advocates of liberty would admit themselves to be in such slavery to the spiritual guides of the church to which they belong, as that they have not the right of unaided private interpretation of the sacred volume, with respect to articles of religious belief. But whatever these Roman Catholic legislators may do, we would wish to ask, On what ground does Mr. Stanley concede to the Roman Catholic Church this right to keep her disciples in this darkness? On what ground can Mr. Stanley admit the right of the Romish priesthood now to keep the word of God, and the truth contained in that word, from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, which would not admit the right of the Church of Rome to have kept the word of God, and the truth contained in that word, from all Christendom, at the time of the Reformation? We do not see how Mr. Stanley can concede the right which Roman Catholics claim now, or can make their claim a ground of his so dealing with the population of the country, and at the same time justify the Reformation. If the Roman Catholic Church have a right to keep the body of the people in unscriptural darkness-if it is only a legitimate exercise of their authority, to deny even to adults the right of unaided private interpretation of the sacred volume, with regard to religion, then was the Reformation a rebellion-a criminal throwing off of legitimate authority; and Mr. Stanley himself is bound to close his Bible, to desist from unaided private interpretation, and to take it out of the hands of his children, unless he gets leave from the pope, or some of his suffragans, to enjoy the light. But if the Reformation was not merely an asserting of a just right, but rather the recurrence to an absolute and imperative duty-if the denial by the Roman Catholic Church of the Scriptures to adults or youth, is a tyranny to them, and a crime against God; then can their tyranny and sin become the proper rule of other men's actions? If their line of conduct towards the laity of their communion is wrong, is not every man wrong, perhaps criminal, who admits their principle, and joins with them in acting upon it?

How can Mr. Stanley protest against the errors of the Roman Catholic Church, and make the fundamental error-that from which the others flowed, and by which alone the others are continued the basis of his system of national education ?* There

That all our readers may see that the first movement towards Protestantism was admitting the right of the people to read the Scriptures, and furnishing them with the Scriptures to read, we desire to make them acquainted with the following paragraph, extracted from Burnett's History of the Reformation. Vol. i. p. 226.

"In May, the 33d year of the king's reign, a new impression of the Bible was finished, and the king by proclamation required all curates and parishioners of every town and parish, to provide themselves a copy of it before All Hallowtide, under penalty of forfeiting forty shillings per month, after that, till they had one. He declared that he set it forth, to the end that his people, by reading it, might perceive the power, wisdom, and goodness of God; observe his commandments, obey the laws, and their prince, and live in godly charity among themselves. There was also care taken so to regulate the prices of the Bibles, that there should be no exacting on the

is an abandonment of principle in the very first step of the busi ness, which we do hope has not been sufficiently considered, and which we should hope will be reconsidered. There was a principle in the last Report of the Commisioners of Education Inquiry, to which, in spite of all their other errors, we felt thankful to them for adhering :-" that an adequate representation of revealed truth should be exhibited to the youthful mind, in the way of national instruction." And this principle, surely not too strict-not too sectarian, has been abandoned by the present system, which, affording a combined literary and a separate religious education, has shut out from the Roman Catholic youth any representation of revealed truth, but such as suits the interests, and agrees with the tenets of the Roman Catholic priests. They are not only not provided with an adequate representation of revealed truth, but they are locked up from it; they are delivered into the hands of those whose interest it is, and whose practice it has been, to keep them in the dark. We really do not see how it would be a greater violation of honest Protestant principle, for our government to sanction the establishment of the inquisition in this country, than to admit the right of the rulers of the Church of Rome to incarcerate the unruly members of her communion, and to become active in handing the population in chains, into their cruel grasp. We do not see a distinction in the principle of these two cases. In both there is only a yielding to a claimed respect of the Roman Catholic Church-in the one instance affecting more immediately the body, in the other the putting its bondage upon the mind.

