The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 42

No. I

No. I.

Mr Virtue's recent letter in the West Coast Times but gives expression to a conviction growing pretty general everywhere. The purely secular system of instruction which so many of the colonies have adopted, and which a large proportion of the democracy of the world hanker after, is not believed to be the great success anticipated, in th se countries where it has been tried, and an uneasy feeling grows and spreads, even in the most democratic communities—a feeling of misgiving as to the future welfare of the young, secularly taught. The Melbourne Argus, the Australasian, the Sydney Morning Herald, and other leading organs of public opinion, all, with one exception perhaps, heretofore staunch supporters of secular instruction, are wavering, or are openly dissatisfied with the ends already attained, and with the prospect which the system affords, of advantage to, or of the advancement of, the world, when the present upholders and inaugurators of the system have "had their day and cease to be." Already some of the chief, and staunchest secularists are looking round in an endeavor to discover some plan or method by which a religious instruction, acceptable to all denominations, may be inculcated and combined with secular teaching in the public seminaries, and many able men—Bishop Moorhouse amongst them—are now directing their thoughts in this direction. And it seems to be conceded on all hands, that a more utterly hopeless task never confronted mortal man.

Before glancing at these difficulties—the tremendous obstacles that we at once encounter the moment we attempt to lay down the lines for a religious instruction that shall be acceptable to all christian sects, and that must, too, meet the views of that large mass of christian mankind who belong to none of them, it may be desirable to recur for a moment or two, to the denominational system, which at once strikes the man anxious to do the right thing, as the best system, taking all the circumstances into consideration. In many colonies this system has had a long and perfectly fair trial. In Victoria it was the state system for many years. It had free scope there. Every settled village or hamlet which could boast of a school at all, had more than one school—had its two, three, or four schools, of ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty, scholars each. The religious instruction of the denomination was rigidly imparted in the denominational school. Those young people, so taught, have grown up now, and have taken their places in society. They may have reaped advantages, in a religious sense, from the denominational teaching imparted. It is certain that the secular instruction was of a very inferior character, and that the teachers—secularly—were inferior men. How could it be otherwise? We do not find even the most zealous, and (in their own eyes) the most godly men, at all desirous of living on small salaries, if their abilities can command, a larger remuneration. Bishop Moorhouse recently admitted as much. Indeed, what the Bishop really did say, amounted to an ad-mission, which went considerably further. At all events, £2 or £3 per week would not pay a good teacher, although it might recompense a good denominationalist. Besides, the article, in sufficient abundance, was not to be had at any price. The result was, that the denominational schools were found to be very good schools for inculcating narrow sectarianisms, but very bad schools for fitting people for this queer world of ours, with which we all have to battle. There was another, and a more fatal objection, to the denominational system. Children of the large denominational schools, and more especially children of the petty little rural denominational schools, were found, as they advanced in denominational instruction, to be not altogether overpowered with love for the people of the other creeds. They bad no connection with the school on the other side. In other words, the system tended to destroy confidence in the cardinal point of Christ's teaching—the universal brotherhood of the human race. For these, and for other reasons, the system was superseded, and gave place to that later system, which, at all events, aims to secure good secular schools, and good secular teachers and to place rich and poor, Catholic Protestant, Jew, and Gentile, on a perfect footing of equality, in the sight of the rising generation.

In order to obtain this much, Mr Virtue says the "Bible was excluded" from all these schools. I hardly think this is a fair statement of the case. The people who would desire to exclude the Bible, as such, from the public schools, are mere units in thousands. Not one man in a thousand desires to exclude the Bible. But the large majority of colonists desire to exclude the narrowness, the strife, the bitterness, the theological hairsplitting propensities, which the sects exhibit amongst themselves, and towards each other, the moment they enter the schoolroom, with the Bible in their hands. A large proportion of those who came to the conclusión that religion must be excluded from the schools, did so, from the first, most unwillingly, because it was obvious to them, as it is to everybody, that "pure religion and undefiled," when we can find it, is a first essential in training youth, and should be taught, not, as Mr Virtue says, because of the "reward" of "infinite value," which it brings, but because it is in itself good, and good for humanity. I may here say a word or two on the in tersely selfish aspect which this constant reference to "reward" and "punishment" gives to the christian religion as taught by the sects. Even Mr Virtue cannot write a letter of a few lines without introducing "rewards of infinite value." As soon as ever the sects get to see—what so many reflective men have long seen—that this method presents religion in a selfish, mercantile and repulsive phase, to men, then so toon will there be some better prospect of admitting religion into the schoolroom. If religion is a good thing at all, is a good thing because it is good in itself; because it elevates and advances and refines and subdues human nature. I do sincerely believe that this invariable presentation of religion to us, as a something to be recognised and followed because of the advantages—the "rewards of infinite value—which it is supposed to confer on its votaries, debases religion, and does utter violence to our sense of what religion really is, or should be. As long as we say—Let the Bible into the schoolroom because it right to do so—we are on controversial perhaps, but still on firm ground. When we say, however—Let the Bible into the school room because of a reward of infinite value" which we will receive, then I say we sand not only on controversial ground, but on ground as rotten as a morass and as foetid as a quagmire.

We have now got as far, just, as the starting point—the admission of the bible into the school. Here we are met by still more insuperable difficulties, which I propose to refer to in a future paper.