ANGLICAN SYNOD.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 724, 25 January 1910, Page 8

ANGLICAN SYNOD.

RELIGION IN SCHOOLS.

IS THE CHtJRCH IN EARNEST?

PEOPOSED AITERAHONS IN THE CONSTITUTION. The third day's proceedings of the General Synod of the Church of < the Province of New' Zealand occupied yesterday afternoon, and evening/'. \ : . PROPOSED, CHURCH NEWSPAPER. The report of the committee set np to inquire .into the project of establishing" aChurch newspaper for New Zealand' was read by Archdeacon Harper. The committee stated that with a paying cuculabon of at lea«t 8000 copies fortnagfltly, delivered through the post for ™« p " , annnm ' a profit of from .£250 to ■*300 a year might be made. The present il. n6 * I*? 01 to lie a suitable time to attempt this.in.view' of the money required for the approaching general mission. -■; ■ . . . - v ,■■ . The ■report, was laid on.the. table.

CHURCH MISSIONARY ASSOCIATION.

-The Bishop of Nelson presented the triennial report of the. Now. Zealand Church .Missionary Association.' The report stated that, besides "two accepted candidates, there were 13 missionaries on the staff of the association. Of these, Kiss .Wilson,- .unable, (for medical reasons) to return to West'.Africa, was for the present engaged in deputation work.. For a part of the period under review, and for many years ; before, she worked on the •Niger, and not without succesV, The association had • missionaries in China, , Japan, and India,-.;and the committee were particularly glad to welcome amongst* their workers the Eev. F..C. Long,,HjL, ..with first-class-honours of the New Zealand. University. Ont. of. 19s.- 8d income'for the three years, £iSSD--is.' had been/spent upon Oμ fields,belonging to the Church of , this Province, namely, .£767 ,ss. .on: Maori work and on melanosis. .The committee had bound themselves to spend more on Maori work, —not merely: in money, for they would also provide -a new. worker,; trained'by themselves, withv hospital and other experience., ■' . •.■'■:■.■, .■■.;■ ,'■ ; ■

, The. report was referred to the Committee on Home and ■Foreign Missions,

J „ ' x

On the motion of Mr. C. J. Tunka. a Bill, relating to the election of representatives . for_ General Synod, was read a first ; ,tinie.' "~- , .'■ '.■"■' V' "• ': . ■' A Bill to frame a new: -canon of the .Maori; Mission Board; was read , a .first time, , on the motion -of the Bishop of Christchurch. . :.; \ .':■■':■'■".'■■■ '• ■'

PROPOSED NEW DIOCESE.

'.• On the motion of Mr.: p. J. Tuiks, a Select .Committee, 'consisting of the Bishops' of Wellington and Auckland, Archdeacons .Caldor and Jacob,' Messrs. W. ; S. Cochrane, W.. J. Birch,' and the mover, was appointed to consider the report'of the commission on the-boundaries of the North Island dioceses,, and the advisability of taking steps at once to constitute u'.- new" .diocese • to. be: called ■' the Diocese of, Taianaki. '■. :. ; ..-: ..-.■

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN STATE SCHOOLS.

■■;,■'-, NATIONAL ASPECTS. ■: V APPROVAL GOP NEW SOUTH WALES ■ .\ : r--.V ,; ,;. The. debate : on Archdeacon motion y relating to religions instruction ■_ in the! : public schools :was continued. .■'■','

Archdeacon Buddock (Napier) submitted a resolution of the': Waiapu Synod asking the: General Synod tp formulate some scheme to give ■ effect' to. the - New South Wales system of religious teaching in'..the; schools.. -He quoted'letters', and reports "to show that'the--system' was working successfully in New South Wales, Western. Australia, .'anil. .Tasmania. He opposed. : io- ■ further'. ■■'; the Nelson system,.,which he regarded as designed to spread Modernism. ■■. ■ ;V6ices:': "Ko, no." "Nothing of : the' , Bnd."V'.' : :'.:'; v. r ■~ ■■.. ;■

