THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Evening Star, Issue 7277, 30 July 1887, Page 1

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

An address on the subject of Bibles-reading in the public schools was delivered by Bishop Nevill at old Knox Church last evening, under the auspices of the Bible-in-Schools Association. Abont 400 ladies and gentlemen were' present, and Mr E. B. Cargill presided. Among those, on the platform were Messrs J. Fulton, W. D. Stewart, T. Dick, the Revs. Bannerman, Branton, North, Grant, R. R. M. Sutherland, Waters, and .Bonaldson, Messrs E. C. Quick, A. Thomson, C. B. Chapman, A. C. Begg, W. Hutchison, D. Wright, and General Irvine: L The Bev. Mr North opened the proceedings with prayer. ' ''_ l'"' The Chaibman read letters of apology "for unavoidable absence from Dr Stuart, Archdeacon Edwards, and the Rev. Mr Morley. Dr Stuart wrote as follows;—"I cannot tell you how much I regret that an accidental appointment of the annual meeting of the Celtic Society,: of which I am presidjent/wflTTpreyeiit my attendance at Bishop Nevutfs me&ingt It is my appreciation: of .the Education' Act .which constrains me to join in an effort to obtain its amendment to the extent of giving 6chool committees the right of introducing daily Bible-reading in the schools Under the" sanction of a time-table and conscience clause, if their constituencies' require it. So far am. I from sharing the conviction of danger to our school system by such a change, that I firmly believe it will give it an absolutely impregnable position in the mind and heart of thefnattoU.' I am confident that the daily reading of the sacred writings and the committing to memory of selected portions—as the Commandments, certain psalms, prophecies, promises, and words of Jesus, —under the supervision of the teachers, would prove highly educational in ther truest sense. With these corrections I am desirous to see the Education Act amended to the extent I have indicated." Archdeacon Edwards wrote that his absence was caused by. indisposition, and that he need hardly say that he neartily sympathised with the objective associatJeaTSadin view. The Rev; Mr Morley wrote that a prior engagement took him o,ut of town.lbut tMThe was heartily in sympathy with the objeft&-of the association, and thought that in view of the approaching elections a determined and vigorous effort should be made by all lovers of the;! .Word of God to get the Education Act amended, *6; as to permit Bible-reading with a tune-table and conscience clause. . . • .1. . ; ~:

The Chairman, m introducing the lecturer, said: Ladies and gentlemen, we are- hfere this evening to hear, an, address which our. friend Bishop Nevill has been, good enonghito prepare upon a subject which is very near to all your hearts—the reintrodaction of Bible-reading fa our schools. I am sure, I may say, that our friend the bishop is always ready to give a helping hand in any-good work where he can do so—(applause)—and for my part I feel under, a great obligation to him that he.comes forward so heartily to join with us in making some demonstration on this great subject at the present crisis. The position that we as a people occupy in regard to this subject is very singular, t We had here, in the province of Otago, the BHSIe read daily in our schools in old times, and wo have always looked upon it as a right thing that onr children • should be - instructed in the Bible. Yet we have it by act of Parliament at the present day exclnded from all our schools. This exclusion, ,1, ( believe to be contrary to the will of the whole 1 ' people—(applause), —or at any rate contrary to the will of an overwhelming majority of them. ' The Bible-in-Schools Association have taken very special means of ascertaining the mind of parents of children attending our schools, and you all know the result of a canvass made some time ago. Though petition after petition have gone up to Parliament, though it has been made abundantly apparent that we desire to have the Word of God introduced in our schools,'and though certain of our members every session of Parliament assiduously brought it forward—Mr Fulton here present, for instance, Dr Menajes, Mr Stewart, and others—and have done' thenutmost to get this error, this mistake, set aside or rectified, there has been no success attained yet. It .is a very singular thing that'with a Parliament representing us as it is supposed to do, there should be such a determined resistance to what is believed to be the mind of. the great majority of the people from one end of the colony to the other.—(Applause.) This subject is being again brought forward by the Bible-in-Schools Association with a view to stir it up at the approaching general election—that is to say, that those who feel strongly on the subject should take the advantage of the; opportunity then presented to influence oiir'metn£e|s or those sent up to represent us as far as it is possible to do so. • I must say that there hafe appeared on previous and similar occasions to-be a curious want of: effort—whether it ariseaifcom apathy or what I do not know, but this subject has not been brought forward so earnestly, or. 60 prominently on the occasions of elections as I think it might have been.- I by no means advocate making this a test question. I deprecate the idea of sending only men into Parliament who will support this or any other subject.—But I do say that this is a subject so close to the hearts of great numbers of the best of our people that every effort should be made to influence those who are offering themselves for election in this behalf, and I do trust that the good bishop's lecture this evening may have 6ome effect in stirring up the minds of the people, and bringing them again to consider the great importance of this matter.—(Hear.) I shall not venture to take up any more of your time. I have great pleasure inrasldng his Lordship the Bishop ofvßiifedinnpw to deliver his address.—(Applause.)

