THE NONCONFORMIST LAITY AND THEIR CLERGY.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR?']
am not a little surprised that Dr. Raleigh could read any letter in your issue of the 16th inst., and yet imagine that I have any other object in view than to contribute my modicum of assistance towards effecting "a workable separation between things civil and things sacred" in the national schools of England. What the spirit or tone of my remarks may have been it is not for me to say. My intention was that they should be perfectly frank, but not one whit more frank than friendly. In the letter, however, of what I said, there is the declaration, made as clearly as I could make it, not only of my willingness to listen to every suggestion for such an arrangement, but of my opinion that he who seeks to meet Nonconformists on any other basis is disloyal to the Liberal cause. Whether it is Mr. Seebohm, or Mr. Llewellyn Davies, or Dr. Raleigh, or yourself, that offers any reasonable suggestion, I am pledged to make the most of it. But unless you and I, and all the world, have been labouring under a mistake, the policy of the Manchester Conference and of the deputation to Edinburgh is to supersede all suggestions of the kind made by yourself and Mr. Davies, and to encircle every elementary school receiving public money with a hard-and-fast line, on the outside of which -would be the Bible. Of course, I am aware, and I have no doubt that the Nonconformist layman who charged the Conference with -entering on "a crusade against the Bible" is aware, that Dr. Raleigh attaches importance to religious education and would have every child instructed in the Bible. But unless, I repeat, I am in an entire mistake, Dr. Raleigh would exclude from every one of the eighteen or twenty thousand national schools of England and Scotland the teaching of the Bible. What but the adoption of this policy was the "change of front" which brought the Non- -conformists of the Manchester Conference into line with the Secularists on the educational question ? "Practical conciliation" has, all along, been my hope ; but practical conciliation is a jest if its first condition is that, in schools in building which millions of money has been expended by Churchmen, the schoolmaster, though barred from proselytism by conscience-clause, time-table, and the consciousness that religious teaching will not receive one farthing of acknowledgment from Government, is absolutely for- bidden to teach the Bible. The moderation of Dr. Raleigh's views on diaestablishment, as stated in your columns, somewhat astonishes me. 4' There is only one way out of all this," he is reported to have said at the Manchester Conference ; "let all Churches be dis- -established." He was discussing at the moment the Roman- -Catholic aspect of the educational difficulty ; but those who loudly cheered his words believed him, I presume, to be propounding a solution of the whole educational problem. Profoundly convinced as I am that disestablishment would be as the opening of the windows of heaven to pour down spiritual blessing upon the -Church of England, I cannot sympathise with what seems to me the dilatory policy upon this question which Dr. Raleigh commends.
" Cantab." is strangely bitter, and I think I may fairly add, -conspicuously feeble. He tells me that I ignore " the vast difference between the old educational makeshift" and "a truly national system." How marvellous is the power of words ! Call a thing 4' an old makeshift," and you fancy that you have made it con- temptible, and can contemptuously dispose of it. This " make- shift " grew up during a quarter of a century, and now stands before us in the stern reality of some 16,000 schools. 'Will a sneer wipe these from the face of England ? Will a sneer persuade the men who built them and watched over them all those years to shut from them that Bible without the presence of which, actually or virtually promised, they would never have paid their money ? Will a sneer, last of all, induce Englishmen, sitting, with their eye on the nation's purse, in Parliament, to abolish this machinery alto- gether, and vote an enormous sum to provide such national schools as would please " Cantab." ? Unless he can answer these questions in the affirmative, the "old denominational makeshift" will baffle him.
I am accused of representing Nonconformist laymen as "bullied, cowed, and led by the nose by their clerical leaders." Not only do I say nothing of the kind, having indeed but a limited com-
mand of such elegant phraseology, but my statements exclude the use of such language. I was perfectly aware that the influence of the clerical leaders has been due in great part to their sincerity, fervour, and ability. Their error is a grievous error, but their aim and their character are high.
The paragraph about "side-long glances," "pretty insinua- tions," "a new revelation," and " Danaos dons ferentes," is to me, in respect of meaning, a blank. " Cantab." refers in an earlier part of his letter to "the Delphic oracle." He is evidently a very learned man.
I have, it seems, misunderstood Mr. Dale. "it is not surpris- ing that B. K. A.' should altogether misconceive the meaning attached by Nonconformists to the 'supernatural functions and supernatural powers which Christ has committed to His Church." That is to say, "B. K. A." is in such a state of natural depravity that he cannot understand what is luminous to people of the right sort, like " Cantab." Very well. " Cantab.'s " sole evidence as to my state is derived from my letter. If he is right, therefore, we are shut up to the conclusion that Mr. Dale and " Cantab." exclude the Bible from national schools on grounds which, to per- sons in the unregenerate state evinced by "B. K. A.'s " letter, are incomprehensible. Oh for the spiritual insight of " Cantab." !
I have only to add that I was scrupulously careful not to put my inference from Mr. Dale's meaning in my reference to "the Con- gregationalist." I quoted his own words, and I interpreted them in the only sense which they appear to me to possess.-1 am, Sir, B. K. A.
Previous page