Archdeacon' ' Euddocfc: ' "Pardon me. That is my conception of "it It is a con- , dition.'.under.: the .Nelson system'" that those .who 'give religious'.teaching'shall: not give anything distinctive of the teaching of-their, own Churches." They'were required to eliminate the Christological' element! of the Church's ; teaching, and this, would be contrary to. the vows which acfergyman took at his ordination.' He suggested '..that... the Bench of' Bishops should be respectfully 'asked to ; make, .a pronouncement on the, subject, and that. a league should be 1 formed,', so that the whole Church of the province couldwork : together, fle moved to amend Archdeacon Willis's motion! by, deleting the. appeal' for- the co-operation .of ■; aiflsiiv Churches ■and.the reference to the Nelson'.'."gystem,V and" by substituting' a church league for action in place-of a wider league for nrayer. A league which had. been working! for ; some years in . Queensland might be taken* as a ■ niodel of-what was: wanted here., , Unless such a league were, formed there could be no hope.of the legislative;action which, they desired. The cause of religious education 'was of supreme* importance to.' the Church and the; country. V ' . ',

"Are We in Earnest? ,, ■:■)-[■■[;■. ' 'li.wani to esk' if we, are really in earnest in this matter," began the Bishop *of: •Hβ stated* that 'a, committee was, appointed by- the 1901 General Synod to! report as to co-operation:with other religious bodies with; the "object in question. ■ They presented a .report which was laid on the table, but.it.was not to be found-in the .book of "Pro-, ceedings of the Synod." •*.' In place of it there was a note, "Report lost,'see Proceedings,,: 1901" In ISM, theisame'comjnitbee, was'asked to go on for, another year. They consented, and . again ' reported. The report ,was. laid .on the table, and not a single word was/sai4 About/it during the Synod. -Did-.it' not look as if the Synod was not in earnest?. Was the country any more * in , earnest? They tried to get a question on the subject put to all Parliament at'the .election before, last,, but he had never heard that a single vote "was lost by it The number of members of Parliament who were in favour of religious .teaching * in the", schools was considerably: less ,than formerly. The Government, a few years ago, received a deputation on the subject, and gave an evasive ■ answer, perhaps, but certainly a considerate answer. Now they would not even receive a, deputation. If the Synod was net in earnest, he thought ttey, had better pass on to the next order of the day. .. .' ■ He wished the Synod was in earnest, for nothing was more eerious than this question or religious teaching. , Some people said: "Let the children be taught Teligion in their homes," but .those who had prepared candidates for confirmation' knew* that in very many cases' this : was not being done.. He had lost all hope of anything being effected for some years to come, because the ' majority, of churchmen did not really care abont it

Statement by the Primate. '..; 1 The Primate (Bishop Neyffl) arid he Trouhlbe extremely sorry if it went forth to. the world that the Church was indifferent on snch a subject Such was not by-any means the case in the south. If the scheme alluded to by the Bishop of LWellington.had not found favour, there, that , was because they had year after year affirmed their approval of the Nw South "Wales system; This was'the'only/ scheme that would commend itself to all Church people,. not only in Australesia, but also .in . England/. Tho "Nelson system," which was being carried out at many schools in the city and suburbs of Donedin, was better than nothing, but under it, the clergy only entered the ; schools on sufferance, and they desired to have the right to be there. It had been; satd- that the:- Bishops had done nothing, but they had really done a good deal.' They had issued a pastoral commending certain courses to their people, and would be pleased to do-eo again. Only 0n« Practicable System. ; . Dean Etchett said tiey ware all. very much; in earnest in £hq matter, if only they ;could see;a pradacal way; There had been discouragement through impracticable schemes baring, been tried. There was no chance of a system of Bible teaching by the State school teachers 1 lieing generally acceptabla, - Hβ would lii»,

Archdeacan 'VTHlis and Archdeacon Euddock to drop all subsidiary matter from their proposals with a view to asking the Synod to declare definitely, and simply for the New South Wales system. It was a system already working. It enabled them to teach their own children their own truths in theii,ovm way. There was no other practicable system. It was that or nothing. • ■:■■",'.■■■ '

The Motion Recast. ~ The-Bishop of Waiapu (Eight Eev. A. W. Averill) moved as an amendment the deletion.of all but the first clause of,the motion, and the.addition of words asking the bishops to take steps >to bring the '^advantages , of the New South Wales system before the public. ',',." Archdeacon Willis and. hie , seconder were allowed to adopt this in place of the original motion. The motion, therefore, stood as . ;....'.

