The Duty of All Parents to Secure a Religious Education for Their Children.

Proverbs i. 7—"The fear of the Lord is the beginning (or principal part) of knowledge."

To the Editor of the "Otago Daily Times."

Sir,—A primary duty rests upon every parent who brings a child into the world, of caring for that child, by feeding, clothing, and educating it. With regard to the latter there can be no real education apart from religious instruction, and every parent who has incurred the responsibility of the birth of a child has incurred also a responsibility of bringing up that child in the fear and love of God.

Religion, morality, and knowledge being essential to good government, it is the duty of the State, as it is also to its advantage to encourage this feeling of responsibility in parents, and to assist them, in every possible way, in promoting the religious instruction of their children.

Parents very generally desire that morality and religion should form a part of the daily instruction of their children; and some provision should be made by law for religious observances, and for moral and religious instruction in all State schools.

It is frequently said that the churches ought to instruct their children in religion; but if they are not allowed to do this during the hours set apart for education in the day-schools under the State system, it is difficult to understand when they could do this.

As a rule, as soon as children are washed and dressed and have had their breakfast, they are sent off to school, and when school is over, and they have had a short time for play, by the time they reached their homes (in many instances having to come considerable distances), it is time for them to have their tea. After tea the younger ones are sent to bed, and the elder ones have their lessons to prepare for the next day's school. It is difficult, then, to see when a minister of religion could get his children together for religious instruction, for it would not of course be expected as even a possibility that he could give any efficient instruction by going to the homes of the children, as from their numbers he probably could not visit each more than once or twice a year.

If he were to try and have a class of his children between school times, or before or after school, there would immediately be page 33 an outcry, and a reasonable one, that he was overburdening the children's brains; and, in fact, when grown-up men object to having to work more than eight hours a day, surely five hours daily in school, and one and a-half to two hours at home, is enough to tax the brain power of growing children.

If the clergymen were to take the children on the Saturday's holiday, people would say that they had surely deserved their holiday, and that it was very hard that their only holiday should be curtailed for religious instruction.

The religious teaching of children then becomes confined to one short hour on Sunday, when, perhaps under a young and inexperienced teacher, they spend an hour, but come away little the better for it. And this is considered to be sufficient to instruct immortal souls in the things of eternity, though, as they are not compelled to attend Sunday-school—and many do not—many do not even receive this amount of religious instruction.

It is time that the people of New Zealand looked at this question fairly, and asked themselves whether they are satisfied with this amount of religious instruction for the rising generation—whether, as parents, they believed that they were conscientiously discharging their duty to their children in securing for them a religious education, or whether not only are they willing but desire that the minister of their denomination shall go and take a class of the children of his denomination during the week and give regular religious instruction during a time set apart in school hours.

Anybody who knows New Zealand will feel that churches and Sunday-schools, and other religious agencies, are not sufficient to impart a religious education to the young of the Colony. It is to the interest of the country that they shall receive a religious education.

It means a great danger to the State if a large number of young people grow up, having had little or no religious teaching, and without the checks and safeguards which religion imposes; and yet, unless the Government can see its way to sanction in some way religious teaching in our State schools, this is the inevitable result that will follow.

The argument has long been used that, as long as schools retain their distinctively Protestant tone and spirit, the Roman Catholic population have a just ground of complaint, and will be shut out in large numbers from the benefits of the system. That ground of objection once removed—an objection which men think they can understand and appreciate—then it is superficially believed that Roman Catholics will avail themselves of the common school conducted on the purely secular system.

Large numbers of persons are anxious that the schools shall be made purely secular, on the ground of justice to all sects. But it is a great injustice to most sects—to all, in fact, except infidels. The Roman Catholics declare that they are not satisfied with the State "secular" system, and wherever they have a sufficient num- page 34 ber of their own Church in a district they will raise and support their own schools. The secular system does not satisfy them, neither is it that in the main which keeps them away. If religious instruction were given in the schools, those of their children who might be attending the school would not be allowed to be present at it; but for the sake of the others, for the good of the country at large, they prefer a Protestant Bible to none at all, and some species of religious teaching to godlessness.

The experience of New Zealand and Victoria teaches us that we are no nearer getting the Roman Catholics to come into the public school system by making it purely secular than we were before.

