Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 38

Secular Civilisation

page break

Secular Civilisation.

The Pretensions of Secular Education.

Economy.—Secular Education claims to be the most economical of all systems.—It is the most costly.

In the year 1872 the education grant in Victoria was £200,000, and this sum was looked on as "appalling," and to be "considerably reduced" by the introduction of the new system.—(Hon. Mr. Langton, Argus, Wednesday 15, 1872.)—Hardly has the new system begun to work when we find Mr. Mackay, the Minister of Education, asking for £800,000! The population of Victoria was only 797,049—nearly a million of money for less than a million of people!

Under the old system the Catholics paid £50,000 a year, and received the value of their money. Now they pay three or four times as much, and receive no return whatever.—It is legalised robbery.

That the Catholics should be oppressed is a matter of course, but that the system should weigh heavily even on the Secularists, will perhaps seem surprising. Yet it is so contrived that all are unfairly taxed; that the man who needs assistance least, is most benefited by it, and that the less benefit one derives from it the more he has to pay for it. Evidently the rich man needs no assistance. Now it is precisely the rich man that derives most benefit from it, for he can easily keep his children at school for seven or eight years, while the poor woman who really needs assistance, can hardly afford to deprive herself for one or two years of her child's aid towards making out a scanty livelihood. Then even the rich man is unfairly taxed, for he receives a return for only these seven or eight years, while he must pay the education tax all his life. Still more unfairly is the poor woman taxed who receives a return for only one or two years. But most unfairly of all taxed are those who, whether poor or rich, have never had a child at all to send to school, and who, consequently, can never receive any return whatever. Of course, when Government recklessly votes £400,000 for education, the money is not straightway poured into the Government coffers from the inexhaustible purse of some beneficent fairy; but has to be collected with a ruthless hand from the hard earnings of the community. Therefore though there is nominally no education tax, this tax is really the heaviest of all; and it is precisely to give £400,000 more,—in addition to all that has been given already,—that even at a moment of such severe depression as the present, this enormous sum,—£400,000, is imposed under the name of property-tax.

"Gutter Children"—It professes to charge itself with the education of the poor neglected children, nicknamed "gutter children."—It has not done so. It has filled its schools with the children of well-to-do parents.

It leaves the "gutter children," even after this lapse of time, still in the gutter, and if ever it drives these poor waifs into the schools, it will drive the others out.

Denominationalism.—It pretends to undenominational.—It is the most denominational of all. It is the unidenominational or onedenominational system.

The secularists are a section of the community just as much as the Jews, the Wesleyans, the Protectionists, the Freetraders, &c. And just like them the Secularists are named or denominated according to the views they hold. And whereas the reliqious denominations would be satisfied with teaching their own children, this irreligious denomination insists on imposing its irreligion on all.

Sectarianism.—It professes to be a sovereign remedy for "sectarian bitterness."—It promotes it in the highest degree.

We Catholics have no bitterness, no nicknames for our fellow-citizens. For us they are Wesleyans, Presbyterians, Jews, Secularists—whatever they wish to call themselves. But we are "Papists, Romanists, Ultramontanes;" we are "ignorant, bigoted, superstitious, priest-ridden," &c., &c. The remedy for "sectarian bitterness" would be to induce the various sects to leave us in peace as we leave them. The remedy of the secular system is on the one hand to give those who hate us the gratification of seeing us despoiled, and the hope of seeing us one day yield to legal robbery, and give up the religion themselves abandoned long ago, and on the ether to fill us with a burning sense of wrong and persecution.*

page 2

Civilisation.—Finally, secular education professes to lead the people to the highest point of civilisation.—It uncivilises and degrades them.—In fine this miserable system of education does none of the things it promises to do, and all the things it promises not to do.

It is with this last point that I propose to deal at present. I shall set before my readers this boasted secular civilisation as understood and explained by Secularists, and I shall draw from their own premises certain most startling conclusions.

* It is manifestly the interest and duty of Catholics to keep these two facts constantly before the minds of those who admire "secular education." Both these arguments have been clearly set forth in the "New Zealand Tablet."

