pro THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR.1 SIR,-A Liberal Government
is now in power, and we are assured that one of its first undertakings will be a measure to revise the education settlement of 1902. We are further given to understand that the revision will consist of two acts,—the giving the preponderance on boards of management in the non-provided schools to elected members, and the abolition of the religious " test " for teachers. It needs no demonstration that if these proposals are carried into law, Churchmen will no longer have a warrant that their own faith is being taught to their own children in what they have been accustomed to regard as their own schools. I do not want at this moment to criticise the justice of these pro- posals, but to ask your readers to consider what would have
to be done, in the event of their being carried, to protect the interests of religious education.
I would suggest that if this new Bill, advocated by Noncon- formists in the name of What seems to me a somewhat abstract justice, is not to work injustice of a very real and concrete sort upon Churchmen, it must contain a third clause which shall safeguard the teaching of the Church of England formularies in the schools whose trust-deeds require such teaching ; and then, to keep the balance true, it may be thought well to supplement the present Conscience Clause by a proviso for the instruction of the children of Nonconformists in the principles of their own Communions, thereby removing what in most of the country parishes in England has for long been a very real and keenly felt grievance.
Whether any of these proposals will be made, or whether, if made, they will be carried, I have not the skill to prophesy ; but the forecast may supply us with a model of what, if it is thought possible for Church schools, should be possible also in those provided by the State. If "formularies distinctive of a denomination" may be prescribed in one type of school, why may they not be prescribed in another ? Why shciuld Churchmen, because they have not taken the law into their own hands, and refused to pay their rates, receive no consideration when they, for their part, ask for the redress of a grievance by the removal of the Cowper-Temple- Clause ? The grievance is that in the State schools their children are taught a religion which is really the religion of nobody, if it is a religion at all. But, of course, the Cowper-Temple Clause presses as hardly on the orthodox Nonconformists ; and I have no doubt that when their political conscience is satisfied that the Church of England is receiving no special considera- tion from the State, but rather the reverse, their religious consciences will join with ours in asking for the removal of the religious disability.
I suggested recently in a letter to the Times that the case would be met by the authorisation by the State of both the Church of England Catechism and the Free Church Cate- chism, and to these I gladly add, at Dr. Rigg's suggestion, that of the Wesleyan Methodists. As an alternative to this policy, I ventured to suggest that both parties should compro- mise on the Catechism of the Prayer-books of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth,—i.e., our present Church Catechism without the final section explanatory of the Sacraments. A friend meets this with the counter-suggestion that both parties should- compromise upon the Free Church Catechism. Speaking simply for myself, I have no hesitation in saying that if the only alternative were secular education, I would consent,. subject to a few modifications, such as would also be necessary if Cranmer's Catechism were adopted,—e.g., the omission of the reference to god-parents. But the two suggestions do not seem to me equally fair ; because while the ancestors of our Nonconformists to-day were content to use Cranmer's Catechism, and many generations of Englishmen have felt the sterling sense of its appeal, and the fine rhythm of its sentences, the Free Church Catechism comes to us with no such prestige ; and while we may admire the skill with which it is drawn, we should wish our children to come under the influence of a formula of tried efficacy. But I recognise that the adoption of either Catechism alone would, in the present state of opinion, be impracticable. The alternatives are that both should be authorised, or a third compounded of both. Attention has recently been drawn to a Catechism used in Jamaica, which is just such a compound, and is said to work well, and I do not doubt that such a Conference as met, not long ago, to discuss points of difference between Churchmen and Nonconformists, could agree upon a similar Catechism which would incorporate what both parties consider necessary to be taught to children of tender age. We ought all to recognise that while " undenominationalistn " is a fond thing, vainly invented, "fundamental Christianity " is neither vain nor fond.—I am, Sir, &c.,
H. C. HEECHING.
Westminster Abbey.
P.S.—I may be allowed to mention that the Jamaica Catechism can be procured of Messrs. Aston W. Gardner and Co., 28 St. Bride Street.
[We have dealt with Canon Beeching's suggestions else- where.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
