GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1569, 28 February 1879, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

Thursday, February 27. The sitting of the Assembly was resumed at eleven o’clock. THE REV. D. GORDON. The Rev. D. Bruce introduced to the Assembly the Rev. David Gordon, who is about to proceed to Otago, and asked that he might be associated with the Assembly during its sitting. Agreed to. The Rev. D. Gordon returned thanks and took his seat. REPORT ON EDUCATION. In the absence of several members of the Assembly, the report on education was, on the motion of the Rev. D. Brace, postponed. CONFESSIONS, THEIR AUTHORITY AND USE. The Rev. E. F. McNicol read a paner, in the absence of the Rev. R. T. Somerville, the writer, on this subject. At the conclusion of the reading it was resolved to forward the thanks of the Assembly to the Rev. R. T. Somerville for his very interestmg paper. The Kev. G. B. Munro would suggest that the papers read at the Assembly at various times should be printed in the “Church Nows’’ for the benefit of Church members. After a short discussion the motion was agreed to. THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION. The report of the committee was read by the Rev. J. Hill, convener. It referred to the attempts made to give votes for denominational purposes, to which the Presbyterian Church was and had always been most strongly opposed No conscience clause would be sufficient to prevent an injustice, particularly in smaller communities. As long as money was taken from one de nominational pocket to pay for the teaching of other doctrines, no conscience clau-o could be effectual. It must bo evident to the me .nest capacity that one largo secular school must be more effective than several denominational and smaller schools, and it was to be hoped that in this respect the Government would not allow themselves to be influenced by any sect or party. A movement had been commenced to secure a

reading of the Bible and the reading of the Lord's Prayer in school hours. With this portion of the report hitherto read, the committee was perfectly unanimous, but with regard to the reading of the Bible and the Lord’s Praner, they wore not unanimous. Might did not constitute right, nor did a large majority constitute any excuse for it. There could be no doubt that a sympathy might be given to Protestantism which would have a very bad effect on the country generally. The Catholics complained of injustice when it did not exist, and yet themselves would commit a great injustice. As to the reasons given by those who would introduce the Bible into their schools, the committee stated that they had their most entire sympathy; but that the Go ernment should do this was a very different matter. To be consistent, those who argued in favor of it mu-t go further tbau they did ; but this they cnil-l not do. The Christian church in the colony was not doing its duty towards what was called the “ lapsed ” classes. The various churches must impart their own particular religious instruction, without which education Could not be comi l te. The committee did not think the school committee should have pCvVer to let the school building for religions purposes. This was a power which ought io be in the hands of the clergy. In conclusion the report hoped that the Assembly would adopt such a course as would lead to religious liberty, and strict fidelity to the cause of good. The Rev. G. Barclay agreed with the report so far as to be a very determined opponent to what was known as dcnominationalism in their schools. It would iutr.:ducß a great deal of confusion throughout tne country, and would be great injustice to certain districts where the population v,as so small that they could not support a school themselves. In a particular district a certain body might be able to support a school, while the smaller bodies could not. The system of donominationalism would materially increase the expenses of the country. With regard to the question of the Bible, he was in favour of its being introduced, With a conscience clause Bo could Hot see that introducing it into schools was denominationalism. [“ Yes> it is.”] Religion ought not to be viewed in a philosophical light, but as by Christiana in a Ohnstian country. The Bible was professedly the foundation of the Various sects, and therefore it ought not to be considered to be denominational, although there might be some little difference in the versions of them. A Conscience clause in the past had worked Very well in Canterbury, and ho could hardly call to mind a single instance where the parents had to such a rule being in existence. [Applause.] And what had happened in the past would happen in the future. By keeping the Bible with a conscience clause it would help the success of the generations of the people to recognise the Bible as the book that it was. To exclude it was to bring a bad influence on the minds of the scholars. The mere reading of it would be of immense advantage, although it would not give the thorough elements of a deep religious education. It would be an immense advantage if the children were in possession of the historic facts and the illustrations of the Bible.

