BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3111, 29 October 1913, Page 79

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

ADDRESS BY BISHOP JULIUS

A VIGOROUS DEFENCE. (From Oup. Own Correspondent.) CHRISTCHURCH, October 14. In hie presidential address to the Synod of Christchurch this afternoon his Lordship Bishop Julius referred to the Bible-in-schools agitation. “There is no subject of such Urgent importance,” said he, “as the recovery of religious teaching in the primary schools of New Zealand. The movement for the Bible-in-sohools is now reacting its crisis. It halts for want of sufficient momentum. Nothing but a whole-hearted and determined effort will carry it through. Under God everything will depend upon what is done during the next six months. To fail now for want of sufficient effort will hand over the schools of our land to the ■secularist for another generation. The case as put by the Bishop of Wellington remains unanswered. Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, and others have worked together in perfect harmony without strife or jealousy. Our adversaries pretend that the Anglican Church is at the bottom of the whole business. -I say emphatically that in this matter we are one in heart, in purpose, and in service, and that in Canterbury itself we owe as much to the Rev. John Mackenzie, Minister of St. Andrew's, as to anyone else. We welcome the opposition. It bears witness to the reality of our work, and it, keeps us awake. It is, moreover,' a remarkable opposition of infinite variety, but I must confess that 1 am surprised at the lino of argument adopted. For the most part, with certain notable exceptions, it confines itself to petty criticisms, personalities, and abuse. Out of them all only one or two serious criticisms emerge. “ An argument of greater weight is that of the Roman Catholic conscience. All conscientious difficulties must be regarded with respect and reverence, more especially when, as in this case, they arc expressed by genuine sacrifice; but the Roman Catholic conscience is not the only conscience in New Zealand. The conscience of that far larger body of which I have spoken is also to be considered. It is impossible to satisfy both parties. Is it, therefore, reasonable or wise to satisfy neither? Is it fair to complain that we have not made like sacrifice with the Roman Catholics, nor joined with them in a claim which must overturn the national system? Why should we? Wo prefer a national to a <lenominat;onal system; but we desire an education worthy of the name; and are prepared by every means in our power, and by sacrifice of time and money, to make it so. *’ An attempt has been made to offer us the so-called Nelson system. We will have none of it. Undenominational teaching is not Christian teaching, nor anything like it. For practical purposes it is about as effective as the teaching of mechanical engineering by rule of thumb. Lastly, we are accused of endeavouring to force our views upon the people. Wc do nothing of the sort. Wo object to having the views of a minority, as we believe, thrust upon us, and we ask for a referendum.” NELSON SYSTEM CONDEMNED. (From Our Special Correspondent.) NELSON, October 16. In his presidential address to the Nelson Diocesan Synod Bishop Sadlier deals at considerable length with the Bible in Schools question. Referring particularly to what is termed the Nelson system, which, he contends," is totally inadequate, he points out that the success claimed for the system was for the two central schools, and lie asks What about the other school? At the Haven Road School, he goes on to say, one of the most important in the city, classes lapsed during the past year for the want of a teacher. This continued for a period of nine months. It dots not seem, therefore, that in the home of the socalled Nelson system there was sufficient organisation to cope with the demands made on it. It evidently takes the most strenuous concentration of available forces to make it a success in one particular school. The system, the Bishop contends, is the Bible out of the school. The fact is conspicuous and incontrovertible that the best that can bo said of the method is that it is an heroic attempt to atone for the absence of the Bible irom the State schools. Section 143 of the Education Act says that teaching shall be entirely of a secular character. “ The Nelson Board of Education,” says the Bishop, “has at no time given permission for religious instruction in State schools and. again, no religious instruction can be given during schools hours. In a personal communication which I have had from the board, I am informed that the legal school hours are fixed by the Act, namely, two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon, and that the ordinary school hours are determined by the respective committees, varying from 24 to 25 hours a week, and that the board has no knowledge of religious instruction being given in legal or ordinary school hours. No religious instruction is included in the curriculum, the teacher knows nothing of it in the day’s work, and the Education Department knows nothing of it. I say nothing can be more conspicuous and incontrovertible than that the Nelson system is not the Bible in State schools. The religions instruction is given, not in the school, bat in the State school building to any child whoso parents wish them to attend.” In the event of the Nelson system being adopted by the State the Bishop considers theft Roman Catholics would have a just claim to grants in aid of their denominational schools. STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE LEAGUE. CHRISTCHURCH. October 17.The Bible-in-schools question came before the Anglican Synod to-night, when the Rev. J. R. Howland moved —“That this Synod of bishop, clergy, and laity reaffirms its desire for the adoption in this dominion of the Australian system of providing religious instruction in the State schools, supports the Biblc-in-Schools League in its request for a referendum on this question, and respectfully asks the President to convey the resolution to the Prime Minister of the dominion.'’ Dean Carrington said he believed they would carry the referendum. In support of this he stated that, in»t©s.d of the opposition supporting them in asking for a referendum, it put every obstacle in their way. There could be only one reason for this! and that was that the opposition were afraid of the result of the referendum. Mr W. J. Brittain said that the lay mom-

bers of the Synod spoke for the laity of the diocese when they asked Parliament to grant a referendum. The agitation was not confined to the clergy.

The motion was carried unanimously, with applause. Mr Hewland then moved—“ That a special surplus collection be made in all churches of the diocese on the third Sunday in Advent or on Christmas Day in aid of the funds of the Bibie-in-State-Sohools League in this jurisdiction of Canterbury and Westland.” —The motion was carrried.