Page:The Conscience Clause (Oakley, 1866).djvu/37

25 apology even to the most unecclesiastical lay hearer (or reader) for choosing this plan of argument or pursuing it at length. For it is to a great extent a question between clergy and laity (pace Mr. Hubbard), and the laity who would master it must follow the course of the clerical opposition. The correspondence with Mr. Caparn is more or less occupied with the discussion of the terms of the clause, and the interpretation of them—the archdeacon's argument, speaking as generally, with the supposed effect of them. It is not quite easy to separate the two aspects; but I will follow the lead of these disputants. I take the terms first for every reason, but especially because they have been so remarkably misrepresented in connection with this correspondence, that to do so will best clear the ground for disposing of Archdeacon Denison's ingenious deductions from the misstated or misunderstood terms.

Mr. Caparn, the incumbent of a rural parish, on its being suggested to him to introduce the Conscience Clause into the Creed. trust deed of a school that he wished to build, asked—

1. Whether, under the Conscience Clause, a parent might object to the teaching of the Apostles' Creed? And

2. Whether the daily reading of the Bible could be made a rule of the school for all the scholars?

Mr. Lingen replied clearly enough as follows, on the first point:—"I am directed to state that the Apostles' Creed, being a formulary of the Church of England, might be required not to be taught to a child by its parents who belonged to a communion wherein that Creed is not used." On the second:—"I am directed to state that the clause allows the managers to do so, as long as the text of the Bible is not employed to enforce doctrine which (ex hypothesi) is that of the Church of England, but is not also that of the parent."

He prefaces his answers with the remarkable declaration—I am directed to state that the object of the Conscience