CHURCH OF ENGLAND GENERAL SYNOD.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4958, 12 February 1877, Page 3

CHURCH OF ENGLAND GENERAL SYNOD.

(from our special reporter.) Nelson, Thursday. the education question. The debate on the Dean of Christchurch’s amendment to the Rev. Mr. Leighton's resolutions relative to public education and religious instruction was resumed. The Bishop of Nelson held that the Government schoolmasters ought to be such men as were fit to give religious instruction in the schools. We in New Zealand might bo content with what satisfied the great religious public at Home, and we now hear that religious instruction never was given’ in the English schools so efficiently as at present. The Nelson system puts the matter into the hands of the local committees, and they should endeavor to raise the tone of those committees by only electing men who would take care that reli- ; gious instruction was given in their schools, and who would not select any master who was hot competent to give such instruction. It was. utterly impossible for the clergy to undertake the task. ■ _ Mr. Lusk thought it certain that the Government would not provide, masters with the view of their being qualified to give religious instruction, although they might permit their schoolmasters to give it in the Government schools. The Rev. Mr. Lingabd would not have the Bible read in schools in the way it was usually done) for he thought that positively injurious to the cause of religion. He agreed with the Bishop of Nelson that the question was one for the local committees, and not for the Government. They should return on the local committee only such men as would allow the masters to give religious instruction!. By the Canterbury Act masters were absolutely prohibited from giving it at all. What was wanted was that daily undertone of religious feeling running through the school which would result in religious teaching being given by the clergy or by suitable persons authorised by them. He advocated throwing out both the motion and the amendment, and biding our tim«i •• . . - ■ - • The Rev. Mr. Dudley also agreed with the’ Bishop of Nelson, but should like to combine the Bishop’s ideas with ■ those of ‘ the Dean. If the master only read portions of Scripture ' ;i for one quarter of an hour without the , aßghest comment, and repeated the Lord’s •• Prayer with his pupils, much good would be done. He would not have dogma inculcated, ‘ but,’would like to tee Hebrew and .Christian' history taught as.fully’ as Greek and Roman and other heathen histories. The Rev. ; Mr. Penny was surprised to hear the .remarks of the Bishop of Nelson.; A great • r. ..revolution of feeling had taken place in Engo • land.- The general feeling in, reference to the .... Government Board schools was that of war to 0 •/■ the .knife against them, and in favor of voluntary schools.;’ The ; English clergy were ready !‘( ri to make every,,.possible sacrifice to keep the 1 Board schools out of their parishes. ! —--7-The'BISHOP “pf’Nelson remarked that a ’ further' change)Ujd taken place in the English’ feeling during-the last two years, since Mr. «■ Penny left home. The apprehensions enter-' ■ tabled of the, evils of „the Board schools .had 7 quite groundless. . The guild system of ’.i ij religions instruction had, wholly failed. , j l. MV; Hunter Brown was. astonished to hear ' the Nelson system, spoken of as a success in 1 ;i respect *to religious instruction., He considered it.’an'utter failure. The local comI ' ■ suttee theory had been worked by the clergy and'others for-years, and ; the result was al- “ ; successes. L-They ' ought not to . fritter . away their;, religious instruction in i;.-. little drabs here’ and thfere over the ' country) i- 1 - but get the. Government) .to legislate for the’ ■ , 'whole. . They should oppose that abominable w . modem system of toleration so much in vogue II . in the ; present day,-a toleration which was all ■’ on one side, and which meant toleration only ,( ; for infidels and not for Christians, for it compelled'Christians to be silent in order 7 that" : infidels might talk. '7‘J.;„Theßev. Mr.- Jackson thought the- Synod :i L should state most strongly and emphatically its. opinion, that religious instruction should be , : ' given in the public schools. Then at any rate it would remain recorded in : the annals of 1., the country that they had made their protest. •••■ 3 Mi. Babnicoat considered it .impracticable here for the . clergy to give religious instruction in the schools, and even if they could do ■ it ' there would be the' risk that children's* " minds , would be. completely puzzled by the .... . opposite doctrines taught one day by; one sect if;, 'and next day by another. . The master was ■" the prbpCr' personto give religious' teaching. He could not agree with those who held that the mere reading of-the Bible Without anycomment was’ not calculated to foster religion. ’ The Bible could not be listened to daily : without some religious feeling being fostered. The Rev. Mr. Fancourt agreed with those ' who demurred to the mere perfunctory read- ' ing of the Bible, which would, be productive of but little good, for unless the reading was ■ ’" conducted with due reverence for the sacred no word it would do more harm than good. They ; ■' did not want to make the children merely good ~ " Biklq scholars, but