Of course everybody knows that the "secular system" is aimed against the Catholics, but the following avowals made in moments of incautious triumph, or under manly protest against our oppression are important proof:—

"Many Protestants support a State system of public education, chiefly with the object of preventing the establishment of Roman Catholic schools throughout the colony.—Dr. Perry, late Anglican Bishop of Melbourne."

"If the law will weaken the priests, they are indifferent to its benefiting the children".

—Melbourne Correspondent of the 'Times,' November 27, 1872.

"I believe that many who voted for the Act, did so under the idea that they were resisting the claims of Rome."

—Dr. McCartney, 'Argus.' Dec. 4th, 1874.

"Mr. O'Grady is enabling the particular denomination of which he is the representative to gradually creep, like a fungus over the country. . . . The thin edge of the wedge has been driven into the Catholic body. That wedge is education, and you will allow me to say that the end of this wedge is a very sharp one. It will be driven home, and rend the Catholics asunder."

—Mr. Stephen at St. Kilda and Prahran, 'Argus,' 24th and 26th June, 1872.

Mr. Stephen, the framer of the Bill, is certainly a reliable witness as to his own beliefs and his own intentions. He is not ashamed to tell us to our faces that the religion for which we have suffered anguish, that its entirety and bitterness is known only to God and His angels, is a loathsome Fungus! Why not stamp it out V Here is at least the merit of plain speaking and consistency. I cannot understand those who say—"Ultramontanism (the modern name for Popery) is an intolerable evil; mixed education is a sovereign remedy, which is sure to destroy it; we will apply the remedy, But We Have no Idea of Destroying the Evil!"

Worldly Notion of Civilisation.

It is quite possible to be very familiar with a word without having at all an accurate notion of its meaning. We are certainly quite familiar with the word civilisation, yet if we ask ourselves what it means, we shall, perhaps, be astonished at finding what vague ideas we have about it. By, however, seizing these ideas as they flit by, and examining them carefully, we shall be able to form a most accurate conception of it.

A little consideration will show us that, by an immense number of men, a great public exhibition is looked upon as the best test and highest expression of civilisation. A very city of marvel and beauty! Painting, statuary, carving; the most precious stuffs; the most beauteous designs; the blending of the richest colours, bright, soft, various, changing, to glad the eye; while the ear drinks in with delight the most exquisite music of the noblest masters of the art, as, beneath the touch of the most skilful players, it pours forth from the costliest instruments in sparkling rivulets or majestic streams. And not merely what is pleasing to the senses but also those wonderful inventions which enable men to seek in Nature's profoundest mysteries the highest purely intellectual enjoyment, and apply her wondrous forces to the uses and conveniences of life. Delicate instruments to reveal the wonders of the microscopic world, to investigate the constituent elements of the distant stars, or enable man to command her subtle influences to carry his behests round the world with a throb! Mighty engines whereby he makes her giant strength his own, and strikes the crushing blow, not by the force of his body—wherein he is more akin to the brute—but by that of his intellect—wherein he is more akin to God! In short, the endless triumphs of man's genius! Such is a public exhibition, and such is a most common notion of civilisation!

An English journalist writing professedly on the subject, states thus clearly his views:

"The Ends of Civilisation are culture, the diffusion of the higher enjoyments, life made liberal for as many as possible by knowledge and beauty. The Mean of Civilisation are prosperity and wealth, and the commerce and instruments of commerce which conduct to prosperity and wealth."

—'Pall Mall Gazette.'

and he explains the higher enjoyments to be "music, painting, poetry, and the other fine arts, as well as the knowledge of nature and man for its own sake."

If these be the ends and means of civilisation, its beginning must evidently be a training which will enable man to procure the means of civilisation, and through them its ends. And another journalist writing of the connection between civilisation and education, says:—

To the education—the free untrammelled and unbiassed education—of the people, are due the perfection of the arts and sciences, the improved appliances and conveniences of life, the inventions and the discoveries which so peculiarly distinguish the age in which we live." 'Melbourne Age,' Tuesday. March 11th, 1873.

It appears necessary, then, to be a good "Secular Education."