The Rev. E. Fraser had given a little attention to their present system of education. He should have liked the report to have gone more fully into the Act than it had done. Making the compulsory clauses permissive was a great fault iu the Act, as wherever it was put into force a feeling was immediately stirred up against those who did so. In thinly populated districts it was with very great difficulty that they could obtain the money to carry on the education of the young. Parents were altogether too remiss, now that they had nothing to pay, in sending their children to school. It was a def-ct in the Act, too, that there was no Court of Appral, If a teacher came into collision with the education committee, he had no redress, which was not as it should be. Teachers had an important and arduous duty to perform, and they ought to be protected or they would never get the most desirable class of teachers. At _ the present moment, in nearly all the provinces of New Zealand, the teachers, committees and Boards were in open conflict. He likewise objected to the matter of certificates of merit, as issued under the present system. It was an anomaly that only the possessor of a first-class degree, issued in the colony, was able to obtain a firstclass position as a teacher, htill, for all these things, he should be very sorry to see the present Act abolished and the doors of denominationalism open. It would be the curse of the country. A very high Episcopal dignitary had lately said on this subject—- “ The greatest liar would get the most public money.” The sooner the question came up and was settled the better it would be for all parties. He should like some provision for the reading of the Bible in schools. At ho ne it was left to committees to decide whether the Bible was to be read or not, and to provide the funds, which must not come out of public money. At the same time, at home the system was guarded by a strong conscience clause. He held that school buildings ought to be given to ministers and others, but simply for the teaching of the Bible with a conscience clause, and taught outside the regular school hours, the means provided not being out of public money. In his his opinion, therefore, the Roman Catholic cry was a false cry, and had no fair argument in it. But if the Bible was to be made part of the regular work of the school, ihen they would give ground for the clamour that was now going through the country. With regard to the teaching of history it was a different thing. History was a xe'-ital of facts, and should be taught, palatable or not. He could not, however, agree with the statement that our education, even as at present carried on, could not be called secular and godless. A great deal of this cry was due to the fact that sufficient study had not been given to the subject. If they again admitted denominalionalism they would find they had made a mistake, which it would take a good many years to rectify. The Rev. J. Paterson thought they should oppose any measure having denominationalism for its object. The present B,Btem was working admirably. It was not correct to say the teachers had no appeal. The teachers in Wellington, at all events, could approach the Board directly, and consequently had their means of redress for any grievance they might be considered to labor under. And he believed that the teachers could appeal to the Minister of Education, or even to the Supreme Court, as had been proved in Wellington. He was very strongly in favour of the Bible being read in their public schools, and simple religion taught, and would rejoice to see any system that would give satisfaction to the country. But that was the difficulty—to give that without consulting the feelings and wishes of the various denominations throughout the country. He did not think they could do this through anv legislation, but it might be done if it was left to the local committee to arrange, in conjunction with a conscience clause. The system was in vogue in Scotland, where there were 4000 or 5000 schools, and where there were only some seven or eight in which the Bible was not read, and only some twelve or thirteen where the shorter catechism was not taught. If left to the local committees in this colony, he believed that the Bible would be read in ninetynine schools out of 100. He, therefore, thought their course would be to memorialise the Government on the subject, and that the local committees should have the power referred to with regard to a conscience clause. They must remember that at present they had the Catholics and Episcopalians arrayed against them, whereas he believed that if they could get the Government to expunge the clause which said the Bible must not be read in school during school hours they would have the Episcopalians with them. At the same time tho Act was working so well that ho was not sure it would be j udicious to interfere with it at all. The Rev. D. Bruce was of opinion that the matter of reading tho Bible in schools should be left to the local committees, though he did not think at the present stage it would be wise to bring forward tho subject, or at all to interfere on the question of religious teaching in schools. Ho was sure they would make a mistake if they did anything except try and counteract the present attempt that was being made to bring about a system of denominationalism. For his part he had no such feelings towards secular education as a great many people. He had as great veneration for tho Bible as any one, and would like to S; e it read in their schools, but ho objected to secular education being spoken of as “ wicked.” He protested against secular education, when they could not get the Bible introduced, being called a ‘‘godless thing.” Education was a sacred thing in the eyes of God, and it should bo so in tho eyes of man. The system of denominationalism would destroy the freedom of education which they now enjoyed, and ho therefore hoped they would do their best to prevent its being ever again introduced into the country.

The Rev. J. Gumming supported the adoption of the report, and said he bad no hesitation in saying that the mere re uling of the Bible by children was not by any means of such importance ns most p-oplo seemed to think. From his own knowledge, ho believed that among children it would he a more waste of time. [“ No.”] He night say that on this subject ho had more experience than even .Mr Klmslin. if the Bible was to ho taught at all it must be taught systematically, atid must not therefore be taught oy the clergymen, who were already overworked. It seemed to him that the present Act, notwithstanding all its little faults, was

he best they had over had or were likely to have forjyears to come.

iho Rev. W. Gillies thought the report was of n very remarkable character. It was of the nature „f a speech, closely reasoned, and not such a report as ought to have been brought before that Assembly. He most distinctly objected to it. If the committee would not withdraw the l itter part of it he should be very much inclined to move a resolution to reject it. With regard, to the matter of the report he was quite sure that the feelings of the majority of the clergy was that the Bible should be read. It was a 'nut onal book. [“But a Protestant book ” J Well, a Protestant book if they liked ; and they belonged to a Protestant country. No Catholic could sit on the English throne, and in a Protestant country a Protestant book should haveits rights. H p felt quite sure their committees were to be trusted. He agreed that it was uncalled for to term their p esent system “ secular and Godless," still ordfil* lo do battle with they must have some change f l( jm the present position of things, lx they simply fought for the Bill as it stoed they would be defeated. [“ No." j But if they took up a stronger position they might he victorious.