good Christians. What was I.) proposed to be sought by the original motion was unworthy of such : an assembly, as that Synod, and they would be lowering the Church V to the, level of the mere Protestant sects around them if they agreed to it. The least the Synod could ask for in the way of religious . education was teaching based on the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the ten commandments —in fact, on the Church Catechism. He. should support the amendment. They ought to ask for aid to denominational schools which should reach the prescribed standard in sedular education. , The General Government had not yet grappled with the question of education, which had been dealt with only by Provincial Governments. But on the only time that a Ministry introduced an Education Bill the measure proposed to aid denominational schools. The clergy ought to have*)liberty to ■ enter schools and give religious instruction. This power was withheld in Wellington., Religious education by Sunday-schools and Bible classes was and must be a complete - failure. Archdeacon Maunsell contended that the clergy should ask for the power of teaching in ■ schools themselves. The masters were not the fittest persons to give religious instruction. ‘ They were chosen only for their educational abilities and attainments. Some speakers had pictured hosts of dissenting ministers rushing into the schools and insisting bn teaching. Nothing could be more unlike the real state of the case. The apathy shown by the ministers of other denominations was absolutely wonderful He went once to a schoolmaster and said, “I want to teach.” The schoolmaster said, “ Well, teach !” He (the speaker) accordingly taught. But then the Board, got frightened and said, “ O, we must give the other churches and sects a chance.” So it was settled that the other bodies got one day and , the Church of England two. And what was the result. Why, one Presbyterian minister came once, and never came again. So we got our two days, and they took none. The Rev. Mr. Watkins thought the only way to prevent the clashing of different teachings which some speakers had feared was to have the one system which could not clash—the simple reading of the Bible. The Rev. Mr. Harvey; agreed with Archdeacon Maunsell. In Wellington the two largest schools had been established; for 20 years by the Church of England. Three years ago an arrangement was made with the Education Board to hand over the management of the schools to that body on certain conditions, one being that the Church of England clergy should have a right to claim the first half-hour for religious instruction, ministers of other bodies having an equal_right to instruct pupils of their own denominations. Yet not one of these latter had even shown his face in the schools, although they had pupils ef every shades of belief—Roman Catholics, ‘ Wesley ana, Presbyterians, and even Jews—and there were never any complaints. He did net approve of leaving the question to local boards, which were mixed up in trade with members of various religious bodies, and dare not act independently. Mr. Carleton thought that a petition signed by the members individually would have more

weight., with Parliament than onej from the Synod as' a body. The number of Npnpon: formists’ -in ’the’ House' was very large, and they would be more influenced'by the fear of the next election —the teuderest point in the House of Representatives—than anything else. -The Rev. Mr, Tanner held that if they went to the Government at all on this question they should take the widest possible ground. 1 Archdeacon Harter thought they should ask for all they could, for at the worst the Government could only refuse. They should get the Government to lay down as a. rule that there was nothing to prevent the clergy from entering any school to give religious instruction. .In one Canterbury school the local’ committee allowed a clergyman to go in, and he went with a staff of lady assistants, and very efficient religious instruction was given. The Legislature should lay down some rule to prevent local' committees throwing difficulties in the way. ’ The Bishop of Auckland had no hope of Government making the provision suggested by the Bishop of Nelson, by finding suitable masters.- He thought the course suggested inthe: Dean’s amendment quite practicable. He quite agreed with what had been said as to-the difference betweem the school visiting done by the Chnfph of Bngland clergy and any others. Even' in' the hospitals ( th‘e Church of England • clergy paid twenty visits for every one of the others. '■ 1 ’ The-Dean’s amendment' was then put and carried'; the resolution as then amended was agreed to. . . TEMPERANCE QUESTION. The Bishop of Auckland moved,—'That this Synod, recognising the - fact of the establishment in England of a Temperance Society on a national scale, under of the Archbishops and Bishops of the; Church, - earnestly invites the attention of the clergy to the principles and methods of the society; with a view to the formation of local branches thereof wherever the circumstances of the community shall seem such as to render it desirable. It was needless to dilate-on the terrible’naofM’ and'social evils produced by drunkenness. These-facts were only too ■ familiar. , It was, however, well worthy of consideration whether ’the Church ought not to make some such effort as that indicated-in the resolution to grapple with this evil. The’ English society referred ,’tbi held its’ meetings : atthe Lambeth Palacejiwith the Archbishop of Canterbury .as its president and her Majesty the Queen as• its patron; .