Bishop Nevill said-that the subject of his address was " The Bible in Schools." Y This title, iof coarse, extended to its full length, was that of the reading of the Bible in the public schools of the colony, and under this title was of course implied the question, Was it a good thing that the Bible should be read in the public schools of the country? It was to that question he intended addressing himself. - The first point to be considered was whether it. was good f or everybody to read the Bible, and the second whether, assuming that Bible-reading was a good thing lin general, there was anything so peculiar in the conditions of the proposal as to make that which in the general was a good thing, under particular and peculiar circumstances a bad one. Now as to the first of these two questions he would not enter into any lengthened argument, because, as had been pointed out by the president, the Bible was esteemed by the great majority of the people of the country to be so good a thing that they could hardly imagine any large number of people living a happy life without it.—(Applause.) Even those (who were not believers in the authority of this book had in a most emphatic manner set forth the fact that they could discover no other volume which set before mankind a morality so pure, hopes so transcendent, and. motireßiFßg! powerful— It was i acknowledge* that Bible-reading in schools in general was agood thing, so that the question came to be, Was there anything so peculiar under the condition ' of this book being read in the/schools of the country as tojnake it an evil thing? Under this expression "in schools'' was proposals: that they had to deal with children, - that they had to deal with children in a certain* place, and that they were proposing in that place to read to children a particular "'volume. ■ What was the nature of a child ? Advocates of the secular system would reply that the child was the subject of education, the - subject to be educated, the being upon whom education is to be exercised. They would admit in thus ing a child that in order to educate it yon nrasjrj deal with its intelligence. To tfym, thereforeV child was a being of intelligence who vasthe. subject of the education process. his quarrel with the advocates of the secular system? , was that in this definition-of childhood they 1 had not as yet arrived at an adequate conception . of what -this being who was 'the * subject f of education really was. Their ~t was too' narrow. Ohildhood was the, early, condition of a being fraught with illimitable ' capabilities, possessed of a 'soaring ambition; of subtle preceptions, strange, rotations—of V,.' nature so astonishing that; there was;, it not r only that which was possessed' Of '*,[ wfflj.foi; example, but attributes so mcbnceivably stupendous that we failed to define thein, and ' summed them up in a word :That'ifc was capable of immortality of existence, having a spirgfeul.. nature, and therefore could never ;t die. I —l (Applansa) Yet that being wis aU' througV its earthly course sorrounded. by dangers . and beset on every hand ' By - perpKJxllies," having questions' arising • from "its 'earthly existence which it could not'solve,. Throngh- . ojxt' the" whole- of a "its ; ttsMy\ i , cdmse M, aV* no single moment was it free TTOrn danger.— rApplause.). Then whatfwaS a school? ,4. pbeß would be "j*f Ms kecular friends. But»&r«iagata he-qoarrelled with them, because they again put him a barren A KmoqHJwas a phuse where the being to be ilk attributes and powers astofit it as fully as posenceinrelalfyn^ Then as to tHe H£le,it^ja:3^ first to ]^Mmi^Pm^mm!mm Msii