The Rev. C. Fraser would say frankly that be entertained a strong sympathy with those who stood up for the religious instruction of the young, and for that reason he was bound to say ne admired the stand which the Catholics made in this matter. He believed the suggestion made by Mr Paterson would have worked some time ago, but it was a very different thing now. Every parent should he allowed to object to any subject to be taught, but he should require such a man to make a formal declaration on the subject, even if it were mathematics or history, although the objection might he ‘quixotic. He was firmly convinced that the children who wore even taught to read and write were so far brought under their influence as to ho able to accept the teachings of religious doctrines. Ho would move —‘ ‘That the report as sanctioned by the committee be received and approved, and that the Assembly record its opinion that school committees should ba instructed to allow theuse of the school buildings every morning previous to the commencement of secular instruction, care being taken to keep distinct and make well known the hours for school instruction.”

The Rev, R. Waddell thought they might secure the reading of the Bible by paying too dearly for it. If the Bible was to be read during school hours with a conscience clause, they placed themselves in exactly the same position as they stood now with regard to denominationalism, and Catholics would say, “ You are taking public money by having the Bible read in the regular school hours, and so depriving our children of the time of teaching which is set apart for all the school children alike." This would be tree, and so they would have the whole battle of denominationalism to fight over again, though upon a different footing and with different elements in view. Then, again, they might have a good secuLr teacher who could not teach religion, and who might indeed not b lieve in the Bible. For there reasons he would vote for the motion of Mr Fraser.

The Rev. C. Fraser moved the addition of the following words to his resolution : —“ That it be an instruction to the committee to take any measures open to them with a view of frustrating any attempt made during the year to reintroduce any system of denominational]am.” The Rev. W. Douglas moved the following resolution —“ That the report be received, and to that extent approved that it opposes and condemns dencminationalism, but does not approve of it so fur as it favors what is known as secularism, and that this Assembly expresses its sympathy with the reintroduction of the reading the Bible with a conscience clause, and is prepared to support that movement.” In moving this resolution Mr Douglas said if they consulted the consciences of any denomination they must consult the consciences of all, Catholics, Episcopalians and Jews, infidels, and all. Mr H. B. Burnett seconded Mr Douglas’ motion, and said Catholicism wanted denomiuationalism pure and simple. He protested that denominationalism and the reading of the Bible in our schools were two distinct things. The modern Greeks at the present time wep the most highly secularly educated nation in the world, but the most utterly without principle. Mr John Cameron said that the country being a Protestant country, he did_ not see that even the Catholics could complain if the Bible was read in schools in connection with a conscience clause. The Rev. J. Hill replied to some of the observations made by the Rev. W. Gillies. The Moderator ruled that if the committee did not consider the last part of the report to be a part of it it should not have been read. The kev. J. Bill would withdraw that portion of the report referred to, and on which the committee bad not been unanimous.

The Rev. C. Fraser moved the omission of the words “ as sanctioned by the committee,” in his motion.

Lltimately, after considerable discussion, the following motion of Mr W. Gil ies was carried, that of Mr W. Douglas being withdrawn—- “ That the Assembly receive the report; that in the opinion of this Assembly a re-introduction of a denominational system of education would be disastrous to the interests of education in general, and that in the event of any amendment of the Act being made the clause relative to the purely secular character of the e ducation to be given should bo expunged and the giving of Bible instruction left to be decided by the general committee, and that it be an instruction to the committee to take any measures open to them with the view of frustrating any such measure being successful. That, in the opinion of the Assembly, the Government should be requested to instruct committees to grant the use of the school-rooms under their charge for Bible instruction outside of school hours.” FILLING Ur CHARGES. The Eev. G. Barclay read the report re filling up vacant charges. Th ; Eev. W. Sheriffs moved the adoption of the report. Seconded by the Rev. G. B. Munro. The Rev. W. Douglas moved —“That no legislation take place during the present Assembly,” but afterwards withdrew it. The Eev. C. Fraser moved, as an amendment—“ That this proposal be sent down to .Presbyteries for their consideration.” Seconded by the Rev. M. A. Allaworth. The motion was carried on the casting vote of the Moderator.

The House then adjourned until half-past seven, to meet at that hour at the Oddfellows’ Hall.