be familiar with God, and you will be fearless before men. The pews sit in judgment on you, man of authority. Let the man tremble, let the prophet burn, scorch, and wither them. They will forget to sit in judgment on you. Even when they hate you they will know that you are true. Never keep anything back; declare the whole counsel of God as it is given to you. Never trouble with self-pity or strike the plaintive note. You who come from the outposts, who know what it is to suffer where there is no brotherly sympathy to help you, you are not alone; for if men forget, or never remember, still God is there-is there. And when labour is fruitless, still there is prayer. God forbid that we should sin against the law; for when labour is vain we have ceased to pray. "O power to do! O baffled will! O prayer and action, ye are one. And good but wished with God is done,” I XXIII PASSIVE RESISTANCE* FEEL that we are face to face in educational mat ters and in the history of our Free Churches with a crisis even greater than that of 1870. It is probable that in after years our descendants will refer to the conflict which is now before us as having been the greatest crisis in the history of Nonconformity in modern times. It is not, I believe, the greatest crisis in the history of our Free Church principles in this country. The best, noblest, and most strenuous battle has been fought for us; others laboured, and we are entered into their labours. But Lord Rosebery has warned us and he speaks with authority-that if we flinch at the present crisis, our power as Nonconformists and as a public force will be extinct. Whether his lordship is right or not time will determine, but I can assure him, if there be any need to assure him, that, whether he fails us or not, we shall not flinch at the present crisis. Our fathers never shirked a battle for the rights of conscience, neither will we. The conflict concerning passive resistance has already begun, and I am glad and proud that he who leads off upon the question at Oxford, Dr. Fairbairn, was our spokesman in the presence of Mr. Balfour, and framed and uttered the last sentence in our Nonconformist protest: "To the proposal to establish a Clerical majority in * Preached in The City Temple, May 21, 1903. the schools of the people we will not submit." The Education Act, just passed, and the London Education Bill, now before Parliament, are, as a well-known Anglican clergyman and member of the London School Board, has said, "brimful of iniquities." I might occupy the whole time at our disposal in denouncing the Act and the Bill from the point of view of a citizen. I might denounce it as an Educationist. I leave, for the moment, these points of view severely alone; I speak as a Nonconformist and a Christian. This Act puts into the hands of Clerical managers the control of more than half the elementary schools of the country at the same moment that it places those schools entirely upon the rates. There is the crux of the whole question. Many people confess themselves unable to understand what the policy of Passive Resistance means. You now see the issue. We, as Nonconformists, are, for the first time, being compelled to pay directly (we have done it already, indirectly) for the maintenance of a form of religious belief which we not only conscientiously disapprove, but against which our very existence as Nonconformists is a standing protest. We are not Nonconformists for fun. I believe that on the other side in this controversy there are many who really do not understand what our position is. Presently I will read a letter from a clergyman for whom I have a great and sincere respect-so would you if I mentioned his name-in which it is shown, as clearly as can be, that many wellmeaning men on the other side of this controversy misunderstand the very fundamentals of our position as Free Churchmen. We object to being compelled to pay for a form of religious instruction our protest against which has led to our existence as Free Churchmen. This is a monstrous injustice, one in the presence of which we cannot afford to be mealy-mouthed, and concerning which we feel compelled to take the strongest possible stand, be the consequences what they may. A gentleman writing to the Daily Chronicle yesterday on the subject of the resolution passed by the Congregational Union a few nights ago said that "entire sympathy" does not mean entire approval. I think I ought at this point to enter a protest against a sentence of that kind. As plainly as men could say anything, the Congregational Union has voiced our Churches in saying that we have now been compelled to take our stand side by side with those who intend to, adopt the policy of Passive Resistance. If that were not the meaning of the resolution passed on Monday night, then we are merely juggling and playing with words. A friend has told me that he would not have consented to the introduction of the words "entire sympathy" if they did not mean entire approval. I would warn the Government that they have now to face a practically homogeneous Nonconformity-half the religious life of the nation. As the Congregationalists spoke the other night, so the Baptists are speaking, so the vast majority of Methodists are speaking, so Presbyterians are speaking all over the land. "We are not divided, all one body we." By passive resistance to the new Education Act we mean-and the struggle is now upon us-that we will put the Government to the trouble of collecting from us the new sectarian rate. Personally I intend to tender a portion of the Education Rate-that portion which is not sectarian-and, as I have said more than once in public meetings on this question, we can make this issue perfectly clear to the general public. We will pay the people's rate, we will not pay the parson's rate. As the Clerical promoters of the Education Act know perfectly well, whoever appoints the teacher controls the school. A two-thirds majority upon the management means really the whole control. If you will invert that proportion, let two-thirds represent the public and one-third the so-called proprietors of the denominational schools, then, I believe, though we would still have much to complain of, our Nonconformist policy of Passive Resistance would fall to the ground. I do not represent anybody but myself, and I feel that if a two-thirds majority upon the management of denominational schools were granted to the public, to those who pay the rates, then I should no longer have much excuse for refusing my portion of that rate. Yet we would still have much to complain of; in the mere fact that there are denominational schools is something which we, as Nonconformists, exist to protest against. Our principle is this: It is not the business of the State to teach denominationalism at all. We are assured that we have no alternative to offer; supporters of the Government twit us with this, and say, " It is all very well to criticise; have you anything to propose?" We might say, "Leave things alone." But we won't do that. As the situation has arisen, we are prepared to deal with it. We have an alternative proposition. The alternative is, first, let the proprietors of denominational schools hand them over at a valuation. If you are not prepared for that, then use them for the ordinary work of your churches, and allow the education authority to hire them if it is |