No Necessary Connection With Morality.

However eager "Secularists" may be to put forward such views on civilisation, I trust sincerely, that there are none who will not be equally anxious to disclaim the consequences which flow rigorously from them.

Perhaps the first thing which strikes us is, that this civilisation is not for all. It is for those only who have "wealth and prosperity." There is something selfish in it: it conveys the idea of each one's working for himself alone, for his own enjoyment: and as in the well-known theory of "natural selection" all struggle for existence, but only the strong succeed, so in the struggle for civilisation all but the wealthy fail. Thus the most "civilised" class is precisely that against which our Saviour has pro- page 3 nounced that awful woe:—"Woe to the rich: it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven."—(Matt. xix. 23, 24. Luke vi. 24.)

Then observe there is no word about morality here. A man might be possessed of the keenest intellect—keen as demon's—the most exquisite taste and judgment in the fine arts, and unbounded wealth wherewith to procure every enjoyment, and yet not be the owner of a single virtue! On the other hand, were one, in the language of St. Paul, to "distribute all his goods to feed the poor," he would at once deprive himself of the "means and ends of civilisation"—riches and pleasures which they purchase! Both were wanting to the Apostle of the Gentiles, who worked for his own living with his own hands; to the twelve poor fishermen on whom Christ built His Church, and to the Saviour of mankind Himself, who lived on alms! So that while the highest immorality might co-exist with the highest civilisation, the sublimest virtue might be uncivilised!

One of the misfortunes of this age is the number of theories people hastily adopt without examining into their ultimate consequences. These theories are so dictatorial set forth, and so disguised under pompous, high sounding language, that their false hood, absurdity, and impiety are concealed from all who do not look beneath. We will always strip off the fine words mercilessly, and looked beneath.

Let us pursue our examination. Here is another specimen of the same inflated language concealing the same follies.

"what, in the name of common sense, have the clergy to do with the secular education of the people. Theirs is the cure of souls. The educing and cultivation of the mental faculties is the schoolmaster's province. It is for him to break up the ground, plant the tree, and to watch and promote its vigorous growth. When his work is done, or while in its latter stages it is being performed, the minister of religion may opportunely step in, and graft upon the healthy stock, the scion of spiritual truth, which he desires to see bearing fruit for time and eternity. *"

When will the schoolmaster's work be done? When the child has learned reading, writing, and arithmetic, spelling, geography, and sewing? Or is the "minister of religion" to wait till it has learned all about the false gods of the pagan poets, before teaching it anything about the true God of the Christians?

But suppose that just as "the schoolmaster's work is done," the child dies, and goes to the next world with a full knowledge of Jupiter and Venus, and utterly ignorant of Jesus Christ?

It would be too long to refute everything he said, but look at this—

"What in the name of common sense have they—the clergy—to do with the secular education of the people?"

I never yet heard that the clergy of any denomination, Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish wanted to have anything to do with it. So far are they from trenching on the schoolmaster's province, that they give him up their own. They say: "We cannot give religious instruction—let the schoolmaster give it." They certainly do protest against the knowledge of the Creator being postponed to that of the creature. They protest against religious instruction being rendered practically impossible, and for doing so much, here is the way they are dealt with:—

"One would imagine to hear some of our reverend platform orators talk, that there was something antagonistic between mental cultivation, though ever so rudimentary in character, and religious belief and practice—that the rules of syntax veiled impious doctrines—that one of the seven deadly sins lurked in the multiplication table—that to spell correctly was a device of the Evil One—and to write a legible hand was equivalent to exhibiting 'the mark of the beast.'"

Does this writer really fancy he is talking common sense? He reminds one forcibly of those who look through a telescope without being aware the image is inverted. He sees everything upside down, with, apparently, so little suspicion of the truth, that he actually appeals to common sense for confirmation; but common sense returns a rather unfavourable verdict. It says that they who find something antagonistic between religion and mental cultivation must be those who think the two things cannot be combined, and who do not think religion should be taught till the schoolmaster's work is done. It says that the clergy who want to have religion taught along with the multiplication table, spelling, and good writing, must be acquitted of this charge; and that as they cultivate these useful branches of secular knowledge themselves, it is to be presumed they see no harm in them.