<BK *urged the im-’-portanpe of the’subject; and’ihoped the Synod would bear in; mind ,- what, had: been so well said, .that; we • should’ “free, our; souls front : the sin of , so . indolently;.wishing that men would not drink,so,;much.”.:’’ . .. ! ■ . . ■ Mr, Carleton seconded the motion, under-: standing tha,t;,it pointed to—not what was known as “ teetotalism,” but temperance. Teetotahsm ,no doubt-did-.aqnie good with a 'certain class, influence with ‘ another class of the community not generally .obnoxious' to,tjiq',chargepj( excess. „ He wished, ■however, to have more information as to what ■it was . proposed definitely that the society' should do. ; The Rev. Mr. Watkins, supported the proposal. Such a societyj hada twofold scope. It ’embraced those who were willing to bind themselves either to total or partial abstinence; The Rev, Mr; Dudley was happy to notice .that the remarks of the Bishop of Auckland fell somewhat flat here, for the absence of drunkenness in this place . was very remark - -able, and contrasted most favorably with Auckland. He wished well to the Good Templars, but their waiy was not the best way. There was a. tendency in Good Ternplarism ; to. become'a .religion^By itself; and the ritual decorations’formed a strong attraction to many people,' at well as the prospect of being able to put half, the letters of the alphabet.after their names. A Church Society offered none of these attractions,' but on the other hand ■ the Good Templars did more than the Church, for they shepherded one 1 another, and one of the members could not go wrong withqut_being .warned .byhia fellow members. The total abstainers were too fond of 'sitting in judgment on their fellowinen, but churchmen were too, apt to forget that churchmanship meant something more than going to church on Sundays. ; The Bishop of Dunedin thought that although the object of Christ’s Church on earth was to attack and overthrow every vice, yet it one particular vice were . found, • especially prevalent it was the duty' of the Church to arouse hex'forces, and set herself in array against it. It was necessary, however, to have some specific work'to be undertaken by the proposed society, which otherwise would soon fall through. . The Rev. Mr. Penny thought the great drawback of the Good Templars’ system was that to avoid giving offence to some persons, they studiously ommitted all mention of our' Lord in their prayers.’ They also were too apt to array themselves in the mantle of self--righteousness, and to declare that thexnan who only drinks as much as is good for him is just as bad as one who drinks to excess. We needed moderation, not total abstinence. The kind of society proposed should aim at effecting counter attraction, such as forming working men’s clubs, and providing tea and coffee stalls as widely as possible; ■ Mr. Hunter Brown agreed with what had been said by the last speaker as to the Good Templars, who carefully excluded the namte of our Saviour from their ritual, with the view to conciliate infidels. 1 The Dean of Christchurch fully acknowledge the earnestness, of the Good Templars, but there was a danger of that system be-. coming a sort of new religion. He was not very sanguine of such a society as that proposed being successful, and would prefer to see Church guilds established. They might do good in three ways—lst, by influenmg legislation towards,- removing hindraases to temperance. The present punishment of drunkards was miserably, insufficient. _ A man might get drunk, commit damage, insult women and’ children, yet be let off with a fine of ss. This showed that o.ur civilisation had not yet realised the point it ought to have attained. ' 2nd. They should endeavor to establish a curative, system of drunkards by means of asylums ; and, 3rd, they should endeavor to offer counter attractions, such as working men’s, clubs, provide well .warmed and. lighted rooms, where men could spend pleasant evenings, and if they chose send out for a pint of beer in a quiet way. . This would fend to keep them away from publichouses. -The clergy ought to use their influence, unostenta-. tiously, but with tact and judgment, and try thus to improve the state of society. ’ Mr. Hurst thought the proposal a' step in the right direction. It would promote reformation on religious principles; therefore, the Church should support it. He was a member of such a society forty years ago, which was supported by many dignitaries of the Church. But when the teetotallers came they advocated their principles in a most intemperate manner so that they did a great deal of mischief. The Rev. Mr. Watkins .remarked that the object of the Good Templars in excluding our Lord’s name ’from their prayers was to have a broad platform on which all might meet. The Bishop of Auckland hoped it would not go forth that members were struck with astonishment at the temperance of Nelson as compared with Auckland. It should, be remembered that Auckland was a much larger place than Nelson, and had many visitors from other places, who probably were the drunkards Mr. Dudley had noticed. The motion was carried item, con.