When it comes to be felt throughout the country that there is a deep religious principle underlying this question, and when the religious communities awake, as they are beginning to do already, to their responsibilities, and to see the injustice and undesirability of all religious instruction being excluded from our State schools, then the destruction of the secular State school system becomes simply a question of time. Insist upon an absolutely secular instruction, and one sect after another will demand in tones that will be heard and obeyed, either that religious teaching be sanctioned, or in default of this a division of the funds contributed by the State.

The result will be several systems of schools instead of one; the free common schools will disappear, and each religious sect will have its own schools in their place. This is the result sure, sooner or later, to come about, if all religious instruction be absolutely forbidden to every sect, and the just demand for some religious teaching to be given in State schools be disregarded, and religion excluded.

The important question has been raised, whether the secularization of schools would bring in the Roman Catholics?

It is admitted that their ulterior object is to secure a division of the school fund. The Tablet says :—"The School Board of Cincinnati have voted, we see from the papers, to exclude the Bible and all religious instruction from the public schools of the city. If this has been done with a view of reconciling Catholics to the common school system, its purpose will not be realised. It does not meet, or in any degree lessen, our objection to the public school system, and only proves the impracticability of that system in a mixed community of Catholics and Protestants; for it proves that the schools must, to be sustained, become thoroughly godless. But to us godless schools are still less acceptable than sectarian schools; and we object less to the reading of King James' Bible, even in the schools, than we do to the exclusion of all religious instruction American Protestantism of the orthodox stamp is far less evil than German infidelity."

Whether the Roman Catholics, who constitute the main force of the sectarian malcontents, would be reconciled by a secular page 35 system or not, is clearly proved by the experience of this country and of Victoria, where the Roman Catholics are not satisfied by a purely secular system, and, wherever possible, support their own schools.

If we say that the teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic, together with the reading of the Protestant Bible, is a Protestant, and therefore sectarian action, it is intelligible that Roman Catholics should not be willing to send their children to the public schools where this is allowed. But it is also clear that their ground of objection to sending their children to a State school where religious teaching of any sort is given by the schoolmaster, is cut away from them, when that teaching is absolutely prohibited, and the education is wholly secularized.

But this very secularization of the school teaching—the teaching of reading, writing, and arthmetic alone, without any religious instruction at all—satisfies them still less, and not only them, but dissatisfies Protestants as well. In fact, education without any religious instruction whatever is irreligious and infidel, and is therefore sectarian action, and is protecting infidelity with a vengeance, to the injury of both Protestants and Roman Catholics.

A Roman Catholic ought not to be compelled to support a system, the prevailing tone of which is opposed to his religion. Much more, then, Roman Catholics and Protestants ought not to be compelled to support a system which is opposed to every religion by being "entirely secular."

Assuming that public necessity compels the taxation of the whole community for the support of public schools, it still remains the bounden duty of all parents to secure for their children a religious education.

If it be absolutely proved that it is impossible for the State even to sanction any religious instruction whatever, it then becomes the bounden duty of every denomination, and every parent belonging to that denomination, to adopt a system of education, at any sacrifice, which will secure that the children belonging to their denomination shall be brought up in the religion which they deem so important.

If they do not do this, it argues a great indifference to religion which people, and especially parents, ought to be thoroughly ashamed of. If all denominations carried this out thoroughly, there would then remain but few to be educated by the State, and the vast majority belonging to the various denominations could reasonably demand that, whilst they were supporting schools at their own expense for their own children, the education provided by the State for those belonging to no denomination, and for which they were taxed, should be of a simple and economical character.

By almost universal assent, distinctive denominational teaching ought to be prohibited in the public schools to the schoolmaster, page 36 but some religious instruction should be, and (D.V.) will yet be, given in the schools. What we contend for is not distinctive denominational teaching, but the teaching of a higher Being than man, of higher duties than mere worldly ones, and of a soul and future state—all which Christians hold to be necessary, but which cannot now legally be taught as part of the curriculum of education in the State schools. Some teaching of this character is absolutely necessary, as of vital importance to the individual souls, and of paramount value in instilling a sense of individual responsibility and high principle into the component parts of the community. We desire religious and moral teaching, as opposed to worldly and secular. The question is, not of one sect against another, but of the worship and knowledge of God, as against the worship and knowledge of this world.—I am, &c.,

Prophetes.

