242

Apart from the impracticability of what is called a denominational system in a new and thinly peopled country, the Commission are of opinion that to establish any system based upon a recognition of differences in matters of doctrine and discipline among the various religious bodies would be proceeding on a wrong principle.

While it is in a sense true that every man is right as an individual in adhering to the convictions which he honestly entertains, it is equally true that the division of Christians, as a body, no less than the unkindly feelings which proceed from them, are an evil. It would seem that the Government, by which is meant the representative acting power of the people, being confessedly Christian, is bound in all its legislation, and not least in the matter of education, to recognize Christianity, not on the points in which it is the subject of human imperfections and infirmities, nor in the divisions of the community into rival sects violating the laws of the creed they profess, but as a general ruling principle in the life of the State.

It is objected by some that the State, as containing not only Christians who differ widely among themselves, but also open opponents of Christianity, cannot itself be of any religion. It would be rather true to say, that it was of the religion of all its members, but most of the religion of the majority.

That majority is undoubtedly Christian, and the requirements of the people would not be met by any educational measures which did not provide for instruction in Christianity.

The province of Government, moreover, is not only to reproduce but to lead and sway the mind of those whom it represents. While therefore it represents the mind of the people in asserting that religious and secular instruction must be combined in any system which it sanctions, it ought to maintain its own authority as a Government in distinguishing between religion and sectarianism, in remaining itself impartial and unsectarian, and in declining by any acts of legislation to give its approval to the religious differences of the various bodies into which the community is sub-divided.

In dealing with the religious sects, the State ought not to make itself sectarian; and on the other hand the religious sects, in their relations with the State, must meet on common ground as members of the same civil body.

In maintaining this course the State does not express any opinion or hope as to the possibility of these religious differences being reconciled. It declines to intermeddle with them as matters beyond its cognizance, and refuses to encourage and perpetuate them by legislating for them.

Again, if it be granted that religious and secular instruction must be combined in any system of education which will meet the wants of the people generally, then the State, in so far as it provides for or assists education, makes itself responsible not only for the intellectual, but also for the religious and moral well-being of those with whom it comes into relation.

It would not, therefore, seem enough as many affirm, and as has hitherto been the practice in this province that it should enquire into the efficiency of the secular instruction given in the schools, but should pass over the religious instruction as a matter of which it was unable to take account, placing this not the least important part of its responsibility in the hands of agents over whom it exercises no control.

It is especially in the matter of inspection that the State should assert its own unity and its own impartiality in dealing with rival religious sects.

The inspector in enquiring into the religious instruction given in a school should do so as an impartial servant of the State,—not as a religious partisan. In so far as he gives way to private sympathies and partialities, so far he fails in the proper discharge of the duties of his office.

The Commission are unanimous in their conviction that religious instruction ought to form not merely a contingent or accessory, but an essential and fundamental element of any system of education supported by a Christian country, and further being of opinion that to take account by State inspection of secular but not of religious instruction, is to proceed on a wrong principle, and is not unlikely to cause the latter to be more or less neglected. They consider that the State should take strict account of both one and the other.

There are some matters of detail with regard to the manner of providing for religious teaching in schools which require notice as a subject on which considerable difference of opinion exists.

Many who acknowledge the necessity of religious instruction in a school think that this ought to be provided for by the different ministers of religion, and that opportunities should be afforded them of giving instruction in the school.

The Commission fully appreciate the benefits which may accrue to schools from the visits of ministers of religion and others interested in education, as tending to promote a healthy interest in their work both on the part of the teachers and children, and they consider that in many cases it may be desirable to afford facilities to ministers of religion to give religious instruction to children in the schools, provided that such arrangements do not interfere with the general work of the school, and are made with the concurrence of the master and the local committee of each school.

The master, however, is the only person whose qualifications and regularity can be taken into account and relied upon in so important a matter.

To place any one above him in the matter of teaching, is to lower his office in his own estimation and that of his pupils, and to create a divided responsibility, which can only be productive of unsatisfactory results.

The State can only take account of the work of those who are responsible to her for the proper discharge of their duties.

There are those again who would have the State