That this Synod approves of the provisions of the New South Wales Education Act, under which "General Eeligious Instruction" (Bible teaching) is ordered to be given in. all the State, schools in'the ordinary course of lessons by the State ■'teachers, and "Special Eoligione Instruction" may be given during,school hours by such' of the clergy or the accredited teachers of the various religious , bodies as shall arrange to give such instruction,:and respectfully requests the. bishops of. the province to talce end: steps as they may think advisable to bring, the advantages ;.bf.-this svstem - before the people of the Dominion. ...

A Call to Work. ' ' , Mr. .\T. Wells (CamHridge) urged that all present should go back to their homes after, the Synod, determined .to work earnestly for the cause. He also insisted that co-operation .with; other: Churches, was necessary in order; to get the numbers which, alone .couldi.-influence" legislatiau. They must not expect the already overworked clergy to do much more. Either they must go to the State, or churchmen must put their, hands .-.in ■ their own pockets and build schools and.engage i teachers. (Hear, hear.)

Religion! and Nationality. , •-.-.•. • The Eev. T.' 3L Sprott',{Wellington), said.,the 6cheme recommended by the committee of. nine years ago, of which the Bishop of Wellington imd himself were members, failed because one of the dioceses stood out, and also because the generally, failed, tovrealise the; true, place of religion in life. This was because history was ignored:; The Uni-versity-of New. , Zealand was probably the only one in the world that/had'no-Chair of History. People thought religion. was a private affair between' the individual and God, whereas it really was the chief formative influence in national life. This •was a layman's question, and the layman who voted for the motion, and.at the next election,, put something, else before ;it would be insincere. They should make it the'test .question of the election. "Another cause of the failure of past efforts was.-, that the working classes were not sympathetic with this movement because their-religion was one of .materialistic Socialism^. They ."•thought; that 'better economic arrangements would' be !the remedy for all social OAsi ' They would never be convinced of their error until their Socialistio : experiments had been tried, (and been proTOd, as, they, would :be proved, a pure delusion! Then, and not till then,i would they.be ready for., the truth. The press had also helped to kill the movement by applying to it the word clerical, though it really tended to keep, the clergy- out- of the:schools. If, therefore, the movement ; were to go on, no parson,-be ■he a , bishop, priest, or deacon, ■' should be 1 allowed :to " have anything to do'.with it'He would have preferred that Arohdeacon Willis had not brought, the ■ matter up, ■ though he would be'glad; to have what, was asked for,-and : he conld not vote against-the motion. ~ In reply to • a' question,; Mr. Sprott said l the system approved: by. the General Synod, on the recommendation of the committee of 1901, was.: tie giving of', Scriptural lessons ;by the State > sohool teachers from an authorised book of such, lessons.'- , '■'.-■ -.' ■'..- ; '~ ■■. . ■..-.. . .:• ~ -.. .-,

Must be Tackled Seriously. After further discussion, the' Bishop of /Auckland said .the State school, teach-' ers,; as far.;as,ho knew them—and , he know nearly all .those in his own would welcome -the opportunity of ■ giving' religious';teaching in' their: schools. ;A syllabiU' of religious 'teaching was - adopted. by; State, teachers all through the Auckland diocese',' but it did not last' more-than-six..months. .The reason,/was that -the', lessons'could not;.be given in sohool hours. The so-called facilities were mere folly.'and amounted to making God an."extra." He was.sure that publio>. opinion was ■ changing,■">and a ■ demooratio country would soon. rise up and say that; religion in education should no longer be' the.luxury,of ■,theirich. -.The: clergy in his 'diocese. would support whole-heartedly v the. New South' y?a)es system, but they could not conscientiously approve ■<of. the eoheme .of..lessons; set' -forth:'a few.: years ago." The question was, as. .Mr. Sprott had said; a - layman's question. .'A'.'.clergyman' ehould not be seen;, on ,the political.'hustings, but.,the clergy, should giro' a. lead. ,, The.'episco-, pal and non-episcopal -..Ciiurches' were now all, convinced that this thing must be'seriously tackled.. ;If the Government within twenty years, or whatever -. time it took to educate public opinion, did not. take action,', this country would,be covered with denominational schools; because the best people were not -going' to allow education tobe wholly secular. :■■ ■ ' Ttip motion as, amended was carried unanimously. . - . ■' >■ . '

