« PreviousContinue »
kind. By these rulers of the Church of England is that same benefit intended for all mankind ?So far from its being so, it is not (witness these exclosionary laws) intended for any but a comparatively minute portion of those who profess the religion of Jesus. Is it intended for all mankind ? No: not so much as for all Christians. For all Christians ? No: not so much as for all Protestants. For whom then is it intended by them? Not for so much as a single soul, other than those who, in the character of subjects to their governance, are content to be perpetual contributors to those riches, in which they put their trust; to that power which they abuse; to those factitious dignities, with which they deck their names; to that purple, and that fine linen, in which they strut; to those pomps and vanities, which in their babe-andsuckling state they renounced, and which they are seen with so much anxiety mounting guard upon, in their Church regnant and Church militant state.
The instruction which the Gospel contains, is it, or is it not conducive, to private virtue, to private happiness, to rational obedience, to internal tranquillity, to external peace, to salvation of souls ? If not, then why, at all this pains and expense, profess to teach it?-If yes, then why refuse to so much as a single soul the benefit of it?
“ Perish bodies ! perish souls! Yea, in any “ numbers let them perish,-rather than a feather “ should risk the being shaken from the down on “ which we repose !"-Such, ye hypocrites, are your vows. Can you deny them? Behold them in your own acts : behold them in those acts of yours, which are now staring you in the face.
EXCLUSIONARY SYSTEM_GROUNDS FOR THE HOPE
THAT THE APPROBATION OF IT IS NOT GE-
These grounds are composed of two articles of documentary evidence: one of them direct; the other circumstantial evidence.
The direct is furnished by an express declaration of Sir Thomas Bernard.
Of the ardency and activity of the zeal of the worthy Baronet, in favour of the new instruction system; and at the same time of his orthodoxy, in the character of a son of the Church of England, without which latter character, his testimony, however respectable in itself, would scarcely be applicable to the present purpose,—that work of his, in which so interesting an account is given of the Schools, instituted for this purpose at Durham, by his friend the Bishop, affords ample proof: and, considering that intimacy, the marks of which are upon the face of that publication so apparent,
it seems as difficult as it would be unpleasant to suppose, that in the opinions and assertions, so strenuously, as well as plainly minifested by one of the two friends, the other should be altogether without a share.
In proof of the disapprobation--not to say the abhorrence-with which the system of exclusion and compulsory proselytism is, or at least not long ago was, regarded by Sir Thomas Bernard, I have the satisfaction of finding the two altogether explicit passages, which here follow:
They are, both of them, copied from a printed paper, signed Thomas Bernard, and, in the character of a preface, to a work “ On the Education of the Poor," published by “ The Society for bettering the Condition of the Poor."*
In the first of them stands in the text the following passage.
« With such abundant sources of corruption,” (says the worthy Baronet, p. 52) “ where can the
patriot, who desires the happiness, or even the “ existence of his country,--where can he look “ for security,--to what can he direct his hopes, “ but to education, formed on the general princi“ ples of Christianity,—bestowed impartially upon « all our fellow-subjects, and connected in amity
* It constitutes the first part of " a Digest of the Report of thát Society," and contains a selection of those articles which have a reference to education. The date of it is London, 1809.
" with our civil and religious establishment?" and to this passage is subjoined, in form of a note, the following one. " When I speak of a national “ system of education, connected in amity with our
religious establishment,--and while I wish it to " receive the aid, and be under the direction of " that establishment, I do not mean that the sys. “ tem shall be subservient to its power, or instru" mental of conversion to its tenets. To deal out «s education to the poor, only on the terms of re" ligious conformity, is, in my opinion, a species of “ persecution, differing not greatly from the sup“ plying of bread to the hungry and necessitous on
similar conditions, and being as defective in « true policy as it is unjust in principle.”
In the other passage-(it is in a preceding page, p. 48 of that same Preface)-speaking of “the “ Charter Schools in Ireland, I have been very “ much misinformed,” (says he) “ if the impolitic “ and intolerant condition, on which education “ in them is given to the Catholic poor, contri. " butes so much to conversion as to violent and “ bitter prejudice against the Established Church.”
Such are the opinions and affections expressed and by whom ?-Not merely by an individual, but by an individual writing and publishing them in the character of the organ of a numerous societyThe Society for the Bettering the Condition of the Poor :-the members of it distinguished—most, if not all of them--scarcely, more by this testimony of