Secular Education the Worship of 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]—(I.) 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—(I.) 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 State 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.