nothing is to interfere. The terms then become comparatively easy. They must be those on which men of all opinions can conspire for this end. The simplest and surest of course would be those of secular instruction solely; but I do not think either that the requirements need be confined to this, nor that a Christian country with, as yet, a recognized National Church, would or should seem to enforce a bare secular system. It is no question of sect or dogma when a hope is expressed that religious truth, as derived from the Bible, in its plain, preceptive, and historical teaching, might still be an item of necessary instruction, since without it, it is hard to see how the character of the pupil can be formed, or the authority of the teacher upheld. Right and wrong must be maintained in a school. No minute, possibly, can pass in its curriculum without these being tested. A lie, a theft, a blasphemy must rest somewhere for their correction, and can rest nowhere but in the revealed will of God, sincerely reflected in the conscience and character of the teachers. The Bible must be an admitted subject of teaching, and the teacher a Christian man. All else may be left subject to such arrangement as each case may admit.
Thus, then, we arrive at what the State might lay down as the guiding conditions of these Rate-raised schools. Fit buildings—a fit teacher—and fit teaching. And fitness in these two last would mean, for the teacher, a Christian man as well as an apt instructor; and Bible as well as secular instruction. On these conditions, tested by inspection. State grants for building and support would be assigned; but henceforth the Central Office would know nothing of any other conditions. Denominationalism, in its own schools, must take care of itself.
What then would be the position of existing schools under such a system? Would the Church and the Denominations be thrown back entirely on Voluntaryism; and separation from, if not antagonism to, State alliance be thereby invited if not enforced? By no means! If the Church, to take the most unwilling, if not the only unwilling, religious community, would but be advised to sacrifice a shadow for the substance, and facilitate things by the adoption of a Conscience Clause in its Trust Deeds, there is no reason why existing schools should not remain exactly as they are, and increase and multiply if they can. But the first thing is to get the Conscience Clause obstruction out of the way, by agreement on its terms.
If both parties would but approach the question candidly, without captiousness or suspicion, this would not be difficult. The minimum of concession consistent with the complete liberty of conscience on the one side, and the complete liberty of faith and teaching on the other, would be a just and intelligible basis, which, violating really no principle of divine authority, would be found most politic in practice. On this may really hang the whole question as to whether or no the Church, in this matter of Education, and if so, possibly also in much besides, shall sink into a mere Denomination, or shall go on, with her hand firm and powerful on this source of influence
