- v^
 
 
 L I B RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UN IVLRSITY 
 
 Of ILLl NOU
 
 SOCINIANISM 
 
 INEVITABLE RESULT OF THE MANCHESTER 
 AND SALFORD SCHEME 
 
 NATIONAL EDUCATION. 
 
 BY THE REV. HENRY NEWLAND, M.A. 
 
 "ipat^ C( que tioig arribe que pourra," — Cerenus de Cressy. 
 
 ** i^arfe t^cm ^W\) cause t)ibi5ton$ ant) offences contratg to t^e 
 lioctdne toj^icjb ge ^abe learneti, ant aboiD tj^em." 
 
 ♦♦ ®]^ere fe a toag foJbicS seemetj^ rigj^t unto a man, but i\)z enO 
 thereof is Deat^." 
 
 LONDON : 
 JOSEPH HENRY BATTY, 159, FLEET STREET. 
 
 1851.
 
 NATIONAL EDUCATION, &c. 
 
 Ln reprinting from the columns of the English Churchman the following 
 articles, the writer has had two objects in view — 
 
 1st. To show the reasons why no Churchman can accept or co-operate 
 with the Manchester and Salford Education Bill as it stands at present, 
 
 And, 2ndly. To point out the alterations which it ■wdll be necessary to 
 make in it before a Churchman is able to accept or co-operate A\dth it. 
 
 T\Tiether these alterations are possible, or whether they would entirely 
 do away with the principle of the Bill, the author does not take upon 
 himself to say. He sees the necessity of some provision for the education 
 of the poor, and trusts that that now offered by the Manchester and 
 Salford Committee may be made available. It is to assist in coming to a 
 right conclusion on this point that he lays before them the follou'ing 
 summary : — 
 
 He conceives — 
 
 1. That the State, having ceased to be the Church, any alliance between 
 these two bodies for educational purposes has become extremely difficult, 
 but not absolutely impossible. 
 
 2. That, considering the great advantages to both Church and State 
 which would accrue from such an alliance, no proposition to that effect 
 ought to be rejected on any ground short of incompatibility with our 
 duties as Churchmen. 
 
 3. That the Manchester and Salford Bill is an attempt towards effecting 
 such an alliance. 
 
 4. That it cannot be considered as merely local, but as the tentative of 
 a scheme for the whole nation. 
 
 5. That, whenever the Voluntary and the Compulsory systems are 
 brought into action together, the former will ultimately be absorbed in the 
 latter ; and that, therefore, the latter can only be taken into consideration 
 as the normal or permanent state. 
 
 6. That any scheme which involves the suppression of the Creeds or Cate- 
 chism must be rejected by the Ministers of Christ's Church, aa involving a 
 breach of their Ordination vow. 
 
 7. That any suppression of the distinctive doctrines of Christ's Church 
 must be rejected, as tending to Unitarianism or Socinianism, which, by their 
 Ordination vow, the Ministers of that Church are bound to oppose. 
 
 8. That no legal limitations of the Scriptures, and no special selection 
 of portions of the Bible as fit for general teaching, while the remainder is 
 reserved for a select class, after the maruier now practised by the Roman 
 Catholics, can possibly be admitted, inasmuch as they bring those who con- 
 sent to such mutilations of Christ's laws under the ciu'se denounced on 
 all who diminish aught from the words of The Book, 
 
 9. That no association or alliance for educational or any other religious 
 purposes between Christ's Church and religious bodies which refuse her 
 communion, can be admitted, as being directly opposed to the Apostolic 
 command — " Mark them which cause divisions contrary to the doctrine 
 which ye have learned, and avoid them,'
 
 10. That, for the reasons above stated, the scheme of combined Church 
 and State education, called the Manchester and Salford scheme, as at pre- 
 sent constituted, is opposed to the mission of the Church of Christ, and 
 therefore cannot be admitted by conscientious Churchmen. 
 
 11. That a plan for the combination of Church and State in the educa- 
 tion of the people has been put forth by Archdeacon Denison, which plan 
 Churchmen can conscientiously accept and work with. 
 
 12. That the Chairman of the Manchester and Salford Committee, in a 
 letter addressed to Archdeacon Denison, has declared this plan to be 
 nearly identical with his own, and that the points of difference are in 
 no way material to the principle of the Manchester and Salford Bill, 
 
 13. That, such being the case, it is obviously the duty, as well as the 
 interest of the Manchester and Salford Committee, to eliminate those points 
 which by them are considered immaterial, but by Churchmen of vital im- 
 portance ; and thus to approximate their plan with that of Archdeacon 
 Denison. 
 
 14. That, in the event of their doing this, it is equally the duty and the 
 interest of Churchmen to waive those points which, though agreeable to 
 their habits and feelings, cannot be considered of vital importance. 
 
 15. The two schemes being thus made identically one, that it is the duty 
 as well as the interest of all parties alike to use their utmost endeavours to 
 procure their establishment on a permanent basis under the protection of 
 the Legislature of England. 
 
 These are the deductions which occur naturally to any one considering 
 the necessities as well as the difficulties of the case, the principles of the 
 Manchester and Salford Bill, and the conditions under which the Church 
 is bound by the terms of her Divine Commission. 

 
 ARTICLE I. 
 
 When all the circumstances round us arc in an actual state of transition, 
 it is very difficult to realize their respective bearings ; we are continually- 
 applying to cases now present relations which might have existed at some 
 antecedent time, but which, at the time in which we are considering them, 
 are entirely altered. 
 
 All our ideas, all our associations, are formed upon the notion of 
 "Church and State," — that is to say, are drawn from those times when 
 Church and State were identical, when the State was the civil form of 
 the Church, and the Church the ecclesiastical form of the State. Minis- 
 ters, themselves Churchmen, the servants of a King who was a Church- 
 man, and representing a Parliament necessarily composed of Churchmen, 
 might be considered the civil officers of the Church ; and, when that was 
 the case, it was no very great anomaly to consider Bishops as ecclesiastical 
 officers of the State. In truth, they were so considered. It is a fact 
 worthy to be noted that in all trust deeds, even of those schools which 
 were exclusively under the control of the State, and supported by the 
 State, Bishops "were made the visitors and referees. There are no title 
 deeds of twenty years' standing in which the Divine office of the Church 
 with respect to education is unrecognized. This was not done out of any 
 particular reverence for, or consideration of, the Church : but Bishops 
 were ex officio, and of necessity, ministers of education, and the Premier, 
 though very possibly possessing the power, would no more have dreamed 
 of committing that task to other hands, than he would have required the 
 First Lord of the Admiralty to review the troops, or the Commander-in- 
 Chief to inspect the dockyards. 
 
 Things are now in a condition of change. The State is not the Church, 
 but a much larger body, in which the Church resides ; it contains other 
 bodies of men who are not Churchmen at all, and not only contains them, 
 but represents their interests. In reality, therefore, the conditions of its 
 ancient state do not apply to it in its modern. The " iaidissoluble union" of 
 Church and State is actually dissolved already — has been dissolved these 
 twenty years or more. "We have not felt the disruption, only because the 
 machiiie has been at rest. The moment it is put into motion we feel it at 
 once, though we cannot make out exactly what is the matter, or why 
 things do not go on as smoothly as they did : and then we start to find 
 that Church and State are, and for some time have been, two bodies, not 
 one, — in alliance, it may be, just at present, but not, as they used to be, 
 identical. 
 
 It is natural, however, that we should be slow to see this ; it is natural 
 that we should be continually applying to the present state of things that 
 which is true only of those days which have passed away. We remember, 
 perhaps exaggerate, the blessings of that past condition, when the State 
 was the Church : and, continually disappointed in finding that something 
 or other is somehow or other alwaj^s going amiss, are wasting our time 
 and energies in looking for a remedy for that which is irremediable. 
 
 We look alwaj-s, therefore, with respect and admiration on men who 
 are labouring to adapt the modern requirements of Government to the 
 education of the Church. We view their efforts with interest — we exa- 
 mine their plans with a despairing hope of being able to adopt them, — 
 and we abandon them one after the other with an increasing regret, but 
 with an increasing conviction also that they are labouring at an impos- 
 sibility. 
 
 Our Lord has committed the education of His Church to the Ministers 
 and Stewards of His mysteries. " All power is committed unto Me ; go 
 ye therefore and teach." So long as the State was the Church, the
 
 Government, as the laity of the Church, might not improperly take part 
 in this teaching ; when the State ceased to be the Church, it became ipso 
 facto unable to do so. Not unwilling ; on the contrary, it w'as both ready 
 and anxious to attempt it ; not unwilling, but unable, incapable — because 
 it thenceforward represented, and it became its duty to represent, the 
 interests of bodies alien to the Church — bodies whose functions with re- 
 gard to school children are totally incompatible with those of the Church. 
 In short, when the State ceased to be the. laity of the Church, that 
 moment the commission of Christ with respect to teaching ceased to apply 
 to it in any sense whatever. 
 
 It is under this light that we must accustom ourselves to look upon all 
 schemes for united Church and State education. They are simply impos- 
 sible, as combining two utterly uncongenial elements. If, for its own 
 purposes, and as a matter of preventive policy, the State thinks fit to 
 enlarge the power of the Church in the education of its children, it has a 
 full right to see that its money is not misapplied, but it has no right to 
 interfere with the manner or matter of education : that is not its mission ; 
 that it gave up in ceasing to be the Church. The plan put forth by Arch- 
 deacon Denison, in his painphlet on " the Church and the School," is the 
 only one which the State, by so doing, left itself to act upon. 
 
