DEMOCRATIC ANTI-SECTARIANISM. T HE Duke of Devonshire has been doing his
best, in his Birmingham speeches on the Education question, to play the part of a sort of ice-house, or ice-chest, to cool the angry feelings which the Education question evidently arouses. But Principal Fairbairn had not undergone that cooling process before he wrote the remarkable letter to Monday's Times on the same subject in which he described the "apparent want of seriousness" in Lord Salisbury, and, oddly enough, maintained that this want of serious- ness was due to his speaking not "as the Prime Minister of the State, but as the Minister and spokesman of a Church." Further, he goes on to complain of this tendency to forget that as, to all of us, country is greater than party, so to the statesman the State ought to be greater than any Church. If he had written his letter a day or two later, he certainly would not have made the same complaint of the Duke of Devonshire. Whatever else might have been said of the Duke's Saturday speeches at Birmingham, no one could have accused him of speaking " not as the chief Minister of the State, but as the Minister and spokesman of a Church." No one would have supposed the Duke to represent any Church rather than the State. And it is singular to hear a great Nonconformist who has always belonged to the party which wishes to "liberate the Church from State patronage and control," bringing it as a grave charge against the Prime Minister that he is too much of a Churchman and too little of a statesman to be " serious," while a friend of the Government applauds the Duke of Devonshire for speaking with the " chilliness " which calms down religious passions, and so produces exactly the kind of " seriousness " which Lord Salisbury, as the exponent of Anglicanism, has contrived to miss. There is a certain grotesqueness in regarding the Duke of Devonshire on these subjects as more " serious " than Lord Salisbury, and yet we are sure that if Principal Fairbairn had read the Birmingham speeches of the great Refrigerator before he wrote his letter to Monday's Times, he would have found the Duke perfectly " serious," while he found Lord Salisbury, on account of his theology, lamentably wanting in that quality. It is precisely the difficulty of the present stage of the Education controversy that the Nonconformist Conscience is regarding with the keenest disapproval the dogmatic zeal of the Church, while it treats with respect- ful satisfaction that chill temper of the State which dis- parages dogmatic zeal, and puts the ardour for democratic equality far above the ardour for controversial truth. Yet it is bewildering to find that the Nonconformist spirit which began in indignant protest against the Erastianism which put the State above the Church, has gone round to almost the opposite point of the compass, and now treats Eras- tianism as the true " seriousness " and doctrinal zeal as the flippancy of sectarian impertinence. It is clear, how- ever, that the Duke of Devonshire, by his chilly treatment of the battles of the Churches, has pleased the Noncon- formists infinitely better than Lord Salisbury with his ecclesiastical bias.
We believe that the Nonconformist Conscience has fought so hard and so successfully for justice against the prestige of a State religion, that it has at last come to regard the dogmatic bias, which is now the chief obstacle in its way, as far more responsible for modern intolerance than any kind of State interference. The State has surrendered doctrinal tests while the Churches have more or less clung to them. And now the Noncon- formists observe with very natural dismay that while those who are primarily interested in religious doctrine wish to have their children taught by teachers who agree with them in religious creed, those who care least about religious doctrine, like the old Whigs, are disposed to take their side because they deprecate the very religious zeal which turns out to be so inconveniently opposed to universal equality. Undenominationalism has itself become the favourite virtue of believers who formerly deprecated the frigidity of a State religion ; and instead of crying out for the "liberation of religion from State patronage and con- trol," the Nonconformist Conscience now cries aloud for the supremacy of the State and its authoritative discouragement of the narrow zeal of doctrinal con- troversialists. Principal Fairbairn's letter is a very remarkable sign of the times. It amounts really to a declaration that the orthodox Nonconformists care a great deal more to get rid of the tests which the zeal of dogmatic enthusiasm would enforce, and to emancipate our elementary schools from all doctrinal bias, than it cares to have the children taught the Christianity of their parents, especially if that should happen to be of a sery distinctly dogmatic kind. The democracy of the Nonconformist party has attained a complete victory over is orthodoxy. It has become a comparatively indifferent matter, whether the Bible-class is conducted by masters who teach the children the precise religion of their parents, and a matter of the greatest importance whether or not it is conducted by masters who have not been subjected to any kind of test doctrinal or otherwise. The whole drift of Principal Fairbairn's letter is that tests are being re- introduced into our elementary schools by the religious zeal of the Churches, though the State had abolished them for our Universities, and that the tests, whether they are imposed to secure these children the teaching which their parents approve or otherwise, are contrary to public policy, and undermine that social equality which is the chief aim of modern democracy. The umbrage taken at the successful rise of any sort of religious caste, is now far more conspicuous than the umbrage taken at the in- terference of the State with religion. Indeed, the new cry is that the State ought to interfere to put down dog- matic preferences in our elementary schools ; and conse- quently, the Duke of Devonshire gets the credit of seriousness for his dislike of fanaticism, and Lord Salis- bury the discredit of want of seriousness for his dogmatic sympathies.