In so grave a matter we have a right to be met with serious arguments, not with smart conceits. It would have been even more prudent not to urge so fiercely against the clergy, language which has no weight against them—for everyone sees it is an unwarranted exaggeration—but which tells so heavily against the writer because it is so applicable to his own doctrine. You will remember that he maintains the all-sufficiency of secular education. Apply to this his own words:—

"One would imagine, to hear some of our Secularists talk, that there was an intimate connection between mental cultivation, thongh ever so rudimentary in character, and religious belief and practice-that the rules of syntax veiled pious doctrines—that the multiplication table was a sovereign remedy against the seven deadly sins—that to spell correctly was a sign of predestination—and to write a legible hand was equivalent to having a passport to Heaven."

page 4
Secular morality is such an extravagance that its serious discussion, when stripped of its fine words, looks like a wild joke. Hence the importance to its admirers of concealing it under grand phrases, and the importance to us of stripping them off. To say that "as secular education spreads, crime will diminish," does not seem absurd, and thoughtless persons will be found to credit it. But as secular education means only reading, writing, spelling, &c., this means in plain English that reading, spelling, and multiplication will make a man virtuous! Now what can be more preposterous? Why should there be fewer criminals among fifty men who know that 10 times 10 make 100, but who have been never taught the ten commandments, than among fifty men who have been taught the the ten commandments, but don't know the multiplication table? Just as the commandments teach us nothing about spelling and reading, so do spelling and reading teach us nothing about them. The secular catechism merely says:—
  • 1st. Thou shalt learn to read.
  • 2nd. Thou shalt learn to write.
  • 3rd. Thou shalt learn thy spelling book.
  • 4th. Thou shalt learn thy multiplication table, &c.

And very good commandments too, as far as they go. But just as the commandment "Not to steal" does not tell me how many pence there are in a pound, so the knowledge that there are 240 in it is no reason why I should not take it when I get the chance of doing so without fear of detection.

Here is the intrinsic reason why there is no necessary connection between secular civilisation and morality:—

Morality consists of two things—the knowledge of our duty, and the frill to do it. The only way, therefore, that "secular" civilisation could promote morality would be either by teaching us what our duty is, or by inclining our will to discharge it. Now it is evident that no amount of spelling, multiplication, or even playing the piano will ever do either one or the other.

* Melbourne Argus,' July 13th, 1872.

Be it borne in mind that many of those who write in our newspapers deny their 18 a next world.

It Actually Excludes Morality.

Having established our first conclusion, that there is no necessary connection between "secular" civilisation and morality, let us now proceed to examine a still more serious charge, namely, that the "secular" system * favors immorality.

St. Paul tells us of the double law he felt within himself, and how the law of the flesh warred against that of the spirit, and how in consequence he did not the good he would, but the evil he hated. (Rom. vii. 15, 23) a sentiment which a poor pagan poet conveys in the familiar:—

"Video meliora proboque:
Deteriora sequor."—(Ovid, Met. 7,21.)

And which is re-echoed by the testimony of each man's conscience: "that he has left undone the things which he ought to have done, and done the things which he ought not to have done." The immoral tendencies of this unhappy law of the flesh being indubitable, it follows as a rigorous consequence that any system which throws obstacles in the way of its subjugation favours it, and consequently favors the immorality to which it impels.

The only question then is does the "secular" system throw any such obstacles in the way ?

Why is the "secular" system called the "secular" system? Is it because "secular" instruction is imparted? Evidently not. There is as much "secular" instruction imparted in any Catholic college, as in the most intensely secular school. It is "secular,"—and this should be distinctly borne in mind,—because it trill not tolerate religious instruction.

Now, what is religion? Religion teaches us our duty, urges on us the most powerful motives for fulfilling it, and engages our will to range itself on the side of the law of the spirit, and to wage war against the flesh. It is consequently the cause of morality, and the "secular" system by excluding the canse of morality, evidently favours that of immorality.