 Hence it is that the Manchester and Salford scheme, like all other 
 schemes that have ever been propounded, is incompatible with Church 
 education. It is so, not of its own will, but because it cannot help mixing 
 with it an element essentially incongruous. We cannot regard this 
 scheme as a mere local arrangement : it is a trial — it is the commencement 
 of a plan for all England, and as such it must be regarded, and no merely 
 local circumstances can be taken into consideration. 
 
 We say, then, that this plan is essentially incompatible with Church 
 education : and we say it advisedly, and for this reason. The first clause 
 enacts that the Municipal Council shall, out of their own members, annu- 
 ally elect a School Committee for the School Districts. Each District 
 Committee may appoint a Secretary and other necessary officers — that is 
 to say, School Inspectors, for these are the only officers necessary. And, 
 indeed, this seems to be especially intended, for clause 5, section 3, says, 
 no person shall be eligible for the appointment of Local Inspector without 
 the concurrence of the District Committee — that is to say, ultimately of 
 the Municipal Body. 
 
 The second clause provides that this District Committee may make 
 by-laws and regulations subject to the approval, not of the Parson or of 
 the Bishop, but of the Committee of Council. And, again, in clause 5, 
 section 5, we find that the Local Inspector, appointed under the concur- 
 rence of the District Committee, as shewn by clause 5, section 3, is com- 
 missioned, not only to examine the schools, but the teachers also. 
 
 And, lastly, the sixth clause, section 4, forbids any school to be ad- 
 mitted into the Union without a certificate from the Inspector that a suitable 
 teacher is appointed. And, lest any inconvenient title deeds already 
 existing niight interfere with these secular arrangements, the two follow- 
 ing sections provide that in this case the title deeds may be altered. 
 
 Now, the remarkable part of all this is, that in schools which profess 
 ostentatiously to be religious schools, and -which repudiate as profane the 
 idea of education merely secular, all reference to religioiis machinery is 
 omitted in the case of Church Schools. The principle is allowed that a 
 School can be a Church School without a Parson. There is not one allu- 
 sion to the Parson of the parish : his very existence is ignored. Nothing 
 is said of the Bishop. The directing power, the court of appeal, the 
 appointment of inspectors, the examination of teachers, lies in the Dis- 
 trict Committee, who are themselves selections from the Municipal 
 Council. And who and wliat are the Municipal Council? They may
 
 every one of them be Dissenters ; in the case of Manchester almost all 
 actually are. They not only may, but in the case of Manchester probably 
 will, appoint an Inspector who is a Dissenter ; and the Dissenting In- 
 spector, we will not say will, but most certainly may — for there is nothing 
 to prevent him — appoint Dissenting Schoolmasters to Church Schools. 
 
 This is the incotigruotts element. We have other grounds of objection 
 to the Manchester scheme which we may consider hereafter, but this is 
 the first which strikes the eye, and this is, or ought to be, sufficient for 
 Churchmen. 
 
 ARTICLE II. 
 
 When people have their hobbies attacked, it is very natural that they 
 should feel angry. Archdeacon Denison puts forth a direct challange to 
 the authors of the Manchester and Salford scheme of Education, in which 
 he exposes pretty freely its defects. We cannot feel greatly surprised, 
 therefore, that Mr. Entwisle, its parent, should feel a little sore, and ■write 
 a little intemperately. But this, though very natural, is very much to be 
 regretted. Mr. Ent\visle is, to all appearance, a very earnest, painstaking, 
 and withal, ingenious man : his plan, in many respects, is a very good 
 plan, — in many parts, as he himself observes, in his letter to the Man- 
 chester Guardian, identical with that of the Archdeacon. For anything 
 he can tell, it might be made so nearly identical with it that it would 
 coincide, and that he might have the Archdeacon for his ally instead of 
 his opponent. This, as Mr. Entwisle must needs be aware, would be 
 more likely than any one thing that could happen to procure the recep- 
 tion of his plan ; for, somehow or other, the Archdeacon does lead with 
 him the opinions of men. It is not to be regretted, therefore — we mean 
 by himself and his friends — that Mr. Entwisle makes so inauspicious a 
 beginning as to say that the statements of his present opponent and pos- 
 sible ally are " as little warranted by the facts of the case as they are 
 dictated by the charity of a Christian Minister r" He concludes his letter 
 with the recommendation of a verse to the Archdeacon's especial con- 
 sideration — " Judge not that ye be not judged." Might we not also adopt 
 another text, and ask — " "WTio made Mr. Entwisle a judge of Archdeacon 
 Denison?" 
 
 When people shew anger, there is almost always an internal sense 
 of weakness. By his very anger, Mr. Entwisle shews his secret con- 
 sciousness that in his ingenious plan there is what is vulgarly called 
 "a screw loose." And he is quite right. A screw loose is just exactly 
 the state of the case. His plan is very ingenious : it is not precisely 
 " identical" with that of the Archdeacon, but it is quite near enough to 
 be the basis of a treaty — were it not for the loose screw, 
 
 Mr. Entwisle proposes that a rate shall be raised to assist those schools 
 which are at present supported by voluntary contributions, upon the 
 general principle of not interfering with the doctrine taught in those 
 schools. So does the Archdeacon in principle. He objects, indeed, to 
 the actual rate as a mode of taxation certain to produce dissatisfaction, 
 but the principle of applying public money to educational purposes he 
 admits. So far, therefore, the plans may in some sense be called identical. 
 Mr. Entwisle no doubt does not entirely act up to his o^vn proposition 
 when he comes to details, for under certain circumstances he does inter- 
 fere very materially — he insists that the fundamental rules of Church 
 schools, with respect to the Catechism, shall be forcible broken through. 
 But as this is so totally opposed to the spirit of his own plan as to look 
 absurd, and incongruous, in the naidst of it, we suppose he would find no
 
 8 
 
 difficulty in modifying it, or giving it up. We should anticipate no 
 obstacle here. The " screw loose " is precisely his own particular clause 
 about the provision for rate-built schools, which the Arnhdeacon, with 
 his wonted perspicacity, has seized upon, and placed in capital letters, at 
 the head of his pamphlet. " In all schools built out of the rates, the 
 
 SAME stipulation AS TO THE rSE OF THE HOLY ScRIPTURES, AS THAT 
 ALREADY DESCRIBED, IS TO BE ENFORCED ; BUT AS THEY WILL BE ENTIRELY 
 DISCONNECTED WITH ANY RELIGIOUS BODY, CONGREGATION, OR SECT, IT 
 IS EXPRESSLY DECLARED THAT NO CREED, CATECHISM, OR DISTINCTINE 
 RELIGIOUS FORMtTLARIES SHALL BE TAUGHT THEREIN," 
 
 This, Mr. Entwisle says, is not at all a necessary part of his plan — " it 
 might be altogether removed from the Bill without affecting any of the 
 principles on which he has sought to secure public aid for the extension 
 of religious education." If this really be the case, honestly and truly, 
 why does he not remove it ? for, whether the rest of his Bill be good or 
 bad, admissible or inadmissible, this particular clause alone is a reason 
 ■why no consistent Churchman could, under any consideration, co-operate 
 with him. He says it is an accident of his Bill. We say it is the 
 
 PRINCIPLE. 
 
 Is Mr. Entwisle so ignorant of human nature, and the passion of avarice 
 predominant in it, as to imagine for one moment that, if there existed at 
 the same time a volimtary subscription, and a rate for the same purpose, 
 the rate would not annihilate entirely the voluntary subscription? Is 
 Mr. Entwisle so entirely unobservant of historical parallels as to forget 
 the effect which resulted from the substitution of the compulsory poor- 
 rate for voluntary charity ? If he has any doubt about it, let him go 
 round and collect alms for the poor widows of the parish in which he 
 resides. Why ! the whole set of provisions of the whole Bill would be 
 but a simple providing for the present and transition state of the parish — 
 we beg his pardon, the district, schools. The passage quoted by the Arch- 
 deacon woidd be the real Bill, and the normal state of those schools, the 
 state into which they would subside, in a very few years indeed, is that 
 of the rate-built school. Let Mr. Entwisle protest as he pleases : this is, 
 whether he knows it or not, the principle of his Bill ; and " these are 
 the schools which Churchmen are combining with all denominations to 
 create." We will not take upon ourselves to judge his motives, and say 
 this is the whole intention, but we do say that this will be the whole 
 effect of his Bill. 
 
 This is the "screw loose" which will ultimately shake to pieces the 
 whole machine ; and, till this is remedied, we say that it is the bounden 
 duty of every Churchman to oppose, so far as in him lies, the introduction 
 of a Bill which contains a principle so entiiely opposed to the Mind of 
 Christ. We use this expression advisedly, and accept Mr. Entwisle's 
 challenge. We do so on these grounds. The whole Bible is the Doctrine 
 of the Christian religion. You may begin with teaching this portion, or 
 that portion — the Sermon on the Mount, as !Mr. Entwisle would recom- 
 mend, or any other portion that you please ; but if you do this with the 
 deliberate intention of suppressing some other part which may not suit 
 your views so well, then you are actmg in the spirit of Anticlu-ist. The 
 words of the Bible are plain enough, "Ye shall not add unto the word 
 which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it ; that ye 
 may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command 
 you." If you intentionally suppress, you may call it what you will, but 
 you are intentionally diminishing from that Word ; and in this case it is 
 some One else besides Archdeacon Denison who, as Mr. Entwisle says, 
 " pronounces a curse, and consigns to damnation, all who are engaged in 
 the promotion of such a scheme." It was not Archdeacon Denison who 
 wrote, "If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
 
 9 
 
 prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and from 
 the Holy City, and from things that are written in this Book." 
 
