[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR.'] Sin,—It has always
seemed to me that the denominations have very much to thank themselves for the difficulty which they experience in maintaining their own schools. They have never sufficiently affirmed their right to the liberty of religious teaching. It is as important as the right to worship. If Christ said to the Church, " Feed my lambs," the Church, or the Churches, have that duty laid upon them, and they have a right to claim that they shall not be hindered in carrying out their Lord's command. That command, without question, meant, " Teach my religion to your children." It did not mean, " Teach them the three R's." The State, which may or may not he of any religion at all, thinks it necessary that its citizens should be educated, as it calls it,—by which it means, taught certain secular subjects. And it pays for this. But because it thinks morality and obedience useful, it has created a system of so-called re- ligion;ad hoc, which it terms " undenominational "—i.e., not taught by any denomination, and therefore a pure creation of its own—and this it allows, but does not compel, to be taught in its State schools. And the Nonconformists, who are all for liberating religion from State control when it snits their purpose, yet welcome this children's State religion, because, as they think, it will injure the Church. But the Churcb, and the denominations too, have a right to say Christ has committed to us to teach his religion as we understand it, in all its fullness, to our grown-up members and to our children. He has not committed this trust to the State, which is in- capable of fulfilling it. We will not have the State lay hold of our children and teach them half-truths, which suggest what is false, nor will we risk the teachers appointed by the State, denying in their teaching truths which we consider vital ; and therefore we insist on keeping the religious teaching in our own hands.' If the rights of the denominations are thus admitted—and I do not see how they can be denied without great tyranny—then the State must be content to pay for the subjects which it has a right to insist upon having taught, a sufficient sum to enable them to be taught. And, provided a denominational school can produce a certain number of children who have been taught these subjects, the managers should be paid accordingly. Whether this is done by increased grants, or by allowing an education rate to be assigned according to the convictions of the ratepayers, signifies little,—except, indeed, that it seems somewhat in- consistent to abolish Church-rates on the ground of their being an outrage to the religious convictions of the Church-rate payer, and yet compel the school-rate payer to contribute towards the teaching of the new-fangled State religion of which he in tote disapproves. This would be truly inexplicable were it not that in thus blowing hot and cold, the Nonconformist is, as he rightly thinks, inflicting a blow upon the Church, in the name of religious liberty. It is for Churchmen to make it clear that they value this principle equally with Noncon- formists, and that they in future mean to insist on its application to their own case.—I am, Sir, &c., G. R. PORTAL.
Previous page