P.S.—It is not pretended that these letters are original; their sole object is to bring to the notice of the people of New Zealand the fact of the present absence of religious instruction in the free public schools of the Colony, and the necessity that for the good of the whole community some should be provided. With this object in view, any ideas which have been written or spoken, and which seemed to throw light on the subject, have been freely borrowed and adapted for the purpose.

Secular Education the Worship Ok This World.

To the Editor of the "Otago Daily Times."

Sir,—I distinctly object to having to contribute either directly or indirectly to the support of a system of education which does not recognize the Supreme Being.

The Education Act of 1877, in laying down the course of instruction which is to be followed in the Public Schools of this Colony, not only makes no provision for the instruction of children in their duty to God,—but says, "and the teaching shall be entirely of a secular character."

Now, what does this mean? Let us look in the dictionary, and see the meaning which the word "secular" bears; and, we find :—

In Walker's : "Secular—not spiritual, relating to the affairs of this present world."

In Maunder's : "Secular—not bound by rules, worldly."

In Ogilvie's: "Secular—pertaining to an age or division of time, coming once in a century, pertaining to this present world, worldly."

page 37

In Walker and Webster's dictionary : "Secular—pertaining to this present world, or to things not spiritual or holy."

In Webster's: "Secular—[Lat, secularis, from seculum, a generation, age, the time, the world]—(1.) coming or observed once, in an age or century; (2.) pertaining to an age, or the progress of ages, or to a long period of time; (3.) pertaining to this present world or to things not spiritual or holy, relating to things not immediately or primarily respecting the soul, worldly."

—" New foes arise,

"Threatening to bind our souls with secular chains."

—Milton

.

So then, as a people—a people calling ourselves a Christian nation, and once proud of that name; a people that prints the letters "D. G." upon its coins, admitting that its princes reign "by the Grace of God;" that has the cross of our Lord for the emblem upon its National flag;—we are so emasculated in our religion, that, for the sake of a false peace,—because we cannot agree amongst ourselves as to the exact way in which our children shall be taught the knowledge of the Lord,—we are willing to sacrifice our principle of duty to God, to banish God and the things of God altogether from our schools; and hope in this way to get rid of the difficulty.

It is bad policy. It is even now laying the foundation of future trouble to this Colony, and already it is bearing fruit.

Children attending the State Schools in New Zealand may be taught anything relating to the worship of this world but nothing relating to the immeasureably greater "unseen world," and the Almighty God. Is this carrying out the great moral law enunciated by Moses?—Deut. vi. (4.) "Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord. (5.) And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. (6.) And these words which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart; (7.) and thou shalt teach them diligently to thy children, and shalt talk of them," &c.

No! In these days we have advanced far beyond old fashioned ideas of that sort. Our children may be taught anything about their bodies, this outward material form, they may be taught anything "relating to the ages and divisions of time that pertain to this world,"—they may be taught anything relating to past generations, "the progress of ages, not relating immediately or primarily to the soul." But, about the Maker of the Universe,—about the things relating to eternity and the soul (which, in some ages of the nation's life would have been looked upon as by far the most important things for a child to know), these, and things spiritual, which have been the springs of action in past history, which govern the lives of many in this present age, are to be forbidden, and driven out of sight as needless, or positively dangerous, from the system of education of our own young people. They form no part of the curriculum of education in our highly-civilized public State schools, and must be learnt in private, if they are to be learnt at all, and if page 38 the calls of "secular" education leave any time, opportunity, energy, or inclination, or means of instruction for that which the State evidently regards as superfluous,—if not worse.

"If the Lord be God, follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him."

Can it be said that we have sunk so low in our own degradation that we worship the World absolutely to the exclusion of God; and that "knowledge of the world" is so infinitely more important for our children to know than any knowledge of their duty to God and their own souls;—that it is incumbent upon the Government to enforce the one, and absolutely forbid the other?

I trust not. I hope that it is only that people did not know what they were doing; that they passed this clause, without thought, at the desire of a few mere secularists; and they are but few.

If we look at the Report upon the last Census published this year, we find that out of a population of 414,412,402,105 have specified religious beliefs, and 393,690 are either Prostestants or Roman Catholics. That is to say, that Prostestants and Roman Catholics number 393,690 to 20,722 other persons.