And yet for this system, violating Protestant principle, and full of dishonesty to every conscientious Protestant, Mr. Stanley expects the co-operation of the resident Clergy: to quote his own words:-"As much must depend upon the co-operation of the

subjects in the sale of them. And Bonner, seeing the king's mind was set on this, ordered six of these great Bibles to be set up in several places of St. Paul's, that all persons who could read, might have free access to them. And upon the pillars to which these Bibles were chained, an exhortation was set up admonishing all that came thither to read, that they should lay aside vain-glory, hypocrisy, and all other corrupt affections, and bring with them discretion, good intentions, charity, reverence, and a quiet behaviour, for the edification of their own souls; but not to draw multitudes about them, nor make exposition of what they read, nor to read aloud, nor make noise in time of divine service, nor enter into disputes concerning it.' But people came generally to hear the Scriptures read, and such as could read, and had clear voices, came often thither with great crowds about them. And many sent their children to school, that they might carry them with them to St. Paul's, and hear them read the Scriptures."

That this was in fact only a recurrence to primitive Christianity, will appear by the following passage in Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p. 118. First Century.

"The Christians took all possible care to accustom their children to the study of the Scriptures, and to instruct them in the doctrines of their holy religion; and schools were every where erected for the purpose, even from the very commencement of the Christian church.”

resident Clergy, the Board will probably look with peculiar favour upon applications proceeding either from-1st. The Protestant and Roman Catholic clergy of the parish;" &c.

As Mr. Stanley seeks the co-operation of the Protestant clergy, and Roman Catholic priests, in this system, he thinks it well to begin by putting them upon a par, when writing as the organ of government. This is, we believe, the first official document in which the government gave their sanction to the Romish priests as the Clergy of the parish: but it is quite consistent with admitting their right to keep the Scriptures from the people. It is all of a piece; they must be the Clergy of the parish who have a right, which is not to be disputed, in the introduction of this system of national education. But it is worthy of remark, that Mr. Stanley's humble servants, the Commissioners, who are "not without being subject to any direct responsibility," have seen, and can as well as we, feel the impropriety, the illegallity, of such language; and they have presumed to alter the phraseology of Mr. Stanley's letter! They announce, that, "the Board will look with peculiar favour upon applications proceeding from-1st. A Protestant clergyman, and Roman Catholic clergyman, conjointly." We know not from whence could originate in the Board this correction, but we cannot but conceive that it shows their reprehension, at least, of Mr. Stanley's prudence, in thus showing himself and his government as not unwilling to admit the establishment of the Roman Catholic religion in the parishes of Ireland.

But, does Mr. Stanley really count upon the co-operation of Protestants and Roman Catholics, in this unscriptural education? We should doubt much whether, after a time, he will not find that even the Roman Catholic clergy will not be satisfied to join in the system; that they will not admit the principle of the government, having the right to invest the Roman Catholic members of the Board with the powers intended to be given them. They may, after they have tried for a time what they can do by the commission, they may, we say, refuse their "assent and consent" to Mr. Stanley's forming a "concilium de propagandâ fide," giving to such Roman Catholics as he may select authority to issue an index librorum prohibitorum; so that no books shall be used in the schools by Roman Catholic priests, except those sanctioned by them. We doubt whether the Roman Catholic clergy of the parish may not think their rights invaded by such a measure, and refuse their co-operation. Whether they may not inquire into the mission of these licensers of books, and when they ask the question, Who sent you? not be quite satisfied with the answer-Mr. Stanley! We doubt then, even the co-operation of the Roman Catholics.

But we would further call to the recollection of Mr. Stanley and the commissioners, and of our readers, certain resolutions of the Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland, on the 21st of January, 1826; which stated the only terms on which they would consent to schools, in which Protestants and Roman Catholics should be educated together. In those resolutions, we find them requiring among others, this, "that in those schools,

where the majority of the pupils profess the Roman Catholic faith, the master should be a Roman Catholic; and that in schools where the Roman Catholic children form only a minority, a permanent Roman Catholic Assistant be appointed, upon the recommendation, or with the express approval, of the Roman Catholic Bishop of the diocese in which they are to be employed; and further, that they or either of them are to be removed, upon the representation of such Bishop."