kind, emphatically and definitely the ruinous consequences of wrongdoing and the blessedneßS and eventual triumph of the pursuit of righteousness —(Applause.) The Bible was a book which, more than any other, lifted up our thoughts into the sphere of that which was sublime. The Bible set before us precepts the most pure, the most noble, and the most exalted that had ever been set before the human mind. The Bible was a book which lifted us up out of those commonplace motives which were so prevalent, and set before us the sublimity of tho crucifixion of our natural desires and the preferauility (if he might use such a term) of considering the advantages of our fellow creatures at tho oxpenso even of our own.—(Applause) Tho Bible opened out to us a vista,*cxpandiug the more we investigated it, and brought us at length to the inquiry which everyone sooner or later must address to his own soul as to who we are, whence we came, and what the purpose of our existence. The Bible alone replied to u*. in terms which no other book has addressed to tho human mind, and said: "Thou art; because God is. These, therefore, seemed to him to be the matters we had to bear in mina in considering in the abstract this question of the introduction of the Bible into the public schools; and he ventured to say that with tbese considerations before us, with a clear conception of what a child was, of what education was, of the objects which had to be pursued, and of what the Bible itself was, we must conclude that to divorce one of these things from another was to transact a wrong and to inflict on the subject of education an injury that was almost a crime, not only to the being to be educated but to the whole community affected by education.— (Applause.) In thus bringing out this portion of the subject in the abstract, he had perhaps said enough to enable them to answer the question as to whether there was in the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the Bible into the public schools anything so peculiar as to override the generally admitted fact that the Bible was a good book for ordinary people to read. And having more fully considered the second question, they must arrive at the conclusion that there was nothing in the conditions to make what was good as a general proposition other than good under the particular circumstances before them. Passing away, therefore, from this abstract consideration, he should say a few words on the salient objections which had been urged against Bible-read-ing. He could only touch briefly upon those which seemed most formidable of the difficulties currently alleged. First, as to the assertion that it was no part of the duty of the State to teach religion. When people asserted this as an overwhelming obstacle, he was inclined to answer them," Neither is it in the abstract any part of a duty of the State to teach anything else."—

(Great applause.) The primary duty of education rested of course with parents, but the duty of the State was a protective duty. That was the simplest and first proposition of the duty of the State: to protect the community and the individuals within it. And no doubt the whole question of education had come to be a department of the State on this ground—that it was such a terrible calamity to any State to have an uneducated and degraded population, that to protect the State these duties were undertaken. But we all know that such States as ours, which educated largely in the secondary as well as the primary branch, had gone much beyond this point, and asserted that the duty of the State was to do that which was for the public good. So they went further than mere protective measures, which would only mean the rudiments of education, and said it was for the public good to teach grammar and geography and to give what was called technical instruction. He did not attempt to deny this; but he said when the State was launched upon that platform of doing what was for the public good he had what he considered a forcible argumeut. It could not be said that it was the primary duty of the State to teach grammar or the physical or other geography of the world, or to teach a boy how to handle a saw, but only that it was for the good of individuals that they should learn these things; therefore, if it was for the good of individuals to have a knowledge of the Bible, he failed to see on what ground the State could introduce one thing for the public good and refuse to introduce another.—(Prolonged applause.) Another objection commonly urged was that if we introduced the Bible into our schools we should have a most direful exhibition of sectarian differences and bitterness; and when that had been said, it was generally thought that the whole question had been quashed. But he had before him au address delivered by Sir William Fox in another place in which hestated thatin England—not only in church schools, but in those so-called board schools, where nevertheless a large amount of religious instruction was given—school opened with prayer,;the Bible read, and the Apostles' Creed taught—that even in these schools, where of all places people's religious feelings would be likely to be hurt, and where 200,000 were being educated by the State, there had been withdrawals under the conscience clause of only one in every 4000 children— (applause)—during the whole time the system had been in force. This was not a very large proportion wheu they considered that there might be almost that number of Hebrews or others—Roman Catholics, for instance—who did not acknowledge the authority of the particular version \ised. It was a small proportion, and he himself was prepared to back it by his own recollections as director of the education of a considerable number of children In the parish which ho resigned to come to New Zealand. There were something like 1000 children in his four schools, where religious teaching was given of what would be called here

