The Globe. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 833, 23 February 1877, Page 2

The Globe. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1877.

Among the questions discussed at the recent session of the General Synod it Nelson was that of religious education in schools, and a resolution was carried in favor of petitioning the General Govorenmenfc to permit reigious instruction to be given in Government schools by clergymen, ;nd also of giving aid to those dennmi national schools which came up to the required standard in secular education This is’all as it should be. Holding the views which the majority of the Synod do on this question it is plainly their duty to use every means in their power to have the system which prevails in most parts of the colony altered. But we are afraid public opinion is not likely to be largely influenced by the vote arrived at. Unfortunately we are too familar with such resolutions. At nearly every session of the Diocesan Synod we have somewhat similar ones carried. But there the matter rests. The speakers are contented to denounce the godless system prevalent in most unmeasured terms, and are loud in their demands for a speedy alteration. But in most cases their zeal goes no further. Advantage is not taken of the opportunities within their reach of imparting the instruction the absence of which they lament in the Government system. If the members of the Synod would talk less and do more for the religious instruction of the young, more faith would be placed in their sincerity. The opinions expressed by many of those who took part in the debate sounded rather foreign to the nineteenth century. There was an under-current of quiet assumption that religious teaching in schools meant only the teaching of the Church of England. One reverend gentleman in particular was exceedingly indignant that theresolution before the Synod was so worded as to lower the Church (of England) fo the level of the mere Protestant sects around them. This enlightened and liberal teacher of Christianity evidently regards religious teaching, and the inculcation of the peculiar doctrines of the Church of England as synonymous terras. The mere reading of the Bible in schools would not satisfy him. He demurred to the “ mere perfunctory reading of the Bible,” which, he said “ would be productive of but little good, for unless the reading was conducted with due reverence for the sacred word it would do more harm than good. They did not want to make their children merely good Bible scholars but good Christians.” And how was this very desirable result to be brought about ? If the reading of the sacred volume could not make them “ good Christians ” but merely “goodßible scholars” what agency would the Eev, Mr. Fancourt employ ? The Church catechism of course. Now it is not our intention, nor is it the province of a newspaper to discuss the question whether the Church catechism contains all that is necessary to be known to make the children of this colony “good Christians.” We only wish to point out that any attempt to have it taught in our National Schools by the schoolmasters would meet with the most determined opposition. We have, however, a higher opinion of the clergymen of the Church of England then to take Mr. Fancourt’s utterances as fairly representing the opinions of the majority. Many no doubt agree with him, but many more know that it is perfectly hopeless to ask for exclusive privileges. All that some of them demand is that a certain time should be set apart for religious education, when all denominations alike should have permission to enter the schools and give it. The proposal we think just and reasonable, and if those who make it showed as great anxiety to use the opportunities already within their reach as they do in making the request the public would bo more inclined to treat their demands with consideration.