The Telegram. — 1896-04-21 (Weymouth, Dorset, England)

THE REV. W. EVERINGHAM AND THE EDUCATION QUESTION. - .  On Sunday morning, at St. Peter's Church, the Rev. W. Everinghain (who min temporary charge of the Parish) preached on behalf of the Dorchester National Schools. He chose for his text Judges xiii., 12, viz., " How shall we order the child land how shall we do unto him r He referred to the question as the question of the day. It did not refer so much to the future as to the present, because the present made the future. There could be no doubt that " the child was father of the man." It was true that the little children around them would soon be men and women, who would take their place in Greater Britain, when they had gone to rest. And it was not too much to say that our future welfare depended upon how parents were now educating their children. This in itself must make them feel bow deep the responsibility was. But to him their was another consideration of far greater importance. Not only did the future welfare of our nation depend upon the teaming of children, but the possession of heaven itself. Llucatiou of children 5500 not only important because the blessing of two worlds hung upon it, but it was necessary for this reason—that if they did not train up children in this way they should go they would train themselves. And what would that training be t Secular education wan the compulsory order of the &ate. Just as in the ecclesiastical  canons of 1603, and in the indentures of masters up to quite recent date that they were as guardians to see that all apprentices attended the services of the church, so now, to show the secularising tendency of the age, they observed that the State enforced that all parents should be compelled to send their children to school, anil neglect of this was an offence punishable by law. There never was a time when secular educarlOrl was pushed as it was now, not merely its Englatol but all over the troll Secular education was put forward at the expense of , religious, and statistics and newspapers showed that , that there never was a time when there was more die, content, store thirst for war, more secret opposition to rulen in authority, more disagreement between master and WWW), between employer and employed ; that there was never a time when there was more crime, mote mental derangement and suicides. They naturally asked what was the cease of this I Now there were many theories or systems of education, but they might reduce them to two, the ocular and religious. One which knew, loved and worshipped God through Jesus Christ, and the other which knew him not. The scientific, as represented by Huxley, Tyndale, and Spencer, would say, "The heavens declare the glory of men such as Newton, Kepler, and Proctor," while the Christian humbly bowed Ms head and said, " The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork." The literary and atheistic accused them, and said, "It is you and your superstition that have made God, He is the outcome of your thoughts, while the Christian acknowledges "It is He who hath made us. We are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hands. If there was no God and no hereafter then the purely secular education was right and the religious was wrong. And they might test their opinion and belief in Iwo ways. Could they as fathers sit down and teach this, child that there was no living God, no loving Saviour, no Holy Ghost the comforter Could they, if it were their painful task to follow their little child to the grave, persuade themselves or their wives that their child was now no more—that he had died as a beast and that his sweet soul had not gone to Paradise ? Impossible; their whole nature revolted from such secular atheism. How should they order the child not only as regarded his bodily health and secular education These were important, but not the most important questions. Why was it that they wished to keep private hold of their schools I iot because the trouble WBB less on their part—they knew it was more: not that they wished to defy the Government, for they were the most loyal subjects. Why? Because they felt that religion Wa, a most sacred trust committed to them by God, and that if they allowed the schools to go out of their hands there was no guarantee that the Christian religion would be taught. Was it not true that no importance was placed on this subject, and that it was practically discarded, seeing that it was left optional, and no grant whatever awarded for proficiency in Holy Scriptures? It should be the most sacred trust on their part the maintenance at any coat of the definite teaching of their Christian religion. In conclusion, Mr. Evenngham reverted to the question, How shall we order the child and what shall beds ? They could not deny the importance ; they must not shirk the responsibility. The worst thing for the child was to leave him to himself; the next worst was to allow his religious education to drift to optional indifference, the best was that he might be trained to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, who increased in wisdom and stature anti in favour with God and man. And he (Mr. Everinaham) knew of no better guardian than their dear old mother church.