a, denominational class. Fivery person who sent children to these schools knew well that one or other of the parish clergy would be at the school each day and would give such instruction as they were likely to give as clergy of that church. And although a large number of the parents belonged to other denominations, there was never in the whole of the speaker's experience of seven years a withdrawal under the conscience clause. But there were more than once, from parents belonging to other denominations, letters, the memory of which was fragrant in his mind, containing the warmest thanks for the eare bestowed on their children, and particularly the instruction given them of a religious character. Therefore when people said that we must not read the Bible in schools because of the sectarian troubles that would arise, he replied that it was altogether contrary to his own experience and to what he found to be the experience of others with a larger knowledge of the subject. There were, again, other objections raised, and on one of them he would touch. If the Bible were introduced into the public schools, what, it was said, would beeome of our beautiful, simple, symmetrical, noGod scheme ?—(Great applause.) Well, when he heard such an objection brought up, it did not seem to him a very overwhelming one. It reminded him of those unfortunate people, whom Isaiah long ago derided, who made idols for themselves. They went into the forest, chose a magnificent tree, hewed it down, and used it for their own purposes. With part they roasted a roast, and ate and were satisfied; part they burnt to warm themselves, and cried " Ha! ha! I am warm; I have seen the fire "; and with the residue thereof they made them a god.—(Applause.) They fashioned it to suit their own purposes, and then fell down and worshipped it.—(Hear, hear.) Now, those who made a fetish of this system of education were falling down and wor6hipping it—(loud applause),—and it Beemed to him that that which they were worshipping, when severed from God and religion, was as dead and lifeless as the stock of the tree that the old idolaters had felled in the forest. And if anyone should venture to destroy or suggest anything by way of improvement to this system, then what a cry there was. This is the image that fell down from Jupiter.—(Laughter and applause, and a Voice: "Who is Jupiter?" Who Jupiter might be he could not say, but this was the kind of cry at once raised under such circumstances. With one accord they shouted, " Great is Diana of the Ephesians." They must not touch the poor little unfortunate subject of education; let him perish!—and the object of education, never mind that. Swear by the system; swear by the scheme! That was the sort of thing which seemed to be involved in that objection, which was supposed to be allpowerful against the introduction of the Bible into schools. It was all very well for the State to stamp out competition, and then when the system could not be put alongside of anything else in order that comparisons might be instituted, to declare it was perfect. It was all very well for the State to do this, but might not this action of the State after all be fraught with the most terrible consequences to the nation at large; for were we not preventing the fertilisation of those best seeds which should produce the noblest fruits on the subject which was to be educated ? And if we were doing this, then, he said, we might boast ourselves as we liked of the perfection of the system—we might call it beautiful and symmetrical and the like,— and it was not very difficult to make a system symmetrical if we only took into account some one or other of the attributes that we had to deal with and left out everything else. If we took only that portion of childhood which was described by its mental attributes, and cultivated them and them alone, and neglected its spiritual character, we might make the system beautiful and symmetrical; but if so, we injured the child individually, and if we injured many of the children, we injured the State, because it was certain that if there was anythingspiritually connected with a child and with God's own Word, they were doing an injury in the highest possible degree—nay, to the extent of the commission of a crime.—(Loud applause.) He would not attempt that night to answer any of those lesser objections which were urged against the Bible being read in schools, but he would remind his hearers that he had considered in the abstract whether it was good or not for the children of men to be brought in contact with the Bible, and he thought that he had pronounced that it was unquestionably so If he were to grant that there were neat inconveniences against the introduction of the Bible into schools, and if. those particular inconveniences were put fcito one scale, and a thing of paramount importance—the spiritual well-being of the child-in the other, that thing of paramount importance would certainly kick the beam.-(Hea*,liear.) He could imagine that some would are making a great