:.-•■.V CONGRESS TO BE HELD..;; ; - It.was resolved, ,on. the motion of Archdeacon Knddock, "That in ? the opinion, of this Synod it is; desirable to hold a Church Congress in '.the. year 1911, and that the Bishops be.'respectfully asked to arrange .for the, same." ..-■•.-. . : .'■

THE « FUNDAMENTALS. ,,

THE CHURCH AND SELF-GOVEBN' . .■■■■.■ : '"' MENT. :,■ ■' '-.

A WEIGHTT QUESTION. : : The Bishop of Chrietchurch moved •—' (a)'"That.this Synod affirms that while the Church of this province is and sires to remain in full communion with 1 the Church of England; yet, as a dulyorganised province of the Catholic Church it inherently possesses the; fullest powers of self-government." ..,. . '. . (b) "That in order to the exercise of such inherent powers, it wiH be necessary to rescind Clause VL of the constitution.'' ."'■■ ; . : ,(c) "That in order, to safeguard ail rights of property, and to secure legal recognition of the continuance of the identity of, the Church of this province, after; such change in the constitution, it ifl desirable that the General Synod shall promote such legislation in the New Zealand. Parliament as may best'. secure these ends."' '.".'' " ; . ; (d) "Thatin order to guard the Church against hasty and ill-considered legislation, the Synod hereby declares that. no' alteration shall bo made.in the book of Common Prayer, in the form and manner of making, ordaining, f and consecrating of-bishops, priests,; and deacons, or in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, except such alteration be first adopted in one General Synod, then referred to the Diocesan -Synods, approved by a majority of them, and finally confirmed in the next ensuing General Synod." .; (e) a cdmrnission be appointed to prepare a BiU for the purposes set forth in .resolution (o>, with soch legal assist■ance as they may- require. The BUI, when drafted, shall be submitted by ; the'm to the standing committeea of the several dioceses of the province, and their objections, if any. considered. , If the final draft of the-Bill bo approved .by a majority of the etanding committees, ,the; commission shall then take all such steps as are "necessary to promote the passing of the Bill by the ■ New Zealand Parliament. The expenses incurred by the commission in the preparation and promotion of the Bill "shall be aoharge on the funds of General S™od." ■' • " In moving as above, Bishop JoJius expressed gratitude for the remarks of the Primate on, this subject in his opening speech. He deeply regretted the absence of Archdeacon Harper, who bad many times asked tho Synod to amend the socalled unalterable provisions. Quoting from the constitution, the Bishop pointed out that Clause ,6, which declared certain clauses, to be fundamental and' unalterable, was not. itself declared to be fundamental. Further, 'he pointed N out that Clanse 2 of Title G, Canon i; empowered tb.» Cawcli of the Pioviaoo

make alterations in certain important parts of' the : Prayer Book. The bishops also had power to appoint services , for special, purposes, - &od he --wished this power were morewidely and freely' usedL It wns necessary to have a burial service for chil-. dren, and yet it was illegal. Similarly' a service for cremation was required,' and: the use of confirmation needed improvement. . Thus there were several alterations which were necessary, which.were frequently made, and yet which were illegal. The Primate had said in his opening address that the "jus liturgicum" residing in. the Bishops gave them all needful power to vary the services, but he (the: speaker) feared that the general exercise, of such a.poweiri would lead to altogether too much variety. He. argued that the Church should recognise to the full, the freedom which it inherently possessed, and, then safeguard its exercise of I that freedom. Ho thought they would have to go -to, Parliament to .get the continuity of the. Church recognised, if the proposed changes, wore made. His experience was that when . the Church went to Parliament openly and trustfully it was dealt with honourably and fairly. This would be much better thai to have some one, later on, bringing a case regarding the property of the Church, leading to a Supreme Court action,' which would be regarded as a scandal to the Church.. The steps he had outlined seemed to him to be absolutely, necessary.

