that catechism ; nor would I wish that tho word Presbyterian should ever be heard in tho school. And this just because I should wish the children of all denominations free to avail themselves of the education therein given without any fear of proselytizing. But I would earnestly desire and endeavor that it should be a Christian school, i.e., a school under wholesome Christian influences, in which God would be reverently acknowledged, the Bible read, and the essential principles of religion and morality taught. And I believe this could be done effectually without giving real offence to any one section of the community. In regard to the bill now before the Legisls« turc, I am in favor of it ; not because I thin&.it the best possible, but because I think it the 3 best practicable. Ife is confessedly a compjQfiF miso, to meet as far a3 possible the views of "' all parties, and I don't think anything else can bo oarriod. On those grounds I would be willing to support it.— l am, &c, James Patebsos. Wellington, 19th Sept., 1871.