 Let not Mr. Entwisle mistake us. We do not "judge" him. We do 
 not say that he is Anticlirist, nor do we " consign" him to condemnation. 
 He is, we have no doubt, a very estimable man : he is certainly very much 
 in earnest, and, in some respects, we thank him for his plan, in which we 
 see much to admire : but that clause is Antichristian, and, as long as 
 that clause remains in the Bill, though the rest of it came to us by the 
 hands of an angel, the servants of Christ and of His Church can have 
 nothing else to do with it than to oppose it. 
 
 ARTICLE IIL 
 
 We have often thought that to those earnest and painstaking men who 
 are occupied in devising, perfecting, and carrying out schemes for the 
 Education of the People, in connection with State controul, it must seem 
 most wonderful — most unaccountable — that they meet with such deter- 
 mined and persevering opposition from Churchmen. What — they will 
 say — is not Education wanted, most grievously, in this country ? — is not 
 an imperfect system of Education better, at all events, than absolute 
 ignorance ? — are we not honest ourselves ? — do we not sincerelj' desire the 
 good of our country ? — do we not offer it the very best in our power, and 
 are not these people unreasonable, and ungracious too, w'ho, because it is 
 not in our power to offer better gifts, thwart and oppose, and misrepresent 
 that which, though not exactly what they want, is after all the very best 
 we have it in our power to offer them ? 
 
 Now this is, with men conscious of their own honesty of purpose, a just 
 aud reasonable ground of complaint ; and so honest, and so sincere do we 
 consider, not indeed all, but certainly some of those men, that we do 
 freely admit that were not our grounds for opposition very strong indeed, 
 we should be altogether inexcusable in opposing them. 
 
 But we do consider these grounds very strong indeed : that theij may 
 not consider them so is A'ery possible, because they may not give the same 
 weight to certain considerations which a Churchman does and must do ; 
 but at least we demand in our turn that which we are ready to accord to 
 them ; we demand that they consider us, as we consider them, honest and 
 sincere, and conscientious. 
 
 Our reasons for opposing them are these : — 
 
 1. — We consider that all interference of the State with Education 
 
 must ultimately lead to an Education Rate. 
 2. — That an Education Rate must lead to a system of District Com- 
 mittees. 
 3. — That under the existing conditions of the State (that is to say, 
 where the State is not identical with the Church, but a much larger 
 body, containing many forms of religious belief) these Committees 
 must be of a miscellaneous or all-denomination character. 
 4. — That Miscellaneous Committees lead, as a matter of necessity, to 
 TJnitarianism. 
 Eliminating the middle terms, therefore, we believe sincerely that the 
 interference of a State, which is not the Church, with Schools which are 
 the Church, leads to Unitarianism ; and believing this, we, as Christian 
 Churchmen, are bound to oppose them — and, as Ministers of Christ, we 
 are more especially bound, because they have vowed to give all faithful 
 diligence, to banish and drive away strange doctrines. 
 This is our position. We see the steps and the end to which they lead :
 
 10 
 
 we are bound to oppose, but our opposition is perfectly consistent with 
 our appreciation of the entire sincerity of purpose in those who see the 
 steps, but not the end. Lafayette possibly was an honest man, and a sincere 
 patriot. Bailly most certainly was both the one and the other : he died a 
 martyr to his own principles, by the hands of his own followers. Yet it 
 is not the less certain that both these contributed, and in no small degree, 
 to the miurder of their King, and the establishment of the Reign of 
 Terror. 
 
 But we are required to do something more than state our convictions, 
 we must give fair grounds for them. Let us try. 
 
 1st. — To prove the first of these steps, many words will not now be 
 necessary. A few, only a few years ago, and the very idea of an Educa- 
 tion Kate would have been scouted. "The country would never stand 
 it," it would have been said; but the wheel of time has rolled round, and 
 the country does stand it already — is aheady, in a great measure, pre- 
 pared for it. Inspector's reports teem with facts and statements, shewing 
 the absolute necessity of it. A Committee is ali-eady formed, a local bill is 
 already put forth as a tentative, while the Chairman of that Committee 
 admits, that he fully believes the principle will be adopted throughout 
 the land. And so it will — and so it must be adopted — the consequence is 
 inevitable, and every one sees that it is so. 
 
 2nd. — But this Rale being collected from people of many different forms 
 of belief, is it just, is it reasonable, is it constitutional even, that they 
 should have no control over it ? The district, however small it be from 
 which the Rate is collected, will, in all probability, comprehend Baptists, 
 Unitarians, Wesleyans, with innumerable varieties from all of these, 
 possibly also Roman Catholics. Are these men to have no voice in com- 
 mittee — will you not permit them to look after the expenditure of their 
 OMTi monej" ? If there is a rate, there must be a committee ; if there is a 
 committee, that committee must be of a character as miscellaneous as its 
 constituents ; common justice demands this. He, who pays, must ako 
 dispense. 
 
 3rd. — So far every one will agree with us, but in this point of the argu- 
 ment come in the numerous plans that have been suggested. Numerous 
 they are, and ingenious, but among them all, there is only one which does 
 not involve, in one shape or another — openly or disguisedly — directly or 
 indirectly, the admission of the miscellaneous principle, or the controul of 
 the Miscellaneous Committee ; and that one is the scheme of Archdeacon 
 Denison, put forth in his pamphlet on " the Church and the School." 
 This does indeed give to every religious body alike its own proportion of the 
 grant, leaving to every one of them alike, the uncontrolled power of apply- 
 ing it. Give us this, and we accept it readily— give us this, and we have 
 no ground for complamt or opposition — give us this, and our whole 
 ladder of objections is overthrown, and falls to the ground. But we 
 cannot calculate upon it. How many of our just demands have been 
 refused ; how many more, which could not be refused, have been evaded 
 and set aside ? What does history and precedent lead us to expect ? Was 
 not this very principle tried in America, when the New England States 
 raised a compulsory rate for the maintenance of religion, in which each 
 rate-payer was to assign his own portion to the support of that form of 
 belief which he himself affected. Did not the whole scheme work so as 
 to call forth the encomiums of the republican Cobbett ? and where is it 
 now ? let the avarice and the jealousy, which are part and parcel of human 
 nature, answer the question. It is already a tale of other times, and 
 we fear, we fear greatly, that from the action of the very same causes the 
 similar plan of Archdeacon Denison will fail too, or rather will never be 
 accepted. 
 
 At all events, without some guarantee of Government that it will be
 
 11 
 
 taken into consideration, we cannot calculate upon it, ITiere remains, 
 therefore, nothing but the Miscellaneous Committee principle. 
 
 4th. — Now this ^ve say must, as a necessary consequence, lead to 
 Unitarianism ; and for this reason — 
 
 The Christian Religion consists of two elements — Faith and Reason, 
 and revealed or distinctive doctrines are a matter of faith. The Church of 
 Christ contains all the Articles of the Christian Faith. Dissent of different 
 kinds is the undue prominence given to one or other of these Articles, to 
 the detriment of the rest ; and Unitarianism is Christianity exhausted of 
 them all. Unitarianism, therefore, is Rational Religion as opposed to 
 Faithful Religion. The Miscellaneous Committee, every member of 
 which holds firmly for himself some Articles of the Christian faith, but 
 not the same Articles as those held equally firnily by his brother member, 
 can coalesce and work together ordy by sinking them all. And this is 
 Unitarianism. 
 
 ARTICLE IV. 
 
 It is idle to say that each member will represent and maintain the 
 doctrines as well as the rights of his own peculiar sect. So they will in 
 the outset, and jealousies and quarrels innumerable will be the first 
 residt ; but novelty ceases, zeal cools down, peace and quietness have 
 their charms, and the condition into which the Miscellaneous Committee 
 idtimately settles down — its working state, in short — is that of suppressing 
 distinctive differences, of holding or not holding Baptismal Regeneration, 
 of maintaining or not maintaining Episcopal Orders, and so on with each 
 distinctive doctrine of Christ's Church, till the whole settles do^^'n to that 
 condition to which the State would if it could reduce the Church as well 
 as the School. And that condition is Unitarianism. 
 
 This is theory, but it may not be difficult to give an instance of this, 
 working out the same position practically, and by Kving examples. 
 
 Last week we endeavoured to shew, from reasoning and induction, that 
 the natural result of Miscellaneous Committees — that is to say. Commit- 
 tees composed of members holding d fferent foims of religious belief, — in 
 the management of Educational affairs, was inevitable Unitarianism. We 
 shewed that it must be so from the natui-e of the case ; that the natural 
 tendency of a peace-loving society is to elide points of difference ; that, 
 in the present case, those points of difference are the separate doctrines 
 Avhich, taken collectively, form the Church of Christ considered as a reli- 
 gion ; that Unitarianism, being the absence of distinctive doctrine, is ap- 
 proached step by step as we elide one doctrinal point after another, and 
 results just as inevitably from the absence of them all as darkness results 
 from the absence of light, or cold from the absence of heat. 
 