to-do about tliis particular question, but after all aro we uot. doing very well as we nro in the public education of the country ? Why can't yon leave well alone?" We are doing very well ?—(Hear, hear.) Ho was not going to attack the whole system of education, or to deny that there had been a great deal of good done; but considering the tendencies of our education system, he asked in all solemnity were we doing very well? He was not going to ransack the newspapers of the country to find out tho moat flagrant cases of depravity, and he was not going to paint ia lamp black the boys and girls of the country; but at the same time, knowing what he knew, seeing what ho saw, and hearing what he heard, he was almost appalled when ho came to consider tho tendencies of our purely secular system of education.—(Hear, hear.) There was, alas ! an aniouut of cruelty, an amount of hardship anil selfishness, a want of tone, a want of delicacy, a want of gentleness, and want of refinement, which he could well wish were not to be found.Jas it undoubtedly was to be found, in a considerable proportion of the youth of our couutry.—(Hear, hear.) Ho would relate one or two things which would illustrate his meauing somewhat. Not long ago, when he was in the country, this incident occurred: Some boys had been playing by the side of one of the most dangerous rivers of our country. They had been forbidden to go near that particular spot and to bathe in that particular river. But they did bathe, and as it fell out one of their number was drowned. What did the other little fellows do? They at once commenced a system of deception, a deeplaid scheme of lying that hardly seemed possible in children so young. They hid tho clothes of the poor drowned child under some stones in the neighbourhood, and then went to their homes. At night the mother of the drowned boy became anxious about her little one, but his companions kept close and said not a word. One or two days after the clothes of the boy were found, and the youngest and smallest of the children burst into tears and confessed the whole truth. He did not want to, make much of that incident, but it seemed to bo indicative of something wanting—a hardness and want of nobility of spirit, a want of those attributes which we liked to associato with boyhood in such an accident as that. He would give auother incident of a different character which took place of bis own knowledge. A party of boys were coming home from school in one of the towns of our province when they met a vehicle containing two old

men and a girl. The girl was the possessor of great personal attractions, and the boys planned between themselves to overwhelm the two old fogies and kiss the girl. The plan was carried out. The two old men were thrown out of the vehicle, to the danger of their bodies, and the girl was frightened almost out of her life. The occurrence took place in the open daylight; and tho action of the boys seemed to betoken a spirit of lawlessness and roughness, and a want of refinement and all that sort of chivalry that ought to be found in the boys of a rising couotry.—(Applause.) He feared he might also tell some stories about girls—the sweet girls of our country. He had heard one story in connection with a schoolmaster, who was not a man of gigantic stature, but an exceedingly respectable gentleman. He resided some distance from the school he taught at, and some girls coming from another school used to meot him day by day, and some after a little time began to make personal remarks in passing about his gait, his hair, his features, &c. And presently they used to turn round in the road and accompany him homeward. o , and tell him he need not be so bashful, and that they would not at all mind a chat with tim. To such an extent was this carried that the man was actually obliged to induce his wife to come and wait till school was over and take him home.— (Tremendous laughter.) Ho wished that was the worst that he could say, but, alas! he was told on authority he could not deny to be authoritative'and complete that in the minds of the young girls of this country there was a want not only of such modesty as wo desired, but a knowledge of evil and an allowance of evil thoughts that exhibited itself in ways the most disgusting. He was not speaking of his own knowledge, but on testimony which he could not but admit there was evidence of these things in words written if not spoken by the girls of this rising generation. When he heard such things and was bound to believe them, ho could not but be appalled at the condition into which we were drifting. And if he found a volume at his side which taught that we must keep pure within the fountain of our thoughts, and must have a watch placed as a guard on our lips—and these precepts were contained in the Bible,—then he said, in;the face of the circumstances described, if there were anything in this volume to check such tendencies, surely we were wrong if we forbade the reading of the Bible in our schools.—(Applause.) To close his arguments he would only say that it was manifestly the will of the people of this land that the beneficial influence of the Bible should be extended to their children, and he was sure that the mere they considered this platform and examined the points he had put before them, the more they would perceive the necessity of introducing it into the schools. He was confined that night to the influence exercised by the Bible itself ;—he, as they knew, was not satisfied without voice to bring home those things contained in the Bible. But on this question alone they had heard sufficient to know that they must in the future assume a more determined attitude.—(Applause.) The majority had already made up their minds on tho subject, but they said thtre were so many different ways of looking at it, and they alluded to tho Freethought section, and attributed to them an influence and power to which they had no right when their comparative insignificance was considered.—(Applause.)

