[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—There is a factor in the present educational situation which many of Mr. Birrell's critics habitually overlook. Whatever differences of opinion there may be as to the quality or quantity of religious education to be given, the nation has made up its mind on one point,--that the time has come when we must have a complete and unified national scheme of education. It is no reflection on the Voluntary schools, rather it is a most flattering compliment, to say we have outgrown them. Just as a time comes in the life of an individual when he says, "Now I am become a man I have put away childish things," so the time has come in the history of this nation when it must say in effect-
" The past that was goodly once Is gone and done and dead."
It is no ingratitude to those who taught a boy to walk, when he determines to stand on his own feet and go his own way. It is this which makes the new circumstances entirely different from any in which the .clergy have previously found themselves. So long as the State required their aid they were in a position to say on what terms they would give it. But the case is altered. A country which is determined to have a unified national system of education would not shrink from the cost of building its own schools if necessary. The State is not now asking the Church of England on what terms it will co-operate, it is making its own arrangements for carrying on national education. Those who are interested in religious education must be content to make such terms for it as the State may suggest.
By a skilful use of terms, many of Mr. Birrell's critics are making it appear that a conflict can be fought on ground of their own choosing. They say that religious teaching must be dogmatic to be of any value. But the public mind is not to be led into such an easy trap as this. It is well known that what the Cowper-Temple Clause excludes is the teaching of the dogmas distinctive of any particular sect. What it excludes is not dogma, but exclusive dogmas of all kinds. It does not keep out the con- structive dogmas which make a people Christian, but the destructive dogmas which enable one Christian community to unchurch another. It excludes only the exclusive. This provi- sion is as much in the interests of educational efficiency as of religious freedom, for no one who has ever taught a child supposes that children can attach any religious or ethical value to the dogmas which distinguish Christian Churches from one another, important as these undoubtedly are. The teaching given under the old School Boards did, in fact, recognise the primitive Christian beliefs, and we have no reason to fear that any teaching based on the Bible will ever do otherwise. Biblical teaching secures implicitly the dogmatic foundation on which the Bible itself rests. It was, for example, noted by Professor Percy Gardner, who cannot by any stretch of imagination be accused of denominational bias, that "the history of the Protestant Churches is the best proof of the power of the wisdom which works through Scripture, and in especial the history of the independent Churches in England. Almost without external organisation they have been kept for century after century in fairly steadfast lines of doctrine and practice by the continued inspiration which has flowed from the study of Scripture. It is a phenomenon which no theorist would have anticipated, and which no unreligious theory can explain ; a standing memorial of the inspiration of the Bible which none can gainsay."—(" Exploratio Evangelica," p. 471.)
If the word dogma is to be used at all, it would clear the air if the theologians would recognise that the nontlict is really hstween Biblical dogmas like the Fatherhood of God, the Lordship of Christ and the common sonship of man, and Ecclesiastical dogmas like Baptismal Regeneration and Apostolical Succession. What Lord Hugh Cecil, Dr. Gore, and Dr. Knox—all members of my own University for whom I have a high personal respect—are fighting for is the right to teach Baptismal Regeneration, Apostolical Succession, a magical sacramentalism, and some cognate dogmas which the untutored mind does not commonly find in the Bible. What they appear to claim, intelligent religious teaching, is something which the country has already conceded. What they really claim is something which I trust the country will not grant,—the right to put ecclesiastical on the same footing as Biblical dogmas.
One of the singular effects of the controversy is that Anglican advocates are found defending Free Church principles with extra- ordinary zeal. I heard Sir William Anson base his plea for Anglican dogma on the ground that a child must be taught that he is a member of a Christian community. My experience is that the sense of membership in a religious community is much stronger in Presbyterianism, Methodism, and Congregationalism than in the Established Church with its inevitable political bias. A reference to the history of the Free Churches would show that the community-life of the Christian Church was the truth which led to the formation of Congregational Churches in Queen Elizabeth's time. It was because the Pilgrim Fathers maintained the right to live as members of a religious community ruled only by Christ that they were expelled from the State Establishment of their time. It was to maintain and develop the community- life that they went to New England.
The Bishop of Manchester has become a candidate for Libera- tion Society honours. The following extract :rem one of his addresses almost entitles him to the honour of being a Free Churchman :—"In the name of all that is sacred and clear to your own conscience, I pray you do not bring the State in as a teacher of religion. The State has no commission, no authority for the purpose."
The general effect of these kaleidoscopic changes is to leave the impression that the representatives of the Church of England have not thought out a stable basis for their opposition. It is a case of— "I do not Like thee, Dr. Fell—
The reason why I cannot telL"
But the public mind knows how to estimate the value of an opposition which it understands perhaps better than those who carry it on.
—I ant, Sir, &c., D. MACFADYEN.
35 Jackson's Lane, Highgate, N.
Previous page
