And, in truth, it is wonderful to note the surprising entanglement into which our able editor gets himself in the struggle between his native honesty and judgment and the necessities of his party.  “We could not see,” says he, “in the face of this clause how a distinct denominational tone could be honestly given to schools nominally general.”  There speaks the honest and clearheaded man.  “Any attempt to throw the burden of making the teaching undenominational must be sternly resisted.”  There speaks the advocate holding a brief for his party.  “Verily,” as Trinculo says, “the monster hath two mouths:”  the one, the forward mouth, tells us very justly that the teaching cannot “honestly” be “distinctly denominational;” but the other, the backward mouth, asserts that it must by no manner of means be “undenominational.”  Putting the two utterances together, I can only interpret them to mean that the teaching is to be “indistinctly denominational.”  If the editor of the Guardian had not shown signs of anger at my use of the term “theological fog,” I should have been tempted to suppose it must have been what he had in his mind, under the name of “indistinct denominationalism.”  But this reading being plainly inadmissible, I can only imagine that he inculcates the teaching of formulas common to a number of denominations.

But the Education Department has already told the gentleman from Steyning that any such proceeding will be illegal.  “According to a well-known rule of interpreting Acts of Parliament, ‘denomination’ would be held to include ‘denominations.’” In other words, we must read the Act thus:—­

“No religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denominations shall be taught.”

Thus we are really very much indebted to the editor of the Guardian and his correspondent.  The one has shown us that the sectaries mean to try to get as much denominational teaching as they can agree upon among themselves, forced into the elementary schools; while the other has obtained a formal declaration from the Education Department that any such attempt will contravene the Act of Parliament, and that, therefore, the unsectarian, law-abiding members of the School Boards may safely reckon upon, bringing down upon their opponents the heavy hand of the Minister of Education.[1]

[Footnote 1:  Since this paragraph was written, Mr. Forster, in speaking at the Birkbeck Institution, has removed all doubt as to what his “final decision” will be in the case of such disputes being referred to him:—­“I have the fullest confidence that in the reading and explaining of the Bible, what the children will be taught will be the great truths of Christian life and conduct, which all of us desire they should know, and that no effort will be made to cram into their poor little minds, theological dogmas which their tender age prevents them from understanding.”]