 "\Ve now go one step further, and assert that all Committees, or forms of 
 management in Education, which interfere with the parochial system, 
 have a tendency to the miscellaneous character ; and it is so on both these 
 grounds : — 1st. That the management is in the hands of Miscellaneous 
 Committees ; and, 2ndly, that these Committees, being district Commit- 
 tees, do interfere with the parochial system. It is on both these grounds 
 that we object to the Manchester and Salford scheme, as it at present 
 stands before us. 
 
 This is otir position ; and, as in our last remarks we endeavoured to 
 prove this from abstract reasoning, so, we repeat, in the present article we 
 shall endeavour to arrive at the same result by reasoning from facts ; and 
 as the locality of the illustration is given, with allusions to individuals, it
 
 12 
 
 may be well to present it in the form of a personal narrative, and with the 
 authorization of one who occupies a place in it : — 
 
 " In the City of there is what is called a Central School — 
 
 that is to say, one Church-school for boys, and another for girls, — which, 
 together, serve for all the parishes collectively. These schools are managed 
 by a Committee, chosen from all the parishes, which as they, together with 
 the Cathedral, contain a sample of every school of theology within the 
 Church, is necessarily composed of materials somewhat incongruous and 
 uncongenial. 
 
 " The secret history of , with respect to this establishment, was 
 
 precisely what might have been expected from such an arrangement — an 
 undercurrent of petty quarrels and jealousies, rippling up at rare intervals 
 into print, — till, finding this state of things far from pleasant, the parties 
 concerned seem to have entered into a sort of mutual concordat, whether 
 tacit or explicit I am unable to say, that they would sinlc ' distinctive 
 doctrines ' for the sake of peace and quietness. 
 
 "In this school I was myself much interested, having passed through 
 all its classes in the capacity of either pupil or teacher, and having 
 acquired from it all I know of the practice of education ; and in the year 
 1850 I was appointed one of its Examiners. On receiving this appoint- 
 ment, I was cautioned earnestly and repeatedly, by more than one of the 
 members, to beware of doctrines ; and I did my best both to comply with 
 this request, and at the same time to draw out and exhibit the great 
 amount of Scriptural knowledge, such as it was, which I knew existed in 
 the school. Beginning, therefore, at the regency of Athaliah, I elicited 
 from the children such a clear and distinct narrative of the facts which 
 occurred between that era and the captivity as would have done credit to 
 a school of much higher pretension. I have no doubt but that the feeling 
 of the Committee was that of entire satisfaction with their scholars— and 
 they deserved it ; still the examination itself was precisely of the same 
 nature as I might have given them from the History of England. 
 
 " In the following year a Confirmation was held by the Bishop of 
 
 , at , and it so hapi^ened that one of the best scholars 
 
 from this very school came under my examination. She had been for some 
 time a monitor, had been selected for an apprenticed teacher, had passed 
 the Government examination satisfactorily, and had been disappointed of 
 her office only because some of the alterations of the Committee of 
 Council about the number of teachers had interfered with her claims ; 
 and thus it was that I found her at the age of seventeen, in service in my 
 parish, and consequently one of my Catechumens. 
 
 *' The examination now Avas not historical, but on those doctrinal points 
 to build up which the history of the Bible, when put to its proper use, 
 serves merely as a scaffolding ; I was not surprised certainly at my Cate- 
 chumen's utter ignorance of all the doctrines of Christianity — those of the 
 Incarnation and Atonement, no less than the more mysterious doctrines of 
 Sacramental Grace and the Apostolical Succession — I had expected it ; it 
 was inevitable. The cause did not lie in the teaching of the schoolmis- 
 tress — nominally a Churchwoman, but married to a Dissenter — but in the 
 mutual jealousies of the Miscellaneous Committee which permitted such a 
 state of things to be possible. I was not, therefore, surprised at this ; but 
 I was surprised at finding how utterly impossible it was for me to convey 
 ideas of doctrine to my Catechumen. She had every advantage ; she bore 
 a good character, she was regular at Church, she was anxious (though she 
 had no very clear notion why) to be a Communicant ; her mistress was a 
 sound Churchwoman, who assisted her to the utmost of her poAver, but 
 the girl's mind seemed incapable of comprehending or retaining one idea 
 of the Unseen, or any one thing which depended exclusively on faith. 
 
 " I presented her at last to the Bishop, not by any means satisfied with
 
 13 
 
 the present state of "her mind, but trusting to the effect of the invisible 
 operation, in a willing heart, of that Divine grace she was about to receive. 
 Still I felt convinced, and feel convinced now, that, though belonging to 
 the Church by habit, and custom, and association — in mind, and heart, and 
 feelings, that girl was a Unitarian ; she had no perception of revealed 
 doctrines, from her ha-sdng been led to regard every fact of Scripture in an 
 historical light only ; her very intellect had dwarfed and killed her faith. 
 To a girl of inferior abilities, the effect, though it must have been inju- 
 rious, might not have been so to the same degree, but the very circum- 
 stance of her having been one of the leading scholars of a leading school 
 rendered her unconscious of her own deficiencies, and inapt to receive 
 instruction. By means of her school, her own abilities were turned to her 
 o^vn spiritual disadvantage. The better the school, the higher the intel- 
 lect, the more dangerous as to eternal salvation is the position of the 
 scholar. 
 
 " My friends at will perhaps be angry with me for this ; they 
 
 are proud of their schools, and thej'' have many reasons to be proud of 
 them ; had they b^en otherwise, they would have been of no use as an 
 illustration in this controversy. They will say, too, that I am arguing 
 from a single insiance — that this is the exception. It may be so ; I trust 
 it is so. This is the only instance I have had to deal with, and I mention 
 only what I have experienced ; still the impression on my mind is that 
 anything which interferes with the parochial system produces Unitarianism. 
 There must be parties— all probably equally balanced, and all equally 
 zealous — and the result is, first, quarrels ; then indifferentism. In parishes, 
 the teaching of the Parson, and the zeal of some leading individuals, will 
 determine the general tone of the place ; other parties may exist, but they 
 will be subordinate. The parish will be High or Low Church, as the case 
 may be ; nor, comparatively speaking, does it greatly matter which it is. 
 Many a Catechumen have I received from the latter, with whose spiritual 
 condition I have had every reason to be satisfied. Catechumens like these 
 require perhaps more teaching, because they have been acquainted with 
 some only, and not all the Articles of the Christian faith ; they are per- 
 haps less steady, less trustworthy, fixed less firmly in their Church, but 
 they do possess the leading elements of all religion — faith, zeal, earnest- 
 ness — and upon this it is easy to build the superstructure." 
 
 But it is not easy to build it on a knowledge of Scriptural history, nor 
 upon a knowledge of scriptural morality. The Sermon on the Mount 
 itself — that summary and essence of all Christian duty — if taught as Mr. 
 Entwisle recommends or allows, disjoined from the doctrines of revealed 
 religion, would be taught without authority— Avould be taught as the 
 Scribes teach — woiild become mere human doctrine. Divine and holy as 
 it is in reality, in the mind of the learner it would become humanized and 
 desecrated. 
 
 It is far easier to build upon ignorance than upon such a foundation as 
 this, because this system of Biblical teaching has already produced in the 
 mind a system of religion corresponding to it — a teaching devoid of doc- 
 trine has already produced a Christianity devoid of doctrine — <tnd that is 
 Unitarianism ; for, where doctrines have been ignored and placed in the 
 back-ground in the school, there they must be degraded and placed in the 
 back- ground in the mind of the scholar. You will have to unteach as 
 well as to teach ; to convert a schismatic, not merely to instruct a Cate- 
 chumen. In proportion as such a school has advanced the intellectual 
 element, in the same proportion it has debased the religious ; in proportion 
 as it has fitted the citizen to push his way in the world, in the same propor- 
 tion it has unfitted the Clu-istian to work out his salvation. 
 
 It is for this reason that all faithful Ministers of Christ's Church, be
 
 14 
 
 their school of theology what it may, are bound by the vows of their 
 Ordination to protest against any scheme, hoAvever promising it may 
 appear, which, by interfering with the parochial system, by necessitating 
 district Committees, by forcing those Committees to be Miscellaneous, by 
 suppressing the doctrines of the Church of which they are the sworn ser- 
 vants, becomes the first step of a downwai'd course, of which the inevit- 
 able end is Unitarianism, 
 
 ARTICLE V. 
 
 We have been endeavouring hitherto to shew the effect which placing 
 the government of schools in the hands of a Miscellaneous Committee 
 must have on the faith of the rising generation, and the consequence of 
 the peculiar course of education which necessarily results from it — that is 
 to say, a course professedly Scriptural, and received by fhe pupils as Scrip- 
 tural, — but in reality denuded of Scriptural doctrines. We have endea- 
 voured to point out that the study of Scriptural History divested of its 
 typical character, and the inculcation of spiritual morality divested of its 
 Church doctrines, is not an education which though incomplete for the 
 present leaves space for the introduction of the completing element, but is 
 a system of education complete and perfect in itself — though based upon 
 false principles — that it does not leave the child's mind like a sheet of blank 
 paper open to receive any doctrinal impressions which may subsequently 
 be presented to it, but that it has already produced in it a religion of its 
 own, — a hard, reasoning, faithless substitute for true religion, which occu- 
 pies and fills the mind, hardening and annealing the heart and the affec- 
 tions, and thus rendering the soul incapacitated for the reception of 
 Christian teaching of any kind whatever ; that it is, what Archdeacon 
 Denison calls it, a sham and not a reality — a husk and not a kernel ; that 
 it is but the semblance of religion ; but that, being the semblance, it 
 occupies the place of, and in consequence excludes, religion itself. 
 