Now, Prostestants and Roman Catholics if left absolutely to themselves and to their denominations, would undoubtedly wish their children to be brought up "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."

Therefore, either—(1.) a small and disunited party of 20,722 persons of whom probably nearly 4,379 are Chinese, are dictating to their Prostestant and Catholic fellow-men, that—whether they will or not—they shall not have any religious teaching in the State Schools; or else (2.), Roman Catholics and Prostestants of the various denominations cannot agree amongst themselves as to the manner in which religious teaching shall be given; and, therefore, for the sake of a false peace, they mutually agree that God the Creator of the Universe, whose worship is the ground of their differences, shall be banished from the State schools altogether.

Now, if the first is the case, then the majority have a right to be heard, and to say:—"We will have God acknowledged and reverenced in the curriculum of education drawn up for our schools and supported by ourselves. If you do not like your children to come under religious instruction, you may withdraw them during those hours, or they may be put to other work; but we claim the right—being the vast majority of the people of the country—to have religious instruction for our children."

If this is not the case; but the second reason—viz., that Christians cannot agree amongst themselves, is the one : Then, "Shame upon any people that can voluntarily agree to ignore and to insult the Lord of Hosts, by placing upon their statute-book a law which exalts the knowledge of this world, as such, to His entire exclusion!"

The first principle we ought to unite in insisting upon, whether we be Roman Catholics or Prostestants (of whatever denomina- page 39 tion), is—that God be acknowledged, and our children brought up in His fear and love, under our Stale Education system; and that this principle be recognised, and made the law.

The adjustment of this principle to practical detail must be worked out, and, if necessary, fought out. Only, let the principle itself be recognised as a first principle—as so vital—that nothing shall make us lose sight of it, and nothing shall rob us of it.

But the principle of putting God out of sight because no agreement could be come to as to how religion should be taught, is a wholly false and illogical conclusion to arrive at; and is one which it may be confidently anticipated the sense of right in the people of New Zealand will correct; and that they will not agree to allow the things of this world only, and the knowledge of this world and things pertaining to it, to be taught to their children, whilst the things of God, the things of eternity, things that concern the soul, shall not only not form part of the curriculum of study, but shall be forbidden so far as the law can forbid them from being taught by those who are able to teach them, and to those who are anxious to be taught them. I am, &c.,

Prophetes.

Education on a Religious Basis the Duty of the State.

Deut. xxxii.—"46. Set your hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, all the words of this law. 47. For it is not a vain thing for you, because it is your life."

To the Editor of the "Otago Daily Times."

Sir,—I endeavoured in a former letter to call attention to that clause in the Education Act of 1877 which governs the instruction to be given by the schoolmaster in the State schools, and enacts that "the teaching shall be entirely of a secular character."

I endeavoured to show that the teaching given under this new clause means instruction in the knowledge of this world, to the absolute exclusion of instruction in the knowledge of God; and that the State, whilst recognizing its duty of seeing that all the children belonging to it are educated, and undertaking to educate all those children who are not otherwise educated, makes the egregious blunder of giving them a one-sided education, and instructing them only in secular knowledge, leaving altogether out of sight that which is the very complement of a good education, that which is the only sound basis of a thorough education and a healthy moral training—I mean religious Christian teaching.

Answer has been made to this, "that the people of New Zealand are better than their profession," and that, as a matter of fact, much religious teaching is now given in the free State schools, in page 40 spite of the clause which directs that the teaching should be "entirely secular."

In reply to this, I would say that if this is so, it is a wholly wrong state of things; and however creditable it may be to the hearts of the people, as showing that they desire that their children shall have some religious teaching, it is anything but creditable to the moral sense of the community, least of all that it should be tacitly assented to by any of those in authority. Such a state of things tends to lower the moral standard of all, and encourages teachers and children to believe that a law which enacts that which is disagreeable may be evaded with impunity, if not even meritoriously.

If the law is a good one it ought to be obeyed; those in authority ought to see that it is carried out, and teachers should feel that they are bound to observe the laws laid down for their direction, so long as they hold office, however disagreeable or oppressive they seem to be.

If the law is not a good one, let it be altered; and I think that it will not be long before people will demand with no uncertain voice that the Education Act of 1877 shall be altered to the extent that some religious teaching shall be allowed in the course of instruction given in the State schools.

