A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

“In the following year the government made an attempt to take into their own hands the guidance of national education. This was to have been effected by various steps, by the establishment of a model school, and of a school for instructors, (or normal school, as it was termed,) under the authority and direction of a Committee of the Privy Council, who were constituted a board of education, with a great latitude of discretion. The former rule of appropriating grants of public money in a just proportion to voluntary donations was to be no longer observed; but a centralized system of government inspection of schools and of the course of instruction was announced. As these measures were proposed by statesmen who had always avowed themselves advocates and supporters of what is termed the British and Foreign system, as they opened a door to the introduction of a course of education in which religion might have little or no share, and as they were joyfully hailed by that party in the country which avowed hostility to the Church, there could be little doubt on the mind of anybody as to their tendency. Though the operation might have been gradual, yet no long time would have passed before the Church was deposed from one of its most important functions, and that upon which its ulterior usefulness among the poorer classes mainly depends—the early instruction of their youth. This must be regarded as the great crisis of the education question, in which the sentiments of all who had thought or interested themselves in the matter found expression. The government plan was upheld by those who wished for schools in which instruction might be confined, as in those of France, to secular knowledge—as well as by those who advocated the notion of dividing religious instruction into general and special, and wished to communicate the former in schools, but to exclude the latter, as bringing into collision conflicting opinions. The prevailing judgment of the public was indicated by petitions to parliament, of which about 3000 were against the proposals, and about 100 in their favour. The measure was only carried in the House of Commons, with all the weight of ministerial influence, by a majority of two, while in the Upper House resolutions condemnatory of it were voted by a majority of no less than 111; and an address was carried up to the throne by the whole House, praying her Majesty not to enforce a system which interfered with the province of the Established Church. It rarely happens that upon any question the preponderance of public opinion throughout all classes has been expressed so decidedly, and at the same time so deliberately. Its first result was of a very remarkable character. The distinguished and eloquent statesman, the founder of the British and Foreign School Society, who had signalized the whole of his public life by a zealous and energetic advocacy of the comprehensive system of education, was so convinced of the hopelessness of overcoming the prevalent feeling in favour of the Church as general instructress, that he published a pamphlet, to persuade those who had co-operated with him for thirty years in that course to acquiesce in the decision which public opinion, as well as parliament, had pronounced against them; and urged, with his usual force of argument, that they would best show themselves the sincere and patriotic advocates for the diffusion of knowledge, by agreeing at once to a ‘Church Education Bill.’

“It is gratifying to contemplate the moderation with which the Church used the triumph of opinion declared in her favour, and the substantial proof which she gave of the sincerity of her zeal for intellectual improvement. The deplorable ignorance in which multitudes were suffered to grow up in the populous manufacturing and mining districts, and the inadequacy of any voluntary efforts in their favour, had been used as the great argument for devolving all care of them and their instruction upon the State; accordingly, a special fund was immediately subscribed, and intrusted to the National Society, for maintaining schools in those populous districts, amounting to not less than £150,000, five times the sum voted at the time by parliament for the whole kingdom. A disposition was likewise shown to meet, as far as possible, the views of the government in regard to schools whose erection had been aided by parliamentary grants; it being agreed that they should be open to government inspection, on condition that the inspectors of Church schools were to be persons recommended by the archbishops of the respective provinces.

“During the last seven years the system of inspection has been in progress, and, I think, with singular benefit to the cause of education. The examination of a number of schools by able and intelligent observers (and such qualifications the inspectors eminently display) has thrown much light upon a subject in which there must ever be some practical difficulty. Through a comparison of different cases, it becomes evident what methods are most successful in practice; and it can be satisfactorily ascertained in which instances failure is attributable to the plan, and in which to the execution. The inspectors’ reports, comprising a mine of valuable information, will be found in the volumes of the Committee of Council, which also communicate a variety of plans for schoolrooms and school-houses, directions useful for building and conducting schools, improvements introduced from time to time, and a large body of economics conducive to the improvement of humble education. Among all the truths which have been established upon this interesting subject, the most important is, that the instructor should himself have received early training, not merely that he may be qualified to conduct the mechanical process of a school, but may have such acquaintance with the tempers and characters of children, and such skill in managing them, as experience alone can confer. Above all, it is necessary that he should himself be thoroughly imbued with religious principles, without which there is little chance of his imparting that tone of Christian discipline which should pervade the whole of his intercourse with the scholars. That there may not be wanting a supply of fit and able persons to fill these stations, it is particularly desirable that, whenever a boy is distinguished in a national school for ability and good disposition, he should be retained beyond the usual age, both for his own improvement and for the service of the school; and if means can be found to constitute him a stipendiary monitor, the real benefits of the monitorial system will be perceived, without the objections to which it has been found liable. Such a pupil may have further instruction after school hours, and, if his manners and conduct correspond with his ability, may become an apprentice teacher; he will then be qualified as a recipient of the higher instruction communicated at a training establishment for schoolmasters, or, as it is the fashion to call it, a normal school.”

