AUCKLAND CANON IS AMAZED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17837, 4 May 1926, Page 13

AUCKLAND CANON IS AMAZED.

SPIRITED REPLY GIVEN TO CANON WILFORD,

GREAT MASS SAID TO BE BEHIND ARCHBISHOP.

(Special to -the “Star.”) AUCKLAND, May 3. The attack recently made on the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill by Canon Wilford, of Christchurch, was referred to by Canon Percival James, in the course of his sermon at St Mary's Cathedral. Canon Wilford was reported to have said that nothing but harm could result from the reading of passages of the Bible by teachers or pupils. Teachers did not believe in the Bible and yet would not take advantage of the conscience clause, but would rather take part in worthless religious exercises, in which it would be impossible for them to feign an interest.

“INCREDULOUS AMAZEMENT.” “I read these remarks of Canon Wilford’s with incredulous amazement,” said Canon James, “and I have the right to ask him when he changed his mind. He and J were members of a committee of the General Synod in--1922, and he himself drew up the terms of a motion afterwards proposed by Archbishop Julius and unanimously accepted by the Synod. The motion requested the bishops to confer with others to make it possible for thd State school teachers to give instruction to children in school hours. What could be plainer? That was Canon Wilford *s sentence. He voted for the motion in Synod, and as a result of that resolution the bishops conferred with the leaders of other religious bodies, and with others concerned, and framed the present Religious Exercises in Schools Bill. The principles of that measure were approved by the last General Synod, of 1925. The Bill is the fruit of entire agreement between the leaders of the Anglican. Baptist, Congregational, Methodist and Presbyterian churches, the Salvation Army and other religious bodies, who numbered between 70 and &0 per cent of the population. A TINY MINORITY.

“Canon Wilford has changed his mind, and he is perfectly entitled to his new opinion, although he is a tiny and insignificant minority, but we who know that his bark is worse than his bite would have our brethren of the other churches estimate his opposition at its proper value. The great mass of the Anglican Church is solidly behind the Archbishop, as it stood behind Archbishop Julius in enthusiastic Sup'port of the measure. When Canon Wilford complains that the Bill is going to take from the clergy their proper work, he has apparently neglected to read the provisions of the Bill. It does not take anything from anybody. If there is a system of religious instruction in any school it may be continued, instead of the s} r sterti in the Bill. “LIKE A FANATIC.” “Canon Wilford charges the Bill with unfairness to the teachers, children and parents, but there could be no more effective safeguards than the conscience clatises. Canon Wilford’s earnestness and energy are marred by his unfortunate habit of arguing like a fanatic. Not content with his sweeping generalisation that the State school teachers -are Unbelievers, he brands them as moral cowards who will fail to avail themselves of the conscience clause. These teachers exercise a great, almost a decisive, influehce over the -children of our land. Happily the people generally hold a higher opinion of their character. The clergy are accused by Canon Wilford of seeking to shirk their sacred duty to the young in order to run bazaars and golf clubs. The only ground for this abusive suggestion is the abandonment of the demand for the statutory right of entry of the clergy into the schools. Canon Wilford knows well that every religious body in the Bible in State Schools League abandoned the demand, and that the Anglican Church, last of all, abandoned it in 1922. It was abandoned because it was useless, and not worth making.

DEMAND FOR THE BILL. “The object of the present measure is something much bigger. It is that in every school, great or small, in town or country, the name of God shall be honoured, and His love and His law remembered. It is that the teachers who desire it shall be permitted to do more for the moral and spiritual development of the children, as well as their mental and physical development; that their hands shall no longer be tied, but that they shall be allowed to employ the most powerful agent known for moulding and training character. I have heard from hundreds of teachers throughout New Zealand, and I believe the number who will eagerly welcome this freedom is much greater than is generally supposed. The demand of the people for* this measure will also be found overwhelmingly great, and that demand is based on unassailable democratic principles. The Christian people have a right to insist that their children shall no longer be defrauded of their birthright, while their school life serves only to create, at the public expense, a positive presumption against religion in their minds during their most impressionable years.”