sense; for every religion is denominational."[1] It would fill a large volume were we to collect the unsparing criticism passed within the last thirty years on "unsectarian" religious teaching by the most enlightened men in England, among them statesmen like Disraeli and Lord Salisbury.[2] An English agnostic, a member of the London School Board, thus described the system adopted by this Board: "The result of unsectarian teaching is to establish a new form of religion which has nothing in common with Historical Christianity or any other form of Christian teaching. By taking away everything to which any one objects, they leave something which is really worthless. They say they will have no Creed and no Catechism, and the result is that every teacher is his own Creed and his own Catechism. The result of unsectarian teaching is a colorless residuum, which I should think would be as objectionable to the earnest Christian as it is contemptible to the earnest unbeliever."[3] Other English writers were even more severe in their condemnations of this system, which they called "a misshapen beast," "a moral monster," "lifeless, boiled down, mechanical, unreal teaching of religion."[4] Needless to say, Catholics will always object to such a maimed teaching of religion.
Protestant advocates of religious instruction frequently consider the reading of the Bible as sufficient, and as the only admissible means of teaching religion in the schools. However, in this principle there are several serious errors. We must first mention recent