Most people will agree that instruction in religion is indispensable for the training of the young, and as the very foundation for the good morals and well-being of the nation. Are we then satisfied, as individuals and as a community, that the rising generation should be watched over and educated by the State in all knowledge relating to this world, but left to pick up their religious teaching as best they can—the State relying for their getting religious instruction upon the very parents whom it cannot trust by themselves to provide secular education for their children, and therefore take the education of the children to a great extent out of their hands, or else throw it upon the Church? Let us consider how far these two agencies upon which the State may be assumed to rely fulfil the duty—expected of them, and desired from them, for the safety and well-being of the State—of imparting religious instruction to the children.

With reference to home teaching, I would ask each individual parent, How much definitive religious teaching do you give regularly to your children? And the answer too often is, "I do not like to interfere in my children's religious belief." Take the families you know; how many parents, if they would, are capable of teaching their children religion; and how many do? Some "have no time"; others do not feel "fit to talk about such things." In many cases the parents are out or at work the whole day, and have little time or energy to spare, when they and the children get home in the evening, to teach the children religion. I am not sure whether, if the parents wished to impart religious instruction themselves, it would be all that could be desired; in page 41 some cases rather the other way, where the children see the lives of their parents spent in indifference to religion, and in a self-indulgence sometimes of a gross kind. In these cases any teaching of theirs would be nullified.

In cases where the parents may be too much occupied or not feel able to impart religious instruction, they might be, and I believe in most cases would be, not only willing, but anxious that their children should receive that religious teaching which they themselves do not feel able to give, from the schoolmaster the clergyman of their denominations, or from any other person whose duty it might be to impart it; but if children have to depend for religious instruction upon home teaching, very many, perhaps most, will get none at all.

With reference to Church teaching, I would ask those who are acquanted with Sunday-schools whether they are prepared to allow the children of New Zealand to depend absolutely for their religious training upon the hour, more or less, spent in Sunday-school weekly. In the first place the children, whilst compelled to attend the daily instructions in the public school, are not compelled to attend the Sunday-school and to come under religious instruction at all. In many places there are no Sunday-schools, and where there are Sunday-schools the attendance at them is irregular. Sometimes the parents take the children for a walk on Sundays; frequently they go to visit a neighbour and take the children who are detained and do not come to Sunday-school; occasionally, being late in arriving, they do not like to come in, and consequently play truant. But, taking Sunday-schools as they exist, many children do not attend at all, and many of those who do attend come so irregularly that practically what they learn is very little.

In many cases the Sunday spent by the parents differs but little from ordinary days, except in freedom from work, and church-going forms no part of the day's duties.

In these cases, if children get no religious instruction at the day-schools they will get none at all, and it becomes a serious matter for the country to consider whether it is not desirable that children should receive some religious instruction, and whether, as a matter of policy, the State system of education for the young ought not to include some thorough religious teaching.

Let the education of the community be compulsory and general, but let it be religious and not Godless—religious in the sense of having general Christian teaching, as opposed to sectarianism on the one hand and Godlessness on the other.

Let the instruction given by the State be founded upon a religious basis, as is fitting in a Christian nation, as individuals themselves would mostly desire. Let the schoolmaster be instructed to open school with prayer, and to instill the principles of religion and morality into the children as the foundation of education. Let this instruction be absolutely colourless if you will, as far as denominationalism goes, so as to embrace all Christians. Let the page 42 prayer be one agreed to by all religious bodies, or confine it only to the Lord's prayer : only, as Christians in this country are twenty times the number of other people, let us insist on an unsectarian religious Christian teaching being given as the foundation of the course of the State system of education by the schoolmaster, taught, if you will, on the ground of expediency, and allow all who do not wish to receive this instruction to withdraw during the time set apart for this purpose, or have them set to some other work, and, in effect, I believe that the number of these would be extremely few. But in a Christian nation do not let a twentieth part of the whole population who are sectarian in their infidelity, or diversity of religious belief, dictate to the immense majority of Christian people that there shall be no Christian teaching whatever in the State schools. Protect them by all means in their infidelity or diversity of belief if they wish it, and let them decide whether or not their children shall come under religious teaching, but do not let a small number of non-Christians dictate to the community who are, with the exception of a twentieth part, Christians, that in opposition to all their principles of faith, their children shall not be educated on a religious and Christian, but on an "entirely-secular basis."