For our own part, we are not insensible to the mischiefs which a too narrow denominationalism, or ecclesiasticism, may easily introduce into the management of religious schools. We should be as sorry as Principal Fairbairn himself to see a great caste of narrowly sectarian teachers imposed on all the schools which are not Board-schools throughout the country ; but then, is there any real danger of this while the Education Department continues to insist on the thoroughness and efficiency of the secular instruction ? Principal Fairbairn himself tells us that " inefficient education can never be in any real sense religious," for which we would rather substitute the axiom that efficient education can never be in any bad sense narrow and narrowing. Now the Education Office insists on efficient education, and we have evidence already within the experience of the last three years how great an influence this has had,—we may say, in some cases how excessive an influence it has had,—in disposing the teachers to rebel against the narrow sectarianism of some of the denominational formulas. It seems to us a great mistake to suppose that the denominational schools can possibly obtain any large supply of efficient secular teachers who will submit to be made in any dangerous sense the instru- ments of narrow and propagandist sects. The danger is all the other way, that the teachers' religious earnestness may rather disappear before the relaxing influence of a too scientific and critical training. Taking one thing with another, we think that there is far more reason to dread the decay of the religious earnestness of the teachers in the light of too wide and superficial a knowledge, than the cramping of the secular teaching under the spell of too fanatical a belief.
As to the practical result of the discussion, the Duke of Devonshire reminded us very usefully within what limits we have to choose. If the undenominational party are to triumph, then the voluntary schools will, one after another, have to be replaced by Board-schools at an enormous ex- pense to the nation, and with this bad result that the Bible- lesson will become less and less important as compared with those secular lessons which help the children to fit themselves for making their own way in the world. If the Church party are to triumph, then the religious denominations will get the better eof the Board-schools, and a certain narrowing of the field' of education may be the result. Surely what we ought to• wish should be that there should be some balance preserVed between the two contending parties ; that the religious lesson should remain the most important lesson in the child's life ; but that it should be given by teachers who know What the difficulties of the ground are, and how many thin gs,go to the fostering of a hearty but sober faith in the truth a Revelation. And for this purpose in our opinion the teachers should feel as much liberty as the State can give them to speak from their heart on the significance of their creed, and the relation between it and the daily life of themselves and their scholars. This cannot be done if an insipid and fade undenominationalism is to be imposed on all our teachers. And therefore we heartily hope 'that the com- promise of 1870 will not be upset,—that the voluntary schools will be enabled to hold their own, but that they will not be encouraged to hold their own without admitting freely all those modifying influences which wide know- ledge and considerable literary culture introduce into the character of the religious teaching of the day. The Board- schools should not be crippled. But still less should the voluntary schools be compelled to make light of that part of the teaching of the day which has most effect in forming the character and subduing the heart.
Previous page