Mr. Johnston, in his “England in the Middle of the Nineteenth Century,” published 1851, after quoting this, proceeds to say, “The hopes which the good bishop entertained of a continued cordiality of co-operation between the National Society, as the organ of the Church, and the Committee of Privy Council as the educational department of the civil government, have not been quite fulfilled. The parliamentary grants of public money in support of education were indeed increased, having been, from 1839 to 1842, £30,000 a-year; in 1843 and 1844, £40,000 a-year; in 1845, £75,000; in 1846, £100,000; and in 1847 and 1848, £125,000 a-year; but in 1846 the Committee of Privy Council began to insist upon certain conditions of management in the Church of England schools assisted with public money, which led to a correspondence with the National Society, extending over a period of three years, and terminating in a resolution of the Society not to recommend to promoters of schools to accept the management clauses insisted upon by the Committee of Privy Council. The correspondence on both sides is distinguished by considerable caution and much courtesy. In several points the Committee of Privy Council readily conceded what was required by the National Society, but in the main points of imposing more restriction upon the promoters of schools than the National Society thought desirable, and in refusing to allow the bishop to exercise authority over the Church of England schools, except in what concerned directly the religious instruction of the pupils, the Committee of Privy Council continued to oppose the views of the Church. The actual and officially recognised difference between the state of affairs as regards this subject, at the time the Bishop of Gloucester delivered his charge and at the present time (1850), is this,—that whereas the Committee of the National Society in 1846 and 1847 agreed with the Committee of Privy Council jointly to recommend certain management clauses to promoters of schools, they now have declined to recommend such clauses, and this they have done on the following grounds:—In times past the Committee of the National Society never interfered with the constitution of schools, but left them to be determined by the promoters. It was found, however, that in very numerous instances the constitution chosen by the promoters was defective. At the time mentioned the Committee of Privy Council asked the National Society to recommend certain clauses, to which the Society assented, with this proviso—that promoters of schools should have the same liberty of choice as had hitherto been conceded to them by the Committee of Privy Council and the National Society. The Society, however, found, in the beginning of 1848, that by recommendation the Committee of Privy Council meant enforcement, and that no new school would be aided by the Committee of Privy Council in the building, which would not receive one of the four management clauses; and not only that, but the one particular clause out of the four which the Committee of Privy Council thought best for that particular school. Upon this the Committee of the National Society remonstrated against what they considered an infringement of reasonable liberty, and they also remarked upon several points in the clauses which in their opinion would be made better by alteration. On most of these points the Committee of Privy Council gave way; but on the question of liberty, that Committee would not give way, and they still continue to enforce one of these management clauses where public money is granted, and that one selected by themselves. Therefore the Committee of the National Society declined to continue to recommend the clauses; but they have not ceased to give the same proportion of aid out of their funds to all cases of school building, whether aided by the Committee of Council or not; and therefore whether adopting one of the management clauses or not. The actual and formal breach between the National Society and the Committee of Privy Council has not gone beyond this. In respect to general matters the same interchange of communication as heretofore goes on between the government department and the National Society. The training institutions supported by the Society are, as in times past, examined by her Majesty’s inspectors of schools, and certificates of merit awarded to the pupils therein. Payments are also made to these institutions out of the parliamentary grant in pursuance of such certificates, and the annual grant of £1000 towards the support of those institutions is still paid by the Committee of Council.”

Thus matters stood until 1852, when the sum granted by parliament to be applied in aid of schools by the Committee of Council was £160,000 for the year. At the same time the lords of the council made an alteration in the minutes governing the appropriation of aid to the building or enlarging of Church of England schools; leaving it optional with founders who petitioned for aid, either to take it upon such conditions as previously existed, or upon certain new conditions. These new conditions give the clergyman of the parish or district more direct authority over the religious and moral instruction of the pupils than was expressed in the previous conditions, and they enable him to prohibit, (on religious or moral grounds,) the use of any book, and to suspend the teacher from his functions, pending the decision of the question by the bishop of the diocese, whose decision is to be final.

The new minutes of 1852 were not maintained by the succeeding government. The grant for public education in 1853 was £260,000, and in 1854, £263,000, exclusive of the grant for Ireland. In 1852, by the 15 & 16 Vic. c. 49, the acts referred to in this article relating to sites of schools, were extended ta sites for theological training colleges.

SCHOOLMEN. The title given to a class of learned theologians who flourished in the middle ages. They derive their name from the schools attached to the cathedrals or universities in which they lectured. Some make Lanfranc (William the Conqueror’s archbishop of Canterbury) the first author of scholastic theology; others, the famous Abelard; others, his master Roscelinus; and others again his pupil Peter Lombard. But the most distinguished of the Schoolmen lived in the next century. The scholastic theology was the first attempt at forming a systematic theology. Their first step towards a systematic theology was to collect the sentences of the Fathers; the next step was to harmonize them by reducing them to principles. This could only be done by the application of philosophy to divinity, for philosophy unfolds the principles of reasoning. The Schoolmen, therefore, had recourse to the reigning philosophy, that of Aristotle; and Thomas Aquinas, in his Secunda Secundæ, i. e. the second part of the second division of the “Sum of Theology,” has given the best and clearest exposition of Aristotle’s Ethics to be met with out of Aristotle himself. The great error of the Schoolmen, which has occasioned the ruin of their theology, was this, that, instead of taking the Bible only for their basis, they took the Church for their first authority, and made the Bible only a part of the Church’s teaching.

The doctrine of the Schoolmen, of our deserving grace of congruity, is censured in our 13th Article.

The Schoolmen were:

1. Albertus Magnus, a Dominican friar, born in Suabia. He was educated in the university of Paris, and was Thomas Aquinas’s master. Pope Alexander IV. sent for him to Rome, where he officiated as master of the sacred palace: and Urban IV. forced him to accept of the bishopric of Ratisbon. He died at Cologne, in the year 1280. Albert wrote a great number of books; and, in those days of ignorance, was accused of magic, and of having a brazen head, which gave him answers.