The Globe. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1874.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 131, 31 October 1874, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1874.

The clergy of the Anglican Church have recently taken every opportunity of denying that they have been opposed to the'Education Ordinance, and to assert and re assert that their wish has been to act loyally in the carrying out of its provisions. The latest utterances upon the subject have been from the Eight Eev the Primate himself, the occasion being the annual gathering in connection with the session ol Synod just closed. With all due respect to Bishop Harper, we venture to point out what we consider to be in consistencies in his speech ; that is, taking his remarks, as we, from his portion, are bound to do, in the light ol being the reflex of opinion generally held by the clergy of his diocese. The Bishop, after referring to the state meets made by a portion of the p r ess of the province with regard to the op position evinced by the clergy, pro-

ceeded to lay down a distinct and positive basis upon which, as he empatically put it, all Churchmen, whether clergy or laity, were equally hound alike by their consciences, and the canons of their Church, to take up a decided stand. That basis was the imperative necessity of teaching the c hildren the Church catechism. Upon this point the Bishop was clear; there could he no shirking of this duty, it must he performed, and he held all alike belonging to the Episcopalian Communion responsible for the carrying out of this portion of the work of the Church. Assuming this to be the opinion of a large number of the laity also, which it is only fair to do, we come to the consideration of the question, what has been done to secure to the children the all-important teaching thus brought prominently forward by the Bishop. Seeing that it is manifestly so important that the children should receive the instruction in the Church catechism, which is unable to be imparted in the Government schools, let us examine how far the clergy and la’.ty of the Church of England have endeavored to provide it. Have they supported their Church schools by contributions or otherwise? A\ r e, say no. One by one they have been allowed to die of inanition, to expire by slow degrees from want of funds, and the sole representative of denominational schools —that of St Luke’s —having had its prayer for help in forma pauperis rejected almost contemptuously by the Synod, will also have to close its doors, and the children will have to go over to the Godless system of Government education. This, be it remembered, in the face of the most emphatic language on the part of the Primate, that all churchmen were bound by their consciences to see that their children received that religious education which the clergy —or at least the majority of them contend, cannot be, and is not available under the Ordinance. Where is the consistency we ask, of those who are so loud in their denunciation of what they are pleased to call the Godless system. If they be sincere in their belief as to this point; if it he binding on their consciences to see that their children receive a certain amount of dogmatic teaching, why do they not support their own schools where they could give an exclusively religious education if it so pleased them? Why, when a small grant of money was required out of the vast estate valued at some £55,000, even after the £IO,OOO is paid, to keep the only Church school in the city alive, did the Synod emphatically refuse to listen to the request ? If the Churchmen are in earnest, if it is necessary to have schools where the peculiar tenets of the Church of England shall be more extendedly taught than in the Sunday schools, let them put their hands into their pockets, and their shoulders to the wdieel, and establish it. If not, and this is simply talk, then the most sensible course they can pursue is to work really with the Government and endeavour to make the Ordinance a success.

A few words as to the other phase of this question referred to by the Bishop, viz, the alleged opposition of the clergy to the Ordinance. Again we most emphatically re-assert —with all due respect for the Primate —that the Anglican clergy were, at the time of the Ordinance being before the Council, most virulent in their opposition to its provisions. Religious differences of the most marked type were laid aside: conference was held with communions most opposite in teaching, and all with what end ? Simply to organise a combined crusade against the Ordinance, and now when they find that the tide of public opinion, even amongst their own members, is against them, they then say that they have not opposed the Ordinance. A lay member of the Synod puts the case so aptly that we will quote his words on introducing a resolution respecting the claims of education on the Church Property. He said —“ It was his “ opinion that the Church had not “ done her work with regard to edu- “ cation, and further than this, the “ anathemas aud invective hurled at “ the Education Ordinance by the “ Church had had the result of in- “ clucing the committees to refuse per- “ mission to clergymen to give religious “ instruction in the schools.” That scarcely looks like “loyally” supporting the Government system as is claimed by the clergy. That the remarks thus made are true, appears to us to be fully borne out by facts patent to all. The difficulty of obtaining access to the schools, it will bo observed, does not obtain in the country, so far as we can learn, being almost entirely confined to town, and this from the very reason pointed out by Mr Mclntyre in the Synod. AVe hope we shall hear no more mi reprofessionsof loyalty on thepartof tho clergy, but that they will show earnest endeavour to make their loyalty a reality instead of a mere formula of words.