 We will now go one step further, and say that the necessarily miscella- 
 neous character of the Committee — the bare fact that men of different 
 forms of religious belief do associate for a religious purpose — must have 
 precisely the same tendency on every member of that Committee which 
 their united government vnll have on the children whom they educate. 
 No set of men can agree to sink the differences of religious faith in others 
 who do not end by involuntarily sinking them in themselves. The mind 
 of each individual member, becoming accustomed to the maxims of expe- 
 diency, becomes also blmd to the principles of immutable truth. The 
 faith which he may not profess, the doctrines which he may not urge, the 
 arguments which he may not build upon, in the presence of his daily as- 
 sociates, lose their importance in his own eyes ; his private faith follows 
 the tenor of his public speeches, and he has already far advanced it into 
 unconscious Unitarianism, before he is aware that he has even let go the 
 first grounds of his religious hope. It is an admitted fact that familiarity 
 with error in morals — that is, vice, — does in itself so dull the conscience 
 that it opens the way to vice itself. Why is it unreasonable to suppose 
 that precisely the same effect will result from familiarity with errors of 
 faith ? 
 
 If the Church of Christ be all the articles of the Christian faith collec- 
 tively — that is, all the distinctive doctrines which Christ has given us — if 
 Christianity be what St. Paul says it is — the " holding fast that form of 
 sound words," — the "keeping of that good thing committed to us:" if 
 Unitarianism be the absence of those distinctive doctrines — that " form,"
 
 16 
 
 that " good thing," — then the doctrines of Expediency are the doctrines 
 of Unitarianism, — that is to say, they ultimately lead to it, — because each 
 individual step in Expediency is the letting go of somewhat of that form 
 which we were commandea to hold fast — the losing of somewhat of that 
 good thing which we were commanded to keep. Voluntarily to suppress 
 one of the least of these our articles of faith is like voluntarily consenting 
 to break one of the least of God's commandments. There may be no 
 intention of going further in the individual who does so, but he who ad- 
 mits the principle is guilty of all. 
 
 The first preacher of Unitarianism in the Church of Geneva was Calvin 
 himself. At the Reformation, the Church of England held fast by all the 
 old principles of Chi'ist's Church. Calvin constructed a new system on 
 some of them, sinking the rest for the sake of expediency. Time rolls 
 on ; t?.e Church of Christ remains unchanged, unchangeable ; the Church 
 of Calvin is Unitarian. 
 
 Had it in those days been charged against Calvin that he was then and 
 there preaching Unitarian doctrines — that is to say, doctrines which, as 
 an inevitable consequence, must lead to Unitarianism, he would have re- 
 pelled the charge with the indignation of Hazael — " Is thy servant a dog, 
 that he should do this great thing and sin against the Lord r" and yet it is 
 not the less true that the greatest part of Geneva is now Unitarian. Had 
 the same charge been brought in our own days against Mr. Hugh Stowell, 
 he would have repelled it with the same lively indignation, and yet it is 
 not the less true that the words reported to have been uttered by liim, on 
 the 28th of August last, do contain the germ of Unitarianism, precisely in 
 the same manner as the writings of Calvin contain it ; they involve the 
 sacrifice of eternal Church principles to the principles of present expe- 
 diency ; and this is the first step on that road in which Unitarianism is the 
 last. 
 
 " It has been objected to myself (said Mr. StowellJ' ; you are sacrificing 
 Church principles at Manchester." I said in reply — " There is an ante- 
 cedent question of far greater importance ; are we sacrificing our Chris- 
 tian principles at Manchester ? My first concern, as a Minister of Christ, 
 is as to Christian principles ; my next concern, as a Clergyman of the 
 Church of England, is as to Church principles ; and, when I find Church 
 principles are in collision with Christian principles, I fling the fokmer 
 ASIDE, and stand upon the latter." 
 
 Now, IMr. Stowell is not an unlearned man. Mr. Stowell, in his own 
 mind, is perfectly aware that the Christian principles are the principles of 
 Christ's Church, and the principles of Christ's Church are the Christian 
 principles ; he knows full well that, though there was a time in Christian 
 history when there was no Bible, there was no time whatever when there 
 was no Church ; that the principles which he would fling aside, therefore, 
 are the principles of Christ's Kingdom ; that the Bible itself is one of 
 them ; that their foundation is on the Apostles and Prophets ; that among 
 them, according to St. Paul, are the doctrine of baptism, of laying on of 
 hands, of the resurrection of the dead, of eternal judgment ; that he is 
 not permitted to choose among these eternal principles, and to determine 
 which are and which are not suited to the exigences of the times, — which 
 are or are not in collision with what he considers Christian principles. 
 
 Mr. Stowell is not a dishonest man, and yet he entered voluntarily into 
 the service of the Church whose principles he sits in judgment upon ; he 
 on*e declared his unfeigned assent and consent to the Liturgy embodying 
 those principles ; he vowed, at his Ordination, to give his diligence, so to 
 minister the Doctrine, and the Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, 
 as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and Realm hath 
 RECEIVED the SAME ; and yet, remembering all this, he can imagine a case 
 in which Church principles can come into collision with Christian princi-
 
 16 
 
 pies, and remaining, as he does, the sworn serA^ant of the Church, can 
 contemplate the possibility of flinging aside those particular principles, 
 which at the most solemn moment of his life he promised " so to teach 
 that the people committed to his charge may observe and keep the 
 same." 
 
 We have been in the habit of regarding Mr. Stowell as a pious, honest, 
 zealous, and conscientious men ; and we have every reason to believe, 
 from all we have heard of him, that he fully deserves the character ; but 
 he has associated himself, for religious purposes, with a Committee com- 
 posed of Unitarians, Independents, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Roman 
 Catholics ; and to succeed in his plans he must adapt his speech and sen- 
 timents to them all — that is to say, in all the acts which he performs 
 in union with these several parties, he must suppress all the doctrines and 
 all the principles of Christ's Church which would militate against any one 
 of them. How can this do otherwise than warp the judgment even of 
 the most honest ; how can a man habitually speak one thing in public, and 
 think another in private ? His lips and heart must eventually come toge- 
 ther : that which he has spoken of lightly, he must think of lightly ; — and 
 this, too, is the effect of such associations on the pious, the honest, the 
 zealous, the conscientious. What must be its effect, then, on those (and 
 there are some such in all Committees) who are neither pious, zealous, nor 
 conscientious? If we had no other ground of objection to this Miscella- 
 neous Committee than this alone, this alone would be sufficient, that it 
 has been able to induce such a man as Mr. Stowell to make such a speech 
 as that ascribed to him on the 28th August. 
 
 No man, who has once deliberately broken through a command of the 
 Bible, can hope lo preserve his integrity on any condition short of re- 
 tracing his steps ; he who has once transgressed the Apostolic precept — 
 " Mark them whicl^ cause divisions contrary to the doctrine which ye 
 learned" — may be honest in his purpose, may be pious, maybe con- 
 scientious as he will, but he has, by so doing, taken off the keen edge 
 of his own conscience, and blunted his own faith, and blinded his own 
 perception of duty ; he may, therefore, not see the path along which he is 
 leading his followers ; he may, like CalvLn, die before the consequences of 
 his conduct be worked out ; but he has been serving God against God's 
 commandments, and he -vvill find that, like Saul, he has been forcing him- 
 self to do sacrifice, through his own impatience and want of faith ; like 
 Jeroboam, he has been setting up the altars of expediency, or, like Mr. 
 Stowell, he has been "casting Church principles to the winds." 
 
 And when those inevitable consequences shall have been worked out — 
 when the Expediency of Jeroboam has borne fruit in the Idolatry of Ahab, 
 where will that man be who, instead of avoiding those who caused divi- 
 sions, consorted with them ; who sank the differences which the Church of 
 Christ had established ; who removed his neighbour's spiritual landmark ; 
 who bartered his own faith for expediency, and made the blind go out of 
 their way, — what will he have to plead that he be not rejected with Saul, 
 and that his name be not written down in the Book of Judgment with that 
 of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.
 
 17 
 
 To Wm, Entioisle, Esq. 
 
 Sir, — In avowing myself the author of those articles in the English 
 Churchman -which relate to the IManchester and Salford Education scheme, 
 let me state plainly, in the first place, that I have never regarded you in 
 the light of an ojjponent. In truth, and in fact, we are contending for 
 the same object, only we are contending for it by different means. The 
 point of contention between us is simply this — that those means which 
 you consider safe and conducive to our common object, we consider dan- 
 gerous, and certain eventually to disappoint it. The object itself we are 
 both equally anxious to attain. If, therefore, in this controversy you 
 should succeed in convincing us, or if we should succeed in convincing 
 you : or, failing this, if you should discover that the points to which we 
 attach so much importance are not points of importance to you — and if 
 in consequence you shoiild be induced to yield to prejudices, which you 
 consider groundless, things which are to you immaterial, we are in fact 
 not opponents but allies. In one sense we are allies ah-eady : the aim of 
 both parties alike is to secure to the people a religious education. 
 
