as distinct from the secular party of the League, by forbidding all distinctive ’catechisms and formularies,’ which might have the effect of openly assigning the schools to this or that religious body.  It refused, at the same time, to attempt the impossible task of defining what was undenominational; and its author even contended, if we understood him correctly, that it would in no way, even indirectly, interfere with the substantial teaching of any master in any school.  This assertion we always believed to be untenable; we could not see how, in the face of this clause, a distinctly denominational tone could be honestly given to schools nominally general.  But beyond this mere suggestion of an attempt at a general tone of comprehensiveness in religious teaching it was not intended to go, and only because such was its limitation was it accepted by the Government and by the House.

“But now we are told that it is to be construed as doing precisely that which it refused to do.  A ‘formulary,’ it seems, is a collection of formulas, and formulas are simply propositions of whatever kind touching religious faith.  All such propositions, if they cannot be accepted by all Christian denominations, are to be proscribed; and it is added significantly that the Jews also are a denomination, and so that any teaching distinctively Christian is perhaps to be excluded, lest it should interfere with their freedom and rights.  Are we then to fall back on the simple reading of the letter of the Bible?  No! this, it is granted, would be an ‘unworthy pretence.’  The teacher is to give ’grammatical, geographical, or historical explanations;’ but he is to keep clear of ‘theology proper,’ because, as Professor Huxley takes great pains to prove, there is no theological teaching which is not opposed by some sect or other, from Roman Catholicism on the one hand to Unitarianism on the other.  It was not, perhaps, hard to see that this difficulty would be started; and to those who, like Professor Huxley, look at it theoretically, without much practical experience of schools, it may appear serious or unanswerable.  But there is very little in it practically; when it is faced determinately and handled firmly, it will soon shrink into its true dimensions.  The class who are least frightened at it are the school-teachers, simply because they know most about it.  It is quite clear that the school-managers must be cautioned against allowing their schools to be made places of proselytism:  but when this is done, the case is simple enough.  Leave the masters under this general understanding to teach freely; if there is ground of complaint, let it be made, but leave the onus pro-bandi on the objectors.  For extreme peculiarities of belief or unbelief there is the Conscience Clause; as to the mass of parents, they will be more anxious to have religion taught than afraid of its assuming this or that particular shade.  They will trust the school-managers and teachers till they