That reminded him that an excellent friend of his own—a man whom he rejoiced to call friend for his power, his ability, his sound mind and true heart—had made a great mistake when he said in a recent speech that the Bible must not be introduced because most of the teachers of these schools wero unfit to handle such a book.—(A Voice : " Kick them out.") The teachers were an estimable body of men, and this seemed to him (the speaker) nothing more nor less than an unjust calumny upon them.—(Applause.) If there were any considerable number of these teachers Freethinkers by profession, he could not see that by their very definition of Freethought they had any right to decline or even to object to reading such a book as the Bible. Neither teachers nor parents who were Freethinkers had any right whatever to object to Bible-reading. It was against the definition of their position as Freethinkers to do so. A Freethinking teacher said he would read Confucius or any author he might like to consider a moral one, and he was bound to read any other book which was put before him to read; and the Freethinking parent could not forbid his child from listening to that reading because he was a Freethinker. If he were to forbid the child he would be doing despite to his own position; he would be contradicting himself and be inconsistent, because it was the very fundamental position of a Freethinker that each individual had the right of doing and thinking as he thought best for himself. His child knowing the difference between right and wrong, must be allowed a liberty which he claimed for himself. Therefore it seemed to him (the lecturer) when they said there was a large number of Freethinkers—though he denied that there was—(hear)—it was not for them as it might be for the Romanists or Jews to assert objections. And if the Romanists and Jews were allowed any amount of liberty and weight, they were only some 81,000 or 82,000 in a population of 580,000. It seemed to him that the voice of 500,000 people might outweigh the remaining. In conclusion Bishop Nevill said: I exhort you to bo strong in this question. Some men may say: " Oh, you make altogether too much of this question of the reading of the Bible in schools." I say I have made altogether too little of it—(hear),—because for want of time and from the position I occupy in donating this question, I have left out of consideration altogether those higher grounds which nevertheless seem to me the supreme grounds for the argument of this question—which I would rather present to the people in the pulpit than on the public platform. I have left out altogether, or almost altogether, all considerations other than those that beir upon this life and are of advantage here. But even Plato, 400 years before the Christian era, told us that the highest rewards of virtue were in the immortal sphere. And therefore I have treated this question only partially. I have made altogether too little of it when in treating of it I have confined my arguments entirely, or almost so, to the ends of this mortal life. How can we mako too much of such a question? How can we, even as regards this mortal life, when we find that in this book of which I speak there aro injunctions, exhortations, and precepts which reach to every centre of our being and apply themselves exactly to evjry condition in which we may find ourselves—in our struggles, whatever our surroundings. If we find ourselves in trouble arid distress—as who does not in some crisis or other of his existence—we find in this Word that He who was the author of it is our help in time of need. If we come—as who will not come at some time or another—at some hour, be it sooner or later, to face that great problem of our existence, upon a bed of sickness face to face with death, then we find in the volume an encouragement which enables us to say: " I will walk through the valley of the shadow of death, and though I do so I will fear no evil, for Thy rod and Thy staff—they shall comfort me." How csn we make too much of such a volume? "Oh?"