 However much I may differ with you as to the means to that end which 
 you would employ, this does not in any way interfere with or diminish 
 the very high respect which I entertain for you personally. You have 
 addressed yourself boldly to the remedy of a crying evil; you have 
 undertaken a task of extreme difficulty, complicated as the case has now 
 become by reason of, and in punishment for, our sins of schism. Your 
 task is one in which many have failed, and in which few would have the 
 courage to engage. 
 
 But, Su-, let me add — it is a task of extreme responsibility also. If 
 you succeed, your name will be recorded in the annals of your country 
 among those of its greatest benefactors : but, on the other hand, if 
 through you the Church of Christ should suffer wrong — if your act 
 should prove eventually the means of introducing into it " false doctrine, 
 heresy, and schism " — if this should be — I do not take it upon myself to 
 pronounce ex cathedra that it is so — but, if it should be, you are adding 
 to the sin of acting against the Mind of Christ the cumulative guilt of 
 " teaching men so ;" and, in such a case as this, we find no allowance 
 made by our Blessed Saviour- for our motives and intentions ; be your mo- 
 tives as pure as they may, you will be "the least in the Kingdom of 
 Heaven;" and if you " offend" — that is, place a stumbling-block in the 
 way of "one of these little ones " — "it were better for you that a mill- 
 Btone were hanged about your neck, and you cast into the sea." It is a 
 fearful responsibility that you have incurred, and you would do well to 
 examine carefully the groimds on which you undertake it. You may 
 find them sound, no doubt ; but still it is possible that they may fail you, 
 and the penalty attending a failure is no light one. 
 
 You complain (both in yotu- o^vn letter and in the official document put 
 forth by the Secretary of your Committee) that you are misrepresented. 
 It is natural that you should consider yourselves misrepresented ; aware 
 as you are of the honesty of your own motives. Dazzled as not only you, 
 but men invariably are, by the advantages of a favourite measiu-e, 
 — you overlook its defects ; and when those defects are seized upon, 
 and perhaps roughly handled — at all events, when a prominence is given 
 them which they do not bear in your estimation — you conceive yourselves 
 misrepresented ; it is not so ; we do not misrepresent you ; we see a 
 danger which you do not see, or which, if you do see it, you undervalue. 
 
 You complain, for instance, that we treat your exceptional cases of rate-
 
 18 
 
 built schools as if they were the leading principle of your Bill. We are 
 convinced that, from the operation of inevitable causes, they must even- 
 tually become the leading principle ; and, until you can convince us that 
 they ■will not, you must not be surprised if we treat your Bill, not as what 
 you intend it to be, but as what, contrary to your intentions, we feel sure 
 that it will become. 
 
 You complain, again, that we obstinately refuse to see the difference 
 between a Miscellaneous Committee managing the funds of the school, and 
 a Miscellaneous Committee managing its education. We do not see this 
 difference. We are convinced, not only from reason and general expe- 
 rience, but from the actual advances made to a state of control by the 
 Committee of Council, that " they who hold the purse govern the house." 
 If this be our jiresent conviction, till you have convinced us to the con- 
 trary, you must not complain that we misrepresent you when we say that 
 you would put all Church Schools under the management of a Miscella- 
 neous Committee. That you do not intend to do so, we admit ; that you 
 imagine you have guarded against it, we allow. We do not misrepresent 
 you, only we are not satisfied with those guarantees which satisfy you; 
 we think that the result will disappoint your own intentions. 
 
 Our reasons for coming to this conclusion, I have endeavoured to set 
 forth in a scries of articles in the English Churchman ; but perhaps it will 
 be necessary also to say a few words on the observations you have made 
 upon them. These you hare divided into five heads, which I will notice 
 as they occur. 
 
 (1). Your first, however, I will, for the present, pass over, as it may be 
 more satisfactorily answered when taken in conjunction with your fifth. 
 
 (2). In answer to my objection that the District Committee may make 
 bye-laws and regulations, subject to the approval, not of the Parson nor 
 of the Bishop, but of the Committee of Council, you say that clause 7, 
 sec. 5, precludes " any interference, on their part, with the internal man- 
 agement, discipline, or instruction of any schools." This does not, in my 
 mind, obviate the difficulty ; I should object to all such power vested in a 
 Miscellaneous Committee, because, whatever might be the theory of such 
 bye-laws, they cannot be made to work practically without bringing those 
 who make them into continual collision with the parties who are really 
 responsible for the teaching and discipline of the school. 
 
 The very position you take up is in itself a contradiction in terms : if 
 the power of making these bye-laws be "absolutely necessary," then it 
 cannot be " a mere matter of form ;" if itreally be only " a mere matter of 
 form," then it should be eliminated to avoid the possibility, not to say the 
 probability, of abuse. 
 
 (3). You say that the District Committee has not the power of appoint- 
 ing teachers ; you forget that they, who have the absolute power of 
 approval or rejection, have virtually the power of appointment also, 
 because they have the uncontrolled power of refusing all who are not of 
 their own way of thinking on religious subjects. Whether this clause 
 might be admitted if properly guarded, or might not, admits of a ques- 
 tion. It is not so guarded at present, and at all events is in opposition to 
 your owM professions of non-interference with "the teaching of the 
 schools," and "the matter and manner of education," 
 
 (4). You "state positively that the instructions do not contain any 
 authority for the alteration of title-deeds at all," Whatever your object 
 may be, surely the effect of a clause, " barring any Bill in Equity against 
 the Trustees or Managers of any schools, for placing such schools in union 
 with the District Committee," and " the power to settle a new scheme for 
 the election of a Committee of Managers," is " an authority for the altera- 
 tion of the title-deeds," whenever they interfere with the proposed scheme 
 — aird that is precisely what I state.
 
 19 
 
 (5). You say that all appeals against the District Committee shall be 
 made to the Committee of Council. How can there be an appeal against 
 the District Committee, of any sort, if that District Committee have " no 
 directing power " or "right of interference ?" What should parties ajjpeal 
 about ? This is, in itself, an admission of one very objectionable point. 
 I now come to those parts of your first and fifth observations, which, 
 according to my judgment, touch upon the principal vice of the Bill. The 
 action of the Privy Council on the Education of the Church is at present 
 merely by sufferance — merely a matter of temporary arrangement — which 
 we may agree with and profit by, or reject and repudiate, according as its 
 requirements are, or not, such as we can conscientiously admit. Your Bill 
 Would make its control the law of the land ; and with my own consent I 
 will never place autocratic power in the hands of any iiresponsible body 
 whatever. That it may be made responsible to the House of Commons, 
 which furnishes the supplies, is nothing to the purpose, with respect to 
 Church education. Churchmen are citizens of a far higher country, and 
 an assembly which shuts out no class of men, be their Creed what it may, 
 excepting only the Ministers of Christ, can be no Court of Appeal as to 
 the matter and manner of that education which Christ commanded those 
 Ministers to teach to His own people. So far as the Chiirch is concerned, 
 the Committee of Council is autocratic and irresponsible. 
 
 I have had myself much correspondence with the Committee of Council, 
 and I am happy to have this opportimity of testifying publicly my sense 
 of the kindness and consideration with which I have invariably been 
 treated by it, the attention it has always paid to my wishes, and the readi- 
 ness with which it has always granted whatever was in its power to grant. 
 Hitherto, the periodical visits of its Inspectors have been productive of 
 unmixed good. I owe much to the suggestions of Archdeacon Allen, of 
 Mr. Brookfield, and of Mr. Warburton, to all of whom I ofi"er my best 
 thanks. At this very time I am endeavouring to organize an industrial 
 branch of the schools at Westbourne, after the draft of Mr. Moseley. I 
 am under great obligations to the Committee of Council collectively as a 
 body, and individually to its officers. Neither do I expect to be anything 
 but benefitted by them dui-ing the course of my natural life and Ministry. 
 But, with all this, I will not with my own consent admit a principle which 
 may be visited on the heads of my successors. 
 
 A citizen of Christ's kingdom, I would resist the legal establishment of 
 any autocratic irresponsible power whatever which might possibly infringe 
 on the liberties of that kingdom, even though I expected that nothing but 
 good would accrue to myself from it ; and, when I say autocratic and 
 iiTesponsible, I mean irresponsible to the Church of Christ and to its 
 Parliaments : not irresponsible to an assembly of men who are not nece-s 
 sarily Churchmen, many of whom are not even nominal Churchmen, and 
 which, under a very conceivable fluctuation of popular opinion, might not 
 possess even a majority of Churchmen at all. 
 