Let the various denominations have permission to teach their own children at an hour to be agreed upon, when the parents wish it, and let that hour be fixed by agreement between the Board, the schoolmaster, and the minister of the denomination.

Do not let us have upon our Statute-book a law containing a clause positively insulting to the Almighty God, by excluding from our children, so far as the State is concerned, all knowledge of Him, and which exercises a tyranny of the most extreme kind over the parents of New Zealand. The law, as it stands at present, takes possession of children for the greater portion of the time for direct education in their lives, and says that they shall be educated, and in a manner in which the State chooses to dictate; that religious teaching shall be forbidden, and the parents shall not be permitted to exercise any discretion, or to have any voice in deciding whether their children shall be taught upon a religious basis, or receive any religious teaching whatever.

I believe that the people of New Zealand would desire, if asked, that their children should be educated upon a religious and Christian basis, giving permission to non-Christians, and those who objected, to withdraw their children during the time for religious instruction. And I believe that individuals of every denomination would wish that the minister of their denomination should have the privilege of attending the school and instructing their children during a portion of the school time, if their children and other people's children were protected from being taught without their consent by the minister of any other denomination.

It is the duty of the Parliament of this country to protect every denomination in the free exercise of its own religion; and if, there page 43 fore, any denomination desires that its children shall be instructed in religion as well as in secular instruction daily, it is the duty of the Legislature to protect their denomination in the imparting of religious instruction to its young people.

If the State decides to continue the present Education Act, and to exclude the Bible and religious instruction, on the ground of justice to all sects, it then becomes the bounden duty of all Christians, of whatever denomination, to understand the situation and to face it boldly. They ought to say to themselves, the State compels me to educate my children, and to comply with certain regulations as to efficiency, &c., but if I send my children to the State free school I shall send them where they will be brought up upon no religious basis, where there is no regular religious teaching, and where religious teaching is absolutely excluded.

Let them say to themselves, "I will not have this. I value my religion, and I determine that my children shall be brought up in the fear and love of God; and they shall be. I am willing to make any sacrifice to carry this out, but I will not have my children growing up without religious instruction."

Let men be determined on this, and set God before them, and insist on His recognition.

If necessary for this purpose, let them combine and raise schools amongst themselves, which shall be under Government inspection, which shall comply with the requirements of the State, but in which, as being supported by their own voluntary contributions, religious instruction may be given. Let all Christians feel it to be a matter of principle with them to secure religious instruction for their children.

The teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic alone, without any religion whatever, is sectarian action, and so the State subsidises one sect of infidels to the disadvantage of other sects. This is not fair, and is not the boasted equality amongst sects, for they protect one sect and tyrannise over and persecute other sects, who are forbidden to practise their religious worship during a considerable portion of the day, and are compelled to contribute to support a system the prevailing tone of which is opposed to their religion.

The State ought to protect religion, and those parents who desire that their children should be taught by the minister of their denomination ought to be enabled to have their wishes carried out.

It is not desired, though it would be for the good of the community generally, that any child should be compelled to come under religious instruction. The fullest liberty should be allowed to all, and parents or guardians allowed to decide whether or not their children should be taught by the minister of the denomination.

If all the denominations felt the responsibility that rests upon them to see that their children do not grow up without any religious teaching, and combined to demand that facilities should be given for each denomination to give religious instruction during page 44 school hours to the children of their persuasion, the pressure brought to bear upon the Government would carry all before it, and the present "entirely secular" system would quickly give way to a system in which "knowledge of God" was not only not ignored, but was imparted by direction of the State by those whose duty it is to teach it, and under safeguards imposed by the State itself. "Secular education" is, by its one-sidedness, incomplete, for the exclusion of the knowledge of God, who takes so great a part in the ordering of the world and all things in it, is excluding all instruction upon the great cause, and reasoning only upon the minor effect. "Truth is one, and its harmony must be sought by a collocation of facts in every department of knowledge," and if religious knowledge be excluded, then the harmonious whole cannot be attained to in our State schools, and the education given there will have a vital defect, for "God is truth," and if all knowledge of Him be denied, the key of truth is lost.—I am, &c.,

Prophetes.