Tho Question of Legislation.. Mr. H.- D. Andrews (Christchnrch) seconded the motion. ■■■.-.■ ' . Mr. T. Tanner (Napier) said the;idea that some small party might come forward and claim.to be the Church of the Province of New Zealand and. have its property—if proposed' t alterations were made without Act of".Parliament—was absurd., Hβ did not believe there, were any men : fools: enough to do such a thing. The case was entirely different from that of the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland, which was tried by the House.of Lords. He moved an amendment to make certain consequential amendments in the constitution, and to omit, those'parts of the motion relating to the promotion of a Bill in Parliament; : ;' ■-. .'■'."'•■

• This amendment was not seconded. The Right Hot. W. L. Williams flate Bishop 'of ■ Waiapn) agreed : that ■ some alterations in the Prayer Book, ■as indicated by the Bishop of Christchurch, \?ere necessary.■■:•' ' :•■■■■

A' Lawyer's Views. ' , , : . •• J&.T. K> Martin (Wellington)supported the motioni and agreed with the Primate that the worde.which purported to .make certain clauses unalterable were null and void. .The,leaders:of the.Church in 1857 thought,they .were;starting a branch' of the Established' Church, but'in.the early 60Vit was decided that, in a colony : where; the', right.'of 'self-government 'had . been granted the 'law, ecclesiastical : 'did'not 1 Toi.' If the 'founders, of : the; Church in , New Zealand hod known,that they were founding a. separate church; they would not have inserted the clause alluding to the; possibility of a license being "granted by the Crown .to this' branch . of.' the Church of England." According to the views ,of constitutional lawyers, ■ such a clause' as Clause 6 was null and void, because a body like the: General Synod could not bind itself not to alter something it had previously, adopted. '.After further references to law. and history, Mr. Martin said that a recourse to Parliament reonld be necessary, and he could assure .the Synod that there need be no feai of the'result. v ,: '■■■■■■.'■.;-'■.■

Sufficient Liberty Already. " . ■-. Dean Fitchett (Dunedin) said: it was generally recognised that the / General Synod ,'-. was . quite . competent to alter /anything. ■'it ; 'had previously done, and \ the "founders": must: have known ■' this:- , ■' They: intended.... 0n1y,,, to prevent' changes for a', time. . He. considered that 'the Church: to-day, had all tho power ■ that the Bishop 'of ■ Christchurch proposed to N obtain for it. : There was enough.liberty with the Prayer Book, as it was, and there would be less if it were revised to date. - Portions were allowed to fall into disuse and consequential alterations were ' made,.'-'so that the Prayer Book' continually adjusted vitselfto the needs oMhe Sge. .He did not think the General and Diocesan Synods were competent to revise- the Prayer■' Book., He wa3|Hot -ati- all .sure- that, a /private Bill, as. suggested, would have an easy, passage through Parliament , . ' : : Mr.-' C.,.J.-Tunks said'-,, the Auckland. Diocefan 'Synod'.had' passed a'.resolution' opposing; any chaigo v in' , the' fundamen-'. tils. He could', assure Mr. '.Tanner, that there.were men in the Auckland:diocese who ,, would be' prepared to take, .legal action to.test .tiie 'rights/of the Church to property if it altered" the fundamen-' tals .without 'safeguarding itself by an Act of Parliament.. He could hardly conceive the Prayer, Book being altered by a Synod or a committee, and he would be extremely sorry to take part in>>a dis' 'cussion with' that object. ; ... v .

'; Mr. Tunk*s remarla were interrupted by the adjournment of the Synod until .2.30 pjn. 'to-day. ■ ' .... ■'.. ..'."■;