 If you doubt the fact of that power being autocratic, I would refer you 
 to the whole series of alterations and additions which one after another 
 have been put forth by the Committee of Council at theu' own good plea- 
 sure, I would refer you to your own letter, where you so triumphantly 
 remark that I must be wrong in imagining the possibility of a Dissenting 
 Inspector over Church schools, because the Committee of Council appoints 
 none but Clergymen ; and would ask you what means you have of making 
 good your own assertion? "What guarantee can you give us that the 
 Committee of Council will not cancel this quasi agreement? A mere 
 Order in Council wordd give it the full power of doing so, and send us 
 Lay or even Dissenting Inspectors next year. What power has the Com- 
 mittee of Council itself to guarantee its OAvn engagements in the case of 
 a change of Ministers ?
 
 go 
 
 That it is not your wish or intention to give to the Church Dissenting 
 Inspectors I admit. That we cannot have them as long as the present 
 regulations remain unchanged in the Committee of Council I ana ready to 
 agree with Mr. Richson, whose very able pamphlet has just been placed 
 in my hands. I will go a step further, and confess that I see no present 
 likelihood of such an infliction. But I am not satisfied in basing the 
 Church's whole security, thi'oughout the lapse of succeeding generations, 
 upon a mere Order in Council, which the breath of one minister has made, 
 and which the breath of another may sweep away. Your elephant does 
 rest upon your tortoise, your tortoise does rest upon your stone : but your 
 stone rests upon nothing. 
 
 While the system of education is carried on by grants from the Com- 
 mittee of Council, accompanied by certain conditions, be those conditions 
 what they may, we have always in our own hands the power of shaking 
 off the control by refusing its grants, if ever the requirements should 
 become such as we cannot in conscience admit ; and, under these circum- 
 stances we may feel pretty confident that no such requirements will ever 
 be made. Once make it the law of the land, and we lose the check : the 
 requirements become compulsory ; the rate must be paid whether the use 
 of it go against our conscience or not : no magistrate in England would, 
 upon a plea of conscience, refuse a warrant for collecting it. 
 
 It is impossible, within the limits of a newspaper article, to answer 
 fully your " Apology for a Churchman." Two observations only will I 
 venture to make upon it. You are mistaken in imagining that there is 
 any form of words sanctioned by the Church, in the training of its chil- 
 dren, for the express purpose of teaching them " the points in which their 
 own religious faith differs from that of their neighbour." The Church's 
 teaching is entirely dogmatic ; she is content with telling her childi-en what 
 is necessary for their own salvation, and ignores the existence of those 
 who are without. It ah^'ays has been so. You are in error in supposing 
 that there was any time since the foundation of the Church in which 
 there were no Creeds. " The Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost' ' is 
 in itself a creed. They were not indeed called by that name till some 
 centuries afterwards : their scrijittiral appellation is " the Form of sound 
 Words;" but the idea of a Cln-istian without a creed is a contradiction in 
 terms. Christian Truths and Chi'istian Formularies are convertible ex- 
 pressions, and for this reason. Doctrines are abstract ideas, but they 
 cannot be communicated except by words. Words must be authorized 
 words — i. e., "Forms of sound words, or Formularies." To teach Formu- 
 laries, therefore, is to teach Doctrines : to forbid the teaching of Formu- 
 laries is to forbid the teaching of Doctrines. To teach the Doctrines of 
 Christ's Church, while we evade the Formulary in which the Church 
 herself teaches them, is no doubt possible, but it is a proceeding so disin- 
 genuous and mi-English that I feel certain I have not rightly understood 
 your 22nd page, which seems to allude to such a proceeding. I am con- 
 vinced that such an evasion would entirely fail on trial ; Chiuxhmen would 
 call it Jesuitry, and Dissenters would reject it with contempt. 
 
 I am surprised at your asking so solemnly Avhether we consider the 
 teacher bound to insist on dogmatic teaching, for the sake of his om'u con- 
 science only, or as a matter of duty towards the children of the Church ; 
 or out of consideration for the conscience of the (Dissenting) child him- 
 self. Most distinctly, with Dissenters and their consciences we, the Minis- 
 ters of Christ's Chmxh, have nothing whatever to do; so long as they are 
 Dissenters, their consciences are in their own exclusive keeping. They 
 did belong to us at baptism, but they have chosen to withdraw themselves, 
 and we heithcr have nor wish to have the power of retaining them 
 against their will. If, for the sake of benefitting by the Church's teach-
 
 21 
 
 ing, they should at any time be tempted, as you imagine they may, to 
 simulate Churchmanship, and to conform outwardly to the Creeds and 
 Catechism of the Church, Ave do not complain of the fraud practised 
 against us ; we leave them to the punishment due to hypocrisy in general ; 
 but with thek consciences we have ]\othing to do ; our concern is for 
 ourselves, and for oiu- own charge exclusively ; and we will neither force 
 our own conscience, nor endanger the salvation of our OAvn children, for 
 the sake of those who refuse oiu- ^Ministry. 
 
 We believe, and are convinced, that the faith we hold is the unchanged 
 and unchangeable faith delivered bj' Christ to His Apostles, and that the 
 different articles of it are its necessary component parts. We do not 
 admit of two Cliristian faiths ; w^e judge none that do not believe as we 
 believe, but Ave acknowledge for ourselves One Faith, as well as One 
 Lord, and One Baptism. We have indeed no special direction in the Bible 
 for the conduct of our schools, inasmuch as schools did not then exist, 
 but in every analogous situation we find that we are distinctly forbidden 
 to associate with those who do not hold the articles of our faith : " Be not 
 unequally yoked together with unbelievers;" " Eplrraim is gone to his 
 idols, let Mm alone ;" " Mark them which cause divisions, contrary to the 
 doctrine ye have learned, and avoid them;" "if he will not hear 
 the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen man and a publican;" "if 
 any come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your 
 house, neither bid him God speed, for he that biddeth him God speed is 
 partaker of his deeds." From these, and similar expressions, we conceive 
 that we are forbidden to associate, or to permit those confided to our 
 charge to associate, with Dissenters, as long as they continue Dissenters. 
 The grievance is not that any one is " compelled to receive a formulary of 
 faith from which he has been taught to dissent ;" no one is compelled. 
 The grievance is, that you would compel us to receive into our Society 
 those with whom, as we conscientiously believe, the Bible forbids us to 
 associate. 
 
 "SMien you quote Archdeacon Denison's words, that "it is impious to 
 admit a Dissenter into a Church-school without compelling him to learn 
 his Catechism," you mistake his meaning.* We believe that it is 
 impious for us to admit a Dissenter into our schools on any terms. We 
 admit not the Dissenter, but the Penitent and the Convert ; and this peni- 
 tence and conversion he is at liberty to shew by subscribing to the For- 
 mularies of the Chui-ch. We are ready to admit all who come to us ; but 
 we may not admit them in their errors, because a far higher duty than any 
 we owe to them is the duty we owe to our ov,"a Church children. You 
 would feel a reluctance to associate, or to allow your children to asso- 
 ciate with, persons defective in morals ; and you would say that your reluc- 
 tance was founded on the fear of the contagion of bad example. Precisely 
 the same reluctance do we feel, and from the same cause too, in the case 
 of persons defective in matters of faith. Our laxity in this respect is the 
 parent of our schisms ; they spring from that misduectcd charity which 
 is the characteristic of the present centurj', just as surely as by-gone 
 intolerance may be traced to the misdirected zeal of other days. Look at 
 that vast and multitudinous sea of vague, and aimless, and indefiaiite, and 
 fluctuating schism, which is now overwhelming the Chiirch of England, 
 daUy increasing, while it daily becomes more vague and more purpose, 
 less ; why is it so different from the stern, self-denying, uncompromising- 
 non-conformity of the 17th century ? What is the'cause of it all, but the 
 benevolence of those who would be more charitable than Christ Himself; 
 charitable to the schism as well as to the schismatic— to the sin as well as 
 
 » Archdeacon Denison has written to the E. C, statiug that these are not his words, but 
 Mr. Entwisle'a gloss upon hig words.
 
 to the sinner ; — who would enlarge the boundaries of their Master's King- 
 dom, by effacing its line of demarcation ; who would make the fold more 
 capacious by breaking down its walls ; who would widen the road to 
 Heaven by removing its landmarks. You call us bigoted and intolerant; 
 and if a firm determination to shcAv forth the wdiole truth, as we believe it 
 to be— to let slip nothing of the faith entrusted to us — to uphold to the 
 uttermost the laws and doctrines of our Master's Church, be bigotry and 
 intolerance — we are so. That we are at this moment Christians and 
 Churchmen, we owe to the bigotry of those who went before — the martjTS 
 and confessors of the ancient Church, — and what fi'om them we received 
 unimpaired, unimpaired we will transmit to those who come afler us. 
 
 I now state my case. I need not speak of this Bill as a local Act. You 
 express your hope that, if passed, it will become general ; I fully believe 
 that it Avill ; and I therefore treat it as if it were so already ; — taking it in 
 this light, then, I say — 
 
 You put forward a scheme for the education of the nation ; Archdeacon 
 Denison does the same. You declare that your own scheme, and that of 
 the Archdeacon, are nearly identical. ^Ir. Birley affirms this more 
 strongly and directlj- ; and the newspapers reiterate it in Yarious forms. 
 
 On the contrary, the Archdeacon himself repudiates all identicality ; 
 he declares emphatically that, whereas your scheme implies education 
 "mixed, general, undogmatic," — the essentials of his are education "un- 
 mixed, particular, dogmatic." 
 
 In almost every respect I hold with the Archdeacon, still I profess 
 myself — 
 
 " NuUius addictus jurare in verba magistri." 
 
