[TO THY EDITOR Or THY "SPECTATOR." J
Sra,—Is it too late to ask the Nonconformist supporters of the Education Bill to reconsider the whole matter calmly by the light of their own principles of "religious equality" and "freedom of religion from State patronage and control " ?
No considerable number of Churchmen ever desired that the children of Dissenters should be taught Church doctrine in Church schools. If this has not always been clear in the past, we have at least made it clear now. What the Church is asking for now with one voice is that children should be taught according to the desire of their parents ; that in the matter of religion the State should not be allowed to intervene between the parents' wishes and the child. To some of us this seems the only true embodiment of the principles I have named. But the Nonconformists will have none of it. What they would likp is a clean sweep of denominational teaching, and the universal establishment of undenominationalism.
Now how does this ideal stand the test of the principle of "religious equality " ? It may not be correct to identify unde- nominationalism with Nonconformity, but this much is clear. Undenominational teaching so far satisfies Nonconformists in general that with few exceptions they have been content that their children should attend Board or provided schools. Church people, on the other hand, have been so dissatisfied with such teaching that they have spent since 1870 £33,000,000 to supply their children with something different. These are solid facts. In face of them, what does "religious equality" demand? Surely that legislation should at least aim at satisfying equally both Nonconformist on the one hand and Churchman (not to mention Romanist and Jew) on the other.
For Nonconformists to seek to establish in all schools a kind of teaching that satisfies them (though it profoundly dissatisfies others) savours of intolerance and tyranny rather than religious equality. And can such forcing by Act of Parliament of a certain kind of religious teaching upon those who are profoundly dis- satisfied with it—can such a new Act of Uniformity, such exclusive State patronage of undenominationalism, be reconciled by any sleight of dialectic with the principle that the State should exercise over religion neither patronage nor control ?
But, indeed, that this Bill should be promoted by the party of religious equality and freedom is only one paradox in a situation which abounds in paradoxes. Another is that religious Non- conformists, who undoubtedly hold that religion is a matter of. the first importance, are absolutely clamouring that no attempt shall be made to see that the teachers are fit to teach it! And a third is that the present Bill, which has not only aroused the evil spirit of religious controversy to an unusual pitch, but contains elaborate provisions for bringing permanently under its baneful influence, at least in towns, every education authority and every parent, was brought in with the express object of allaying the religious con- troversy once for all!
Great Tew Vicarage.
Previous page