We should like to know-Will the Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops rescind these resolutions? or has Dr. Murray, by taking his seat amongst the commissioners, given a pledge that these requirements will not be demanded? We believe not. We wish that we were as sure, that the Protestant members of the Board will never give up their principles, as that the Roman Catholics will never retreat from the ground they have taken ; however they may take up an advanced position, and on this occasion, as well as on the former one, make larger demands, in proportion as concessions are made to them.

But we come to ask a question more deeply interesting to us, in the practical answer to which is involved the character of the ministers of the Established Church, more than in any that has presented itself for a long time.

Is there reason to expect the co-operation of the parochial Clergy, the ministers of the Established Church? We hope not. We feel assured they ought not to co-operate in a system that is so vicious in its principle. There are, to be sure, some unsound sheep in every flock, and so there may among the members of the Established Clergy be found some rotten sheep, some timeserving men, who would do any thing that might serve their worldly interests: but we do hope and trust, that the great body of the ministers of the Establishment will uphold the character of the Protestant Church, and come out from among these violators of Protestant principle-be separate from them, and touch not the unclean thing.

We feel anxious to state our reasons for this decided opinion, and we would divide our reasons into two heads, 1st. From a consideration of the duty of the ministers of the Established Church to the Roman Catholic population. 2dly. From a consideration of their duty to their own flocks. First, as to the Roman Catholics, we have already stated our conviction, that the Roman Catholic priests have no right to exclude their people from the light of God's word. We consider that in doing so, they sin against their God, and they exercise a most destructive tyranny over the people. We have stated our conviction, that the Government are partakers in their guilt, in acknowledging this usurpation as a right; they are doing that which is inconsistent with their profession of Protestantism, and which aims a blow at the very root of the Reformation; and shall the Protestant clergy be their auxiliaries? Shall they, who should be the light of the country, join hands with the Romish priesthood, in putting that candle under a bushel, which should be put on the candlestick, that it may give light to all that are in the house? The Protes

tant clergy cannot force the light on those who wish to shut their eyes against it; but they should be continually holding it forth, and entreating all around them, Roman Catholics as well as Protestants, to receive it; whereas, the present system secures that the rising generation shall be brought up in darkness, gives no option to a Roman Catholic parent, to educate his child through the medium of the Holy Scriptures and exhibits the Government, Romish priests, and Established ministers in an unholy com. bination, to bind the Roman Catholic population in chains of darkness! We say, Woe to those who are found in that unholy alliance ! Many a darkened mind, in days to come, will bitterly reproach the authors of their temporal and spiritual degradation, but they will feel especially indignant at Protestant ministers, if they can accuse them of a share in the evil, as it is inconsistent with their principles, and more especially in violation of their most solemn vows. We shall ever maintain that it will be an abandonment of principle in the ministers of the Established Church, if they join in the proposed system, and give their sanction to its operation upon the Roman Catholic population. They will in fact thereby sanction, as far as they can, the assumed right of the Romish priests to shut out from the people the word of the living God.

But we further feel most decided in our opinion, that no conscientious clergyman of a parish, would, for a moment, entertain the idea of availing himself of a school under the present Commission for the education of the children of his own flock. What! can he admit the idea, that the youth committed to his care are to be four or five days in the week without learning any thing upon the great subject for which pre-eminently, he takes his share in education? Is he to sanction the idea, that the religion of a Christian is to be shoved into a corner, and separated from the employment of every day? It is true that it is added, that "They will also permit and encourage the clergy to give religious instruction to the children of their respective persuasions, either before or after the ordinary school-hours, on the other days of the week." We should really like to know the meaning, the real drift of this extraordinary paragraph. There is not a word said as to the place in which this morning or evening instruction is to be given, or whether it is for the purpose of promoting harmony, peace, and union, that the Established clergyman, the Presbyterian minister, and the Roman Catholic priest, are to be encouraged to meet together in the same school-room, and each teach their different systems in the hearing of each other, and of their respective flocks. Is the Protestant to be encouraged to show at one end the idolatry of the Church of Rome, and warn the children committed to his care against being seduced into such a crime; and is the priest to be encouraged at the same time, at the other end, to instil into the minds of his children, the certainty of the damnation of all that live and die out of communion with him and his church?

Is this really what it is intended to permit and encourage? If