 I am not Archdeacon Denison, and my sentiments are my own. My 
 own opinion, therefore, is that there is certainly a general resemblance 
 between the two schemes, but that there exist points of very material 
 difference, 
 
 I do myself consider these points to be of such extreme magnitude and 
 importance, that I cannot imagine the possibility of eliminating them 
 without exhausting also the very pith and marrow of your Bill. Still, 
 there is no reason why you. Sir, should not be able to see what I cannot 
 see. There is no reason why you should attach to these points of differ- 
 ence the importance which I attach to them. You say that they are 
 immaterial to the principle of the Bill ; I cannot see this myself, but 
 there is no reason why you should not. I will state them concisely; but, 
 first, let me state distinctly the principle on which they all depend. 
 
 We, the Ministers of Christ's Chiu-ch, claim, under the bequest of our 
 Master, the religious education of that Chui'ch's cliildren. 
 
 Under the prohibition of that Master, we refuse to associate, or to permit 
 our charge to associate, with those who do not hold the Catholic faith pure 
 and undefiled. 
 
 From these premises, we deduce our four objections to the principle of 
 your Bill, 
 
 (1). We cannot permit any Committee, containing men who are not 
 Churchmen, to control or regulate, directly or indirectly, either the matter 
 or manner of Church Education ; and, though it is true that the preamble 
 to your Bill does repudiate such interference, yet the context of the Bill 
 itself does make it unavoidable, as I have shewn in the first article, 
 more fully in a subsequent letter. 
 
 (2). We hold the wilful and deliberate suppression of Scriptural doc- 
 trine in the same light in which we hold the wilful and deliberate suppres- 
 sion of the Scripture ; we consider it a spurious imitation of Romanist 
 teaching, quite as reprehensible, and not so honest. We, therefore, can- 
 not but Dispose a Bill which contains a clause to that effect, whether that 
 clause be exceptional or essential. This I have she-\vn in article 2.
 
 23 
 
 (3). We hold that our Blessed Saviour, previous to His Ascension, did 
 give to us a definite " form of sound words" — and did command us to 
 hold certain and distinctive articles — the whole of xchich collectively form 
 the faith of His Church. Believing, as we do, that we still hold all these 
 articles without additiou or diminution, it follows that we must consider 
 those who differ from us are not holding all the Articles of the Christian 
 Faith, and, under this conviction, though ready to admit them if they seek 
 us, we cannot admit them in the character of Dissenters, because we con- 
 ceive that, bv so doing, we should shake the faith and endanger the salva- 
 tion of those children of Christ's Church who are committed, and who 
 have committed themselves, to our charge. This I shew in the third and 
 fourth articles. 
 
 (4). We conceive ourselves forbidden to associate, especially for reli- 
 gious purposes, with those who do not " hear the Church," and are not in 
 communion with her ; we conceive it not only dangerous to oiu-selves, and 
 to our own faith to do so, but liable to produce in us that deadness to 
 revealed and distinctive doctrine which ends in Unitarianism. This I have 
 pointed out in the fourth and fifth articles. 
 
 To the Education rate — on which point, also, your plan differs from that 
 of Archdeacon Denison — I do not object, as a matter of conscience ; I 
 object to it as involving, of necessity, the adoption of those points which 
 I do consider matters of conscience. It is to these points, primarily, that 
 I turn my attention ; and I say that these four objections, which I have 
 enumerated, do appear to me to be of the very greatest importance ; you, 
 on the other hand, pronounce them to be immaterial. 
 
 Now, what I require of you, Sir, is this — either 
 
 (1). That you declare openly that, when you asserted these differences 
 between your plan and that of the Archdeacon to be immaterial, you had 
 not sufficiently considered them ; but that they are reallj' of such intrinsic 
 importance as to produce virtually an incompatibility between them. In 
 which case I do admit that, respecting as I do your motives, and admiring 
 as I do your energy, I should hold that it is the bounden duty of every 
 faithful servant of Christ, whether Lay or Clerical, to do his utmost to 
 oppose you. — Or else 
 
 (2). If, on consideration, you shall still pronounce that these differ- 
 ences are, in your opinion, immaterial, then I do call upon you, as a 
 Christian man, to give them up. Think us what you will — bigotted, irra- 
 tional, prejudiced — we may be all this, and more — we are not cai'eful to 
 deny it — but we are conscientious. This, bigotted and exclusive as it may 
 be, is oiu' faith ; in this we live and die ; and you, as a Christian man, 
 have no right to force upon us what, in our conscience, we are con'sinced 
 is treason to our Lord and to His Kingdom. 
 
 To Wm. Entwisle, Esq. Yours faithfully, Henry Newland. 
 
 LONDON: aOSEPn HENRY BATTY, PRINTER, FLEET STREET.
 
 SEVENTEEEN ROMAN CATHOLIC NOVELTIES 
 
 AND ERROKS. Third Kdiiion., enlarged and revised, in bold type, on a large sheet, 
 with Ornamental Border, for Cottage Walls, kc. Price Id., by post 2d., or 7s. per 100. 
 
 CHURCH EDUCATION THE ONLY EDUCATION 
 
 IN WHICH THE CLERGY MAY TAKE ANY PART. A Catechism for the 
 Times. Piice Id., by post 2d. 
 
 PAROCHIAL WORK FOR CLERGY AND LAITY. 
 
 Under this heading, a SPECIAL DEPARTMENT has recently been added to the 
 «♦ English Ciiuuchmax," which it is confidently hoped will prove permanently useful and 
 acceptable to all parties and classes of Church-people, and be one of the means, under 
 God s blessing, of inducing many persons to devote, and of suggesting how they may bene- 
 ficially employ, much more time, attention, and energy, in the real Practical Working of 
 the Parochial system of the Church. It is quite evident that, without some very consider- 
 able additional and systematic ettin-ts, the immense work of Christianising the masses of 
 the people, and giving something more deep and practical than the mere nominal Chris- 
 tianity and Churchmanship which prevail among a large proportion of "those who call 
 themselves Chi-istians," will not only be left undone, but it will go on increasing most 
 fearfully. 
 
 The d'iscussions and controversies of late years have, doubtless, done much to clear the 
 ground, and to interest many persons in religious subjects who would not have become 
 interested by ordinary means ; but our contentions have not only created suspicion and 
 disunion, but have also drawn off much time, money, and energy from the work ; and it is 
 to be feared that, unless some special, prompt, and persevering measures, are taken to 
 prevent it, the interest which many persons have taken in Church matters, will die away 
 (if it has not already done so in many instancesj as the heat and excitement of controversy 
 abate, and give place to the more sober and difficult task of carrying oat into practice the 
 principles and duties for which they have been contending, and without which the contro- 
 versy will have been a mere hollow mockery of God and man — a delusion and a snare — a 
 sad waste of time and talents, and a fearful increase of responsibility ; for, in that case, 
 men and women who have, by their controversies, in public and in private, in word and in 
 action, proclaimed that they " knew the Lord's will," will be found among those who " do 
 it not." 
 
 Such " revivals " as that which has been going on among us are graciously designed to 
 promote not only the glory of God, but the spiritual and temporal welfare of the people at 
 large ; and any plans or suggestions which have this for their object, and ami at inducing 
 people of all classes to take a practical interest in such matters, will be thankfully received 
 and published, whetlier from Clergy or Laity — from " High Ckurc/imcn " or "Low Cliurck- 
 
 fnen" provided they are not inconsistent with the principles and practices enjoined by the 
 
 Church. Inquiries upon strictly practical subjects will also be inserted. Among the sub- 
 jects upon which Practical Information is desired for this Department, with a view to 
 promote these several objects, we may specify the following :— 
 
 Increasing the attendance at Public "Worship (especially of classes who now neglect it) 
 
 and promoting reverent kneehng and responding. 
 Increasing the Candi^lates for Confirmation, and Communicants. 
 Promotion of Singing and Chanting, in Churches, Schools, and Families. 
 Means of creating and sustaining an intelligent interest in the Church Services 
 
 Occasional Offices, and Sermons. 
 Expository and other " Lectures " in Church, on special subjects. 
 Popular Lectures on Fanuliar subjects, and Readings from Newspapers, &c., with 
 
 comments, in the School-room or other suitable place, for all classes, periodically. 
 Means for promoting regular District Visiting, reading to the poor, teaching, and 
 heari.-.g children read (in School, or at their o^ti houses, or at the houses of the 
 Visitors.) 
 Parochial Schools, School-books, rewards and punishments. 
 
 Means for improving cleanliness, decency, and good order, in the houses of the poor. 
 Lodging-houses for single men, especially in AgriciUtural Districts. 
 Provision for the better employment and recreation of young persons of both sexes 
 and all classes, in their leisure hours, so as to improve theu- own characters, and 
 benefit their neighbours. 
 Arrangement of classes and meetings for instruction in Parochial Work, and in the 
 
 performance of reUgious duties. 
 Garden Allotments, Spade-husbandry, Public Baths, Wash-houses, Nurseries, Clubs, 
 
 Societies, &c. 
 Copies of Documents, Rules, Plans, Circulars, Forms, Pastoral Addresses, and Details, 
 relating to the practical working of Clergy and Laity in the foregoing matters, and 
 in any others which tend to the spiritual and temporal welfare of the people, and to 
 attach them to their Church, their Clergy, and their neighbours. 
 
 "English Churchman" Office, 159, Fleet Street, London.

 
 I