Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

tion, or hostile to it. They were in a great many instances afraid of over-teaching the working classes, and spoiling them for servants and labourers. And in scarcely any case that I remember was the want of support by the laity due to any proselytism attempted by the clergy. That the clergy in most cases made religious instruction paramount, I am quite willing to allow. If this be bigotry, I plead guilty to it in their name. It is for the sake of religious instruction also that they have incurred labour and expense; but to say that secular instruction has thereby suffered, is simply untrue. The best schools in religious knowledge were generally, in my experience, the best in secular knowledge too. If there was any jealousy about carrying the instruction too far, it came more often from the lay subscriber than from the clerical manager. In fact, it frequently happened that the clergyman, who established a school chiefly with the view of religious teaching, and placed it under Government inspection for the sake of pecuniary assistance, was carried on to become a zealous educationist, and ended by taking as much interest in the intellectual progress of the children as the most ardent secularist could do. The real obstacle to education hitherto has been fear of over-education. And there is some reason to fear whether the cry for education now is not just as selfish as the cry against it was before. Now the object is all to make the lower classes useful. Before, it was thought that education would spoil them for the use of their betters. Now it is found that ignorance spoils them more. I cannot see that the desire to teach them the great truths of the Christian Faith suffers from comparison with these motives, even though that Faith itself should be regarded as it is by the gentleman who describes instruction in it as the "being crammed with catechisms and Jewish pedigrees."

We must not shut our eyes to the fact that the cry is really for secular education. The Liberal party, from which it mainly proceeds, is making a general crusade against Denominationalism. The crusade is really one against all religious instruction. Its object is to wrest the office of teaching out of the hands of the clergy. Is there anything really illiberal in the Denominational system? On the contrary, is it not that under which the largest amount of liberty may be enjoyed? If we ask what has been the result of the national system as established

in Ireland, we shall find that every earnest religious teacher in that country, whether Romanist or Protestant, is anxious to overthrow it; whereas in England the opposite system advanced with strides so rapid, that its expenses threatened to become a serious burden. The Denominational system has, indeed, one fault, that, depending in part on voluntary efforts, it cannot be made universal by the will of the nation, but to oppose it on the score of Liberalism is one of the most monstrous perversions even of that ill-used designation. I am aware that the existing system is favourably spoken of, and the exertions of the clergy fairly acknowledged, by some of the promoters of change, and that the only alterations which they recommend are intended to supplement what has been already done, and to carry education into districts now without it. This it is proposed to do by giving powers in certain cases to establish schools and support them by rates; while of course it must be conceded to existing schools to avail themselves of the same means of support. But this, whatever its intention, is really secular education in disguise; for there is little doubt that rate-supported education must eventually become secular, and that the principle of rates once introduced must gradually, but certainly, destroy the voluntary element. It is an established principle that whatever object is supported by local rates, the rate-payers must have a voice in the expenditure of the money concerned with it, either personally or by representation, either by vote of a parish vestry, or by a Board of elected members. If a school is managed by such a Board, it is clear that there can be no definite teaching of religious doctrine. There must be a compromise among the men of different opinions who are sure to compose such a Board. The result must necessarily be the paring down of the religious teaching till it is worthless, or leaving it out altogether. Probably even the latter would be the preferable alternative. But even schools under their own managers, if claiming assistance from rates, must come under the conditions which the Board chooses to impose; and no one who knows anything of local politics can doubt that the influence of the Local Board would not be always very delicately used; that anything like strong religious views would be objected to by one member or another, and that a gradual process would be carried on of assimilation to the secular type.

But, it may be said, Why should the existing schools not go on as at present? Why should they trouble themselves about rates? For the very sufficient reason that rates will not let them alone. How many people will go on supporting a school by subscription, when they find that they can make others, who will not subscribe, pay their fair share of the expenses? The clergy are taxed to the utmost as it is. They cannot pay any more. What are they to do, when thus left stranded, but throw the school upon the rates, or shut it up? Again, supposing that, contrary to probability, all the supporters in a given parish remain staunch. There are other parishes, probably, in the same union, where there are no schools. Suppose these are compelled by authority to set up schools to be supported by rates. The rates, of course, must come from the whole union. Consequently the parish in question has to pay its quota for the schools of other parishes, in addition to the entire support of its own school. Is such an arrangement likely to last? I conclude, therefore, that the introduction of the principle of rating must, sooner or later, be fatal to the existing system, and consequently deeply, if not fatally, injurious to religious education. The channel of rating once cut, will draw into itself all the fertilizing streams of voluntary contribution, and leave the system they nourish dry. I hope, therefore, that those who deprecate such a result will be on their guard against any measure, permissive or otherwise, for introducing local rates, and not unwittingly consent to it as only introducing desirable modifications into the existing system, and increasing its efficiency.

