The Evening Star TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1873.

Evening Star, Issue 3257, 29 July 1873, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1873.

We at all times like an out-spoken opponent. There is no mistaking his meaning, and on that ground we accept the opinions of the Rev. R. L. Stanford as the authoritative expression of the views of the Anglican clergy on the education question. It is an ungracious task to oppose the clergy. We do not willingly undertake it, for it would be more congenial to our feelings to strengthen than to weaken their hands. But there are seasons when expediency must be set aside, and when, for the best interests of humanity, their mistakes must, if possible, be rectified. We at once say that we are of the class condemned by the rev. preacher as being “ deluded by political juggleries and harlequin movements of political parties,” and that we join issue with him in his statement that secular education is “ irreconcilable with morality and religion.” Moreover, after somewhere about forty years’ experience, with ample opportunity of close and accurate observation, we have no reason to alter our opinion, deliberately arrived at, that to call the mere reading of the Bible in day schools, imparting religious instruction, is a delusion and a sham. That the rev. gentleman has arrived at his conclusions through a process of very superficial reasoning, must be evident to any one who examines the logical construction of his discourse. In ordinary sermon manufacture this, unfortunately, is of small importance. From the time of Origen a system of Scripture interpretation has been followed that, applied to any other subject than Theology, would have led to inextricable confusion of thought. Men accept the inspiration of the Scriptures, and then proceed to interpret them as if the Spirit did not know the meaning of the words suggested by it, or used ambiguous terms to be explained by men as best suited their preconceived theological dogmas. To this loose system must be attributed much of the division and sectarianism of the Christian world. We may very fairly question, for instance, the strict application of the rev. gentleman’s text, “Feed my lambs,” to the teaching of children by the Church, although they may very fairly be included in the class figuratively termed “ lambs. But, accepting bis interpretation and following it out to its logical consequences, lot us see how, on his own theory, the Churchis justified in handing over the teaching of religious truth to the schoolmaster. “ The Church,” says Mr {Stanford, “ dare not admit of expediency in these matters.” Very good : what is the Church 'I Ho supplies the answer: the Church consists not of bishops and clergy only, but of bishops, : clergy, and laity. If then, as Mr Stanford reasons, the authority to give Christian instruction is derived direct from the Great Headj of the Church ;

if, in fact, the bishop, or the clergy, or the laity are commanded to “ feed the lambs,” by what feat of spiritual legerdemain do they arrive at the conclusion that they are fulfilling the command by banding them over to the schoolmaster, and that the simple reading of the Bible is satisfying it 1 ? His reasoning stands thus when reduced to the form of a syllogism : The Church is commanded to feed the lambs. The Church consists of bishops, clergy, and laity. Therefore, hand the lambs over to the schoolmaster to be taught. The contention of those who object to this system is founded upon other considerations, which Churchmen ought to be the first to endorse. It is founded upon the right of every man to freedom of thought; which ought to be valued above all other social considerations. It is founded upon the denial of the right of the State to know anything of the religion of its subjects beyond statistics, and the equal right of every individual to have his conscientious views respected. It is founded upon the requirement of civil and religions liberty, to leave every man free to worship God according to his conscience. It is founded upon the denial of the claim of

any one Church to consideration by the State above another ; and, lastly, it is founded upon the conviction that no Church fulfils its duty that does not provide efficient machinery to “ feed its lambs.” We may find it necessary to revert to this subject, and are now only dealing with the rev. clergyman’s discourse in order to calm the fears of those who may have listened to or read his opinions. The not very alarming question is asked if excluding the Bible from schools is not handing over children to the Church of Rome? Herein is the object of the discourse revealed: the Anglican Church, in the coming education struggle, will take its stand on denominationalism, which is exactly what the Church of Rome is striving for in all parts of the British dominions. We have no quarrel with the Church of Rome, so long as she does not interfere with civil and religions liberty. Her members, like all other men, are not accountable to their fellow men for their religious belief. But when that Church claims privileges not accorded to others, we teel bound to make a stand against them; and weseeno difference in the matter when an equally indefensible claim is made by another Church. If denominationalism suits Rome as against the Anglican Church, it will suit that Church against Rome and all others; and if there be any truth in the conclusion Mr Stanford arrived at, that it is the duty of the Church to feed its lambs, let each Church see to it, and leave the schoolmaster to do the work for which he is paid by the State: namely, to teach those things that belong to the secular avocations a child will have to follow. Beyond this State education ought not to go.