SCRIPTURE IN TILE VICTORIAN STATE SCHOOLS.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXVIII, Issue 37, 13 September 1900, Page 5

SCRIPTURE IN TILE VICTORIAN STATE SCHOOLS.

A REPRESENTATIVE of the Arqin interviiud the Archbishop of Melbourne recently, and suggested that he should define his position with regard to the proposed introduction into the State school curriculum of the scheme of Scripture lesbons formulated by the Royal Commission. , , x . ... In reply to a c,uchtiun as to whether he had noticed the criticisms upon a diheour^ which he delivered recently, and [also whether he had seen the summary of the report of the Royal Commission on religious instruction, Archbishop Carr said :— 1 nave noticed both the criticisms and the nummary of -the report of the Royal Commission which was published in the Argu*. With regard to the first, exception hah been taken to a statement made by me to the effect that the introduction of the proposed Scripture lessons, prayers, and hymns would, if carried out, Protestantise the State schools. In the lir«t place, I wish to Bay that all the critic;-, have missed the main point of my objection to this proposed scheme. I certainly did not, as they supposed, speak disparagingly of any Protestant version of the Scriptures, or of Protestant hymns or prayers, but I said two things— first, that the introduction of this system of religious irstruction would have the elfect of Protestingising the State schools ; and, secondly, that the whole scheme would be calculated to poison the minds of Catholic children 1 With regard to the first, it is obvious that the introduction oi a Protestant "version of Scripture, with prayers taken from that version and hymns borrowed in the vast majority of cases from Protestant sources, would indelibly stamp the State t-chools as a Protestant institution. It matters little whether these Scripture lessons and prayers are taken from the Protestant Authorised Vereion which the late Anglican Bishop of Ballarat treated with s,uch scant courtesy, or from another Protestant version, the Revised, which though it does not differ so much, still differs in every page and in the structure of phrases and verses from the Catholic version, to which Catholic children are accustomed. The consequence would be in every case that these Catholic children would have set before them two versions, of the same text, with the result of lessening their confidence in and their reverence for each.

Till: I'KIXCII'AIi OBJECTION. 1 But ray mini objection to the?e Scripture lesions is not primarily founded on the part icular version used, but on the principle of having the Holy Scriptures either interpreted or explained to Catholic children by non-Catholic teachers, or of having the Bible put into the hands of children and interpreted by them according to the Protestant system without note or comment. The whole difference between the Catholic and Protestant systems is involved in this one question. How important that question is may be peen from Mallocks recently published work, D»ct rine and Disruption >r /» ,,./n»» P ,.,ii(»«s tn any. Mallock is not a Catholic, and yet he attributes the true consistency of Catholic doctrine to the recognition nrid u?e of thp principle of authority in the interpretation of the Bible On the other hand, he is not less explicit in tracing the variety of Protestant doctrine to the exercise of private judgment in the interpretation of Scripture, whether aided by the interior witness of the Holy Spirit or by reference to the teaching of the primitive church or of the universal church. lam justified therefore in saying that the introduction of the proposed Scripture lessons would Protestantise the state schools. ' It would also, I contend, be calculated to poison the minds of Catholic children, first, by substituting the Protestant for the Catholic system of interpretation, and, secondly, by subjecting the children to the influence of the peculiar religious faith— or disbelief —of their teacher. Suppose the case— and the supposition is warranted— of a teacher who disbelieves in the inspiration of Scripture, or of a considerable part of Scripture, who does not admit the historical accuracy of the Bible, who is known in private life to be an unbeliever or an agnostic, but who nevertheless undertakes to read, or teach, these Scripture lessons. How easy, or rather how unavoidable, it would be for such a one by a smile, a Bneer, or a shrug of the shoulders, to convey to the children that he did net believe a word of what was contained in the lesson ? What would be more calculated to undermine the faith, and therefore in a spiritual sense to poison the minds of the children submitted to Buch influence. ' In defence of the scheme it is said that the proposed prayers, as well as the proposed lessons, are taken from Scripture, but apart from the consideration that the identical words of Scripture do not lend themselves to prayers suitable for children, and that these prayers as well as the extracts, are taken from the Protestant version differing from the Catholic version in the case of the most familiar prayers, as in the " Our Father," there is this further serious consideration, that the Scripture extracts may be so manipulated as to make them appear to express the doctrines of any denomination.

THE SYSTEM IN IRELAND. ■ What occurred in Ireland, where a similar scheme was adopted, might possibly occur here. It was the boast of the patronß of the Irish Scripture lessons that their selections expressed Protestant doctrine, and imprinted it on the minds of Catholio children. I will not trouble you with a number of extracts. One may speak for many. The Rev. F. F. Trench, a prominent Protestant patron of many national schools, speaks thus of the practical effect of the Scripture extracts on the minds of Catholic children : " Where we fail in inducing Roman Catholics to read the whole Bible, can it be doubted that the Scripture extracts may do some cood The extracts teach the doctrine of grace; they teach, by Hebrews ix., 21 to 28, that Christ is made one only sacrifice for our sins ■ they preach, by Romans iii., justification by faith without works • by Luke vii. and xv. they show that the sinner is forgiven freely etc." He winds up by saying : " I suspect that the generality of persons do not know that these precious passages of benpture are in the Scripture extracts, and may be explained tn the °But it is not proposed to allow the teachers in the State schools of Victoria to give any doctrinal explanation of the Scripture exra ° '"no it is not ; but it is proposed to allow them to deduce moral conclusions from the extracts, and the line docteinal from moral conclusions is to be fixed by the teacher himself. While . Dr. Whately was signing the reports of the National Board, of" which he was a prominent member, declaring that there was no fear of proselytism, he was telling his friends in private that the effect of the religious teaching in the national schools was to make the Catholic children doubt their religion ''and to undermine the vast fabric of the Catholic Church in Ireland » (L,fr of A What -eh, , by his daughter, first edition, p. 244). He also tells them that « mixed education is gradually enlightening the mass of the people, and if we give it up we give up the only hope of weaning the Irish from the abuses of Popery." He adds that he could not afford to openly use the National Board as an instrument of conversion, but that he was doing so secretly, fighting the battle with one hand, and that his best, tied behind him (Ibid, page 24b). ' The Irish system of mixed education was practically the Mine as is now proposed to be introduced into our State schools, but that system in Ireland has long since been abandoned and the Scripture lessons withdrawn from the schools on account of the very consequences which I fear will follow from their introduction into the state schools in Victoria. Wan I not then justified in saying that the whole scheme was calculated, if adopted here, to po.aon the minds ° f °* There "is another principle which appears to have been entirely overlooked by the advocates of the Scripture lessons. They _are abdicating their position as members of a Christian church they are admitting that it is not to the church or to the parent, but to the state, that it belongs to give religious instruc ion in tbeMtooli. They arc handing over, as far as in them lies, to the J»7 B "** tives of the State education department the work which essentially belongs to the Christian chnrch.' , . .. , . What course, then, would you suggest aa a remedy for the existing condition of things ?

1 A very simple one,' replied the Archbishop ; ' namely, that the Catholic s~honl« <?'-">ild pirtH'p"to in tb" edii'-ntion vot«. nnd sh"uld receive consideration for the secular instruction which they give in common with the State schools, and for which they should not be penalised because they gr^tuitou&ly undertake to add religious instruction to their curriculum.'