All instruction on man's duties towards his Maker, himself, and his fellow-creatures, on the necessity of subduing his corrupt inclinations and the means of doing so are deliberately excluded. Our Lord led a holy life in poverty and suffering, to show us the way to Heaven by His instructions and example; but the secular system knows nothing of His instructious, and will not allow His example to be proposed to the unhappy children beneath its wing, as long as they are beneath it. It knows nothing and proposes nothing nobler than "prosperity and wealth, external polish, and mental refinement, suited to the higher enjoyments." It may make them urbane men, but it will not make them good citizens.

* Let me not be misunderstood. I do not say that "secular Education" favours immorality. But I say that a "system" which proposes to impart "secular education Only," and which not only professedly ignores, but actually excludes religion, does favour immorality.

page 5

It is Atheistical or Godless.

The word atheistical means godless or without a God; and in this system there is to be no word about God. Therefore if the children brought up under the secular system, acquire any knowledge of God, it certainly will not flow from the system, but must trickle in from some other source, and in spite of all the secular precautions to exclude it. As secularism in its present stage does not go so far as to deny God openly, but merely ignores Him, it is not yet atheistical in the fullest sense of the word, but it is distinctly atheistical, to the degree of declaring there shall be no God, till the schoolmaster's work is done. *

Would it be believed that the upholders of such a system would charge us with atheism? Yet so it is.

That it will be morally impossible to teach religion out of school, and absolutely impossible to teach it in school, I showed on a former occasion; so that if this system which I have already convicted of injustice and religious persecution, and which I now prove guilty of atheism, continues; some will grow up without any belief in God, and nearly all without any practical knowledge of Him. The little pagan boys of Rome knew their arithmetic well but where ignorant of Christianity. In what respect will the little secularist boys of Melbourne, or Dunedin, or Christchurch, be superior to them, when they leave the secularist schools, with precisely the same knowledge and the same ignorance?

And this is what some Secularists want—no "dogma"—that is, no doctrine; that is, no religion. Others would be horrified at such an idea, and fondly imagine religion will be taught or learned some way. If their piety be but on a par with their simplicity, they must be really admirable persons. Do the secularists ever reflect on the exactness with which they have unconsciously named themselves? Secularist means Worldling and Christ "is not of this world;" and the whole world is seated in wickedness," and for this wicked "world he does not pray;" and as it "hated Him" and crucified Him two thousand years ago, it hates Him still and will not "suffer little children to come to Him!"

Let us review the conclusions at which we have arrived. Secular civilisation means worldly civilisation, civilisation which promises nothing beyond the things of this world; or, as we have seen, "riches and the pleasures they procure." Is there a country in the world more civilised than England, or a city more civilised than London? Is there a spot on earth where there are greater riches and greater pleasures? But alas! these riches are only for "as many as possible," and these many are few. A comparatively small number of men are possessed of wealth so enormous that there are not pleasures enough to exhaust it; but while the civilised Dives sits clothed in purple and fine linen, and surrounded by the "appliances and conveniences of life," uncivilised Lazarus starves upon his doorstep. Can this be Civilisation which relieves some few from all care, condemns the vast majority to a hard struggle, and allows many to lead a living death of cold, hunger, and despair?

Secular education means education in worldly sciences. It may be allied with Virtue, but it also may not. There is no necessary connection. It gives a man more power for good or evil, and it does not bid him employ it only for good. To use the common phrase, we say "a polished villain" and a "rough diamond." Can polished villany be civilised, and uneducated integrity be uncivilised?

The secular system deliberately rejects and excludes the source of morality—Religion. Can a system which favours immorality and atheism be civilised?

No! Something tell us that Civilisation is good, that this thing is not Civilisation: but by pursuing further the simple analysis which has overturned a false system, we shall now proceed to rear the magnificent edifice of

Christian Civilisation.

* 'Argus,' July 13th, 1872.

Horace, "Ars Poet."

It must not be supposed that I bring this accusation against them, merely because "worlding" happens to be the translation of "secularist" but as with the word "civilisation," having proved the meaning of the name, I call attention to the exactness with which it expresses the thing.