but you say, "what I mean is the reading of a few verses in the schools; you are making too much of them. What can you receive from the reading of a few verses? No doubt all you say may be true if you have an instructor to expound; but we are talking only of the reading of a few verses." I say: Yes; there is proposed to be a reading of a few verses every day in the schools, and I do so much insist upon it and claim it as a great advantage; line upon line; here a little, there a little; precept upon precept. Who has not noticed the shower on a window pane: little isolated drops which have not volume enough for the powers of gravity to overcome the powers of cohesion and the like; and there they stand as isolated drops; but other drops fall by them, and they are gradually attracted to one another, until they all flow down so that eventually the whole window is overspread. That may

be taken as an illustration of the Bible-reading in the schools—beginning by a few verses day by day; drop by drop, influence by influence, verse by verse, sentiment by sentiment, in the heart of the little child; so that its whole nature is suffused with the knowledgeof God and His blessed Gospel and of His offers of peace, I say it were well that wo should be covered with the knowledge of God and His laws as the window pane ib covered by the shower.—(Applause.) Thus we should have added to the natnral attractiveness of our beloved laud; we should have the still greater attractiveness of a people whose integrity could never be impeached, who added to those natural attractivenesses a true heart and all those other graces which come from a knowledge of God and of His sublime precepts. We 'should have then the nations of the earth running to us; wo should have then the milk and honey of prosperity; we should have then a very puradise on earth; we should have then almost more than mortal could expect or wish for. In proportion to those natural advantages of climate and scenery, national privilege and bodily endowments of our people, we should have then all those things added to us, until we should grow to be the most favoured of all the nations of the earth. Though this be an object surely worthy of attainment by our legislators—: worthy of their most resolute and painstaking attention, it will never bo attained _ by any culture, by any education, by any influence whatever that falls short of the law of God.— (Applause.)

Mr J. G. S. Grant said he hoped that the meeting would accord a hearty vote of thanks to Bishop Nevill for his grand lecture, but he would say to them: Do not blame the apathy of the public; do not go into the bosom cf antichrist. If one was a true Christian he ought to say to the Freethinker: " Get thee behind me, Satan !" He held with Dr Arnold, that educationjwithout religion wa3 a sham and a farce. Mr Fulton said he had been asked to propose a vote of thanks to Bishop Nevill for his able and interesting address, and he did so with great pleasure. He felt that the polities of the country should bo set on a moral basis, and that its laws should be permeated with that principle that was based on the Word of God. At this political juncture he would urge on the people that they should see whom they were supporting, and let their actions be largely influenced by this consideration: Will this man who seeks my vote guarantee to support the proposed amendment in the Education Act, which a large majority desire, for the re-establishment of B.'ble-reading in the public schools ?—(Loud applause.) Dr Copland seconded the motion, remarking

that it was at the urgent request of the Council of the Bible-in-Schools Association that Bishop Nevill had delivered his address, and he felt sure the audience had experienced the highest gratification in listening to his lordship, who had dealt with his subject in a most practical yet eloquent manner, and had clearly shown the position taken up by the association. He felt sure that this address would be the means of attracting the consideration of the public to the matter, and leading them to associate themselves on the side of truth.—(Applause.) . Mr Wathen suggested that, with the consent of the mover and seconder, the motion should be added to so as to read as follows: —" That this meeting accord a hearty vote of thanks to Bishop Nevill for his excellent lecture, and resolve to support the Bible-in-Schools Council in their efforts to have the Bible reintroduced into the public schools of New Zealand." This was accepted, and the motion was carried unanimously. Bishop Nevii.l, in acknowledging the vote, said that he must apologise to his hearers to some extent, inasmuch as in the first place he was suffering under partial physical inability to spcnk, and in the second place he bad lost his notes on the way down to the meeting, and had therefore to fall back on his memory. A vote of thanks to the chairman was passed vem. con., and the proceedings closed with the pronouncing of the benediction by the Rev. Mr SUTHEIILAND.