THE EDUCATION QUESTION.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.
Sui—It is only the vast importance of the subject before us which can justify me in troubling you again upon it; though, (if you will this time accept a oomph- meet without a rebuke,) I may say that the ability and courtesy of your remarks on my last letter have brought the infliction on yourself, and lead me to hope that by one more some further truth may be elicited.
I fully concur with your statement, that religions truth is capable of a distinct and substantive study; but I think that you urge this in a manner which over- looks the distinction between two branches of Christianity. Scriptural criticism, church history, creeds, articles, the literature connected with them, and the whole mass of similar subjects form, in my judgment, the science of theology; which, no doubt, is best contemplated in its purest form, and does not require the support of any other science; while, in any scheme of education, instruction in it would probably be left to the authorized ministers and teachers of particular religions communities. This, then, is Christian theology: but Christianity is something more than this. It claims to pass moral judgments, connected with and result- ing from certain facts and statement contained in the Scriptures; nay, more, to
supreme authority in all questions involving moral judgments: and there- re8X studying history or any moral science, our judgment must either be Christian or Anti-Christian; we must either deduce them from Christianity, or we virtually deny it. This, I think, is not theology, but religion. Any scheme of education, then, which emanates from a Christian nation, (even though by that term we were only to mean a collection of Christian individuals,) must be founded, not merely on such extracts from the Bible as inculcate reverence to the Divine Being, but on the revelation which God has made to man in the person and teaphing of Jesus Christ. But, for this element in national education, the Lancashire scheme would substitute a system of pure Theism. While, therefore, I allow its superiority to the Government plan in one respect, that it provides for the wants of the poorer districts, which seem omitted by the mode of granting help in proportion to the money locally raised, (though this de- fect is surely quite capable of a remedy,) yell deeply deplore a proposal which, professing to admit" even the heathen " of our densely-populated districts, has no
• her aim in attempting their moral culture than to change them into Deists. This scheme, you seem to say, is only supplemental to the educational exertions of various religious bodies. But if so, let it teach, not indeed the distinctive dogmatic theology of any church, but Christianity; basing its moral lessons on the Scriptures ..-not on a book of extracts subject to nine separate veto's, including those of un- believers, but on the whole, If, indeed, extracts are thought desirable on other
" nds, let them be chosen by Christians, and designed, (like those used in Ire- ,) not to exclude or undervalue Christianity, but to teach it more efficiently. And let these schools be intrusted to men of an earnest spirit, and at the same time liberal and tolerant, who shall be subjected to no restriction, except such as Arnold would have felt in dealing with boys whose parents differed from himself in various points of theology, but agreed in recognizing the supreme authority of the Christian revelation. Such experiments have been tried and succeeded. The case of King Edward's School in Birmingham is quoted by yourself. Even though the circumstances of a boarding-school offer some peculiar difficulties, from the moral superintendence which a tutor is bound to exercise over the boys in his house in all their daily life, yet we have had Dissenters under our care here, who have lived in perfect harmony with us and their schoolfellows, and have left us with a most sincere attachment to the place of their education. Although I do not think that you do full justice to the activity with which both Churchmen and Dissenters are multiplying and increasing the efficiency of schools, nor to the impetus which the Government scheme has given to education, .vet you are, I fear, justified in saying, that "there is a growing disposition abroad to up- hold your conclusion" as to the entire separation of secular and religious teach- ing. Even such a man as the present Lord Carlisle has expressed grave doubts Whether such a separation would not be desirable. And when we contemplate the intolerance which defiles both the Church and the various Dissenting bodies, the general determination to insist on the comparatively minor points on which we differ, and to forget the infinitely important questions on which we agree, we can scarcely wonder if the result is that even good and patriotic men, in despair of establishing a system in which all shall unite in acknowledging Christianity, should seek refuge in one which practically denies it. But such a consummation I should only regard sea heavy judgment on our country, the fit punishment, per- haps, for that hatred which disguises itself under the name of zeal for Christian truth. Thus, then, believing Christianity to be the only safe and certain cure for all our moral, social, and political evils, I should prefer a system of education beevretpurely sectarian, to one which, I fear, must lead to a cold and heartless un- Believe me, Sir, most sincerely yours, A MASTER OF RUGBY SCHOOL.
[We willingly leave our correspondent the last word; with the single remark on our side, that if it were not for the complicated state of schism in which the eountry is divided—if the whole country were truly included in the Church of England—no question would have arisen to call for the Lancashire system, or for the present discussion: the schism, however, must be not ignored but met. We may add, that if all Churchmen displayed as much sincerity and kindly tact as this gentleman, schism itself would be nearly disarmed.—En.]
Previous page
