IT will be gratifying to many lovers of truth to observe that the House of Commons, in its deliberations upon the English Education Bill, has rejected the proposal of purely secular education. It is, indeed, the opinion of not a few at the present day, that the State should make no provision for the religious instruction of the young, but the great majority of the people of this nation have still a different mind. Those who hold the secular view consist mainly of two classes—first, men who are animated by the spirit of infidelity, and have no desire to advance religion in any form, and secondly, such as maintain that it is the Church and parent alone who ought to look after the religious education of the young, and that this work does not belong to the province of the State. It is not necessary to spend time, at present, in answering the former class, for theirs is a controversy against the whole field of revealed religion; but it seems essential to say something to counteract the more subtle arguments of the latter, some of whom are leaders in the so-called progressive Churches of the day. These are, in fact, the thorough-going kind of Voluntaries who also desire all connection between Church and State to be dissolved, and who err not, as they suppose, in an excess of spirituality of mind, but in an excess of unbelief.
By way of answer to the arguments of these persons, it may be pointed out, first, that they, as well as all others, hold that the State should provide for the education of the young. Now, if it is the duty of the State to provide for education, we do not see how it is not the duty of the State to provide for moral and religious as well as what is termed purely secular education. Is it the duty of the State to forget God and ignore His authority and claims? The very heathen have had a nobler conception of the State than this. Is it not rather the duty of the State in a professedly Christian country—a country whose civil constitution is based upon the recognition of Christianity—to promote in its own sphere the kingdom of God and His Christ among all its subjects? One prime means for the accomplishment of this great work is the instruction of the young in the facts and principles and laws of the Christian religion.
A second thing to be remembered is that education in its completest or highest form comprises not merely intellectual training, but moral and religious training also. Even Plato, the ancient heathen philosopher, declares:—”It is reasonable that a Statesman should always begin with the education of young people, to render them as virtuous as may be, as a good gardener bestows his first labour and care on the young plants.” The child is a moral and religious as well as an intellectual being, and if he is to grow up to be a good citizen in a Christian country, he must be instructed in the commandments of God and His Son Jesus Christ, and these direct us how to think and act in all the relations of life.
Let it be observed thirdly, that purely secular education is godless education. Such a thing ought not to be. Sin has already deprived men of the spiritual presence of God. Through the Fall man is, by nature, “without God,” in the deepest and most important sense, and it is dreadful work for those who profess to be the guides of others to be engaged in nothing else than in keeping God as far as possible out of the thoughts and ways of their fellows. The Bible is the grand ideal book for the enlightenment of mankind, and it is full of God and religion from beginning to end. Educational literature of the best stamp will be imbued with its spirit and teaching. Purely secular education in the strict sense of the word should be unknown in our country.
The Voluntaries maintain, as we have already indicated, that it is the Church alone, or the Church and the parent, who ought to look after the religious instruction of the young. We freely acknowledge that these have the first and immediate responsibility in the matter, but it does not follow from this admission that the State has nothing to do with it, and has not a work to do in order to produce intelligent and worthy citizens. All parties are needed in this great task, and each has its own part to perform. God makes use of them all. Let it be observed, however, that the State is but an extension of the family—it is a voluntary association of families under rulers and magistrates, according to an ordinance of God, with a view to the management of their mutual interests in all the concerns of life. The individual parent has also his own particular calling to attend to, and in the matter of education he commits his child to others specially equipped and qualified in order to instruct and train it, so that it may become a capable and virtuous member of the community. The State, therefore, in its superintendence of the young, is just an embodiment of the parent. Daily instruction in religious knowledge impresses the child with the all-important value of godliness, both “for the life that now is, and also that which is to come.”
It is no answer to the above statements to say that such teaching does not necessarily regenerate the soul, or save for eternity. No; nor does religious teaching from the minister or the parent, without the special blessing of God. But it is enough to say in this connection that religious instruction in the schools has contributed greatly to the formation of a high standard of moral conduct among the people of this country, even where the saving operations of the Spirit of God have not come. The knowledge of the law of God, and of the doctrines of the Gospel, has had a mighty influence on the minds of multitudes, has checked the outflow of their corruptions, and regulated their thoughts and conduct to a degree of conformity to the revealed will of God that would never otherwise have been. Instruction in bare morality would never have produced such valuable results. Although they do not amount to eternal salvation, they are not for a moment to be undervalued or lightly esteemed. We have reason to bless God for restraining as well as constraining grace, and this restraining grace has been largely manifested in the lives of our countrymen for many generations. Nor surely do we need to affirm that the value of religious education is in nowise made null and void, because some may despise their privileges and even rush into greater wickedness than if they had never known “the way of peace”? This unhappy circumstance does not prove the uselessness of religious education, but rather the desperate wickedness of the human heart, which, if it be not restrained, rises against the truth and tramples it under foot. It is a dreadful sign of God’s wrath to be left to deliberately and resolutely contemn His truth, and thus despise our own salvation. God may, in sovereign grace, have sometimes mercy on such persons, but determined unbelief is the sin of sins that seals the eternal condemnation of many.
As to the extent to which religious education may be provided by the State, it is quite apparent that in the case of England at the present moment, simple Bible teaching in the schools is the only safe allowance. No sound Catechism can be agreed upon that will satisfy all parties, and there is the greatest danger lest Ritualism and Romanism, deadly enemies to the welfare of the nation, should get an opportunity to propagate their pernicious doctrines. Let the Word of God be read daily in all the schools, and there is hope for England.
John Knox said to the rulers of his day, and his words are worthy of being repeated now:—”Of necessity it is that your honours be most careful for the virtuous education and godly upbringing of the youth of this realm, if either ye thirst unfeignedly for the advancement of Christ’s glory, or yet desire the continuance of His benefits to the generation following.”