I have assumed all along that secular education, or education without religion, is a system to be deprecated. I may be accused of inconsistency in this, after insisting on the advantages of the secular as well as the religious part of a complete education. If this really enlarges the mind and gives possession of untold intellectual treasures, why is it not a benefit by itself? Why should we withhold it unless we can give religious instruction as well? If we cannot get every one to receive religious instruction is it not better to give secular instruction than none at all? Would it not be a gain for the State to give secular education to all, and to let the clergy supplement it, as far as they could, by religious instruction?

This would leave religious instruction, it might be argued, just as it is, so that at least no harm would be done.

This appears, on the face of it, a very reasonable proposition. But, in the first place, it is very far from true that religious instruction would remain unaffected by it. As soon as it ceased to be a part of the regular school course there would be a great temptation for the teachers to neglect it. But, even if this were not so, there is this great objection to the plan, that it places education on a false basis. It makes it consist of two separate and independent parts, the intellectual and the religious. It assumes that religion may be taught as an extra, or left out at pleasure, and that secular education is complete without it, as it may be said to be complete without music or drawing. But no Christian teacher can be content with such a place for the faith of Christ. He must teach its paramount importance and authority if he teaches it at all. He must teach that, if it is to be received to any purpose, it must pervade the whole life; he must teach it as the guide and leading motive of conduct. It is true that secular instruction opens vast treasures of knowledge, but it is knowledge, be it remembered, of both good and evil. Are we to give the key without furnishing the means of distinguishing between the evil and the good-between wholesome food and deadly poison-especially when we know that human nature is much more inclined to the poison than the food? I do not wish to depreciate secular knowledge. I do not deny that a cultivated mind has many and great advantages over an uncultivated one. I believe that religious education is not only not hindered, but immensely helped, by secular instruction; but I hold that to profess to educate, in the full sense of the word, without religion, is to act a falsehood. It is to give a part for the whole, and virtually to assert that it is the whole, though wanting in an element which is essential. Education means the whole training,-not only developing the mental powers and storing the mind with knowledge, but also inculcating principles of action. If we omit this last element, it is something like launching a ship on the ocean with all her sails set, but without a rudder. The more power we impart the greater is the scope for going astray.

It is often urged in favour of mere secular education, that by giving the capacity for intellectual enjoyment you neutralize the

taste for gross sensual pleasure. On this account the opening of museums and picture galleries on Sundays has been often urged as a panacea for the grosser modes of holiday-keeping now in vogue among the lower orders. Undoubtedly it is much better that a man should read or look at pictures than debase himself by drinking. But there is a fatal flaw in the argument founded upon this. There is an assumption which amounts to a petitio principii, that intellectual pleasures are necessarily good, and that it is only sensual pleasures that are bad. But the truth is that there are both innocent pleasures of sense and vicious pleasures of the mind. It is not fair to set instructive reading against drinking, and the pleasures of art against those of low debauchery. There are perversions of the intellect more hideous than the most bestial intoxication. There are refinements in vice far worse than mere animal filthiness. The fact is that, with the enlargement of the mind, its capacity for evil is as much extended as its capacity for good. One may well, therefore, hesitate to apply a remedy which may turn out to be worse than the disease. Nor is it mere conjecture that this may be the result. The examples which history supplies of civilization unenlightened by Divine Revelation, even where, as in Greece, art was carried to the highest perfection, show us the most frightful moral evil in the closest contact with the highest intellectual culture. But we have examples much more applicable to our own case. The United States' Government has tried the very plan recommended to us-a National system of secular education, leaving religious instruction to be given by ministers of religion as they best can. What is the result? If we may believe what is said by religious men of all opinions the result has been an alarming increase of infidelity and vice. Sometimes we hear it said that the worst enemy of virtue is ignorance; but both reason and experience tell us that there is a worse, viz., a combination of irreligious opinions with immoral practice, the intellect perverted, the heart hardened, the eyes of the mind blinded, the affections poisoned, the springs of faith and love destroyed. No doubt it is not often that we have so extreme an example as this. Under favourable circumstances secular education is a great improvement on ignorance, especially now that there is so large an indirect influence of Christian principles-felt even by men who disown the Christian

« ZurückWeiter »