"Thirdly-That duly appreciating the advantages of a well-regulated education for the poor, we shall be ever ready to co-operate with the liberal and beneficent Protestants of our respective parishes, in establishing schools on any practicable plan, not clashing with our tenets. "Fourthly-That the foregoing resolutions be signed by the seve ral masters of conference, in the name and on the behalf of ninetynine clergymen, respectively attending these meetings. "Fifthly-That the avowals elicited by Counsellor O'Connell, at the last general meeting of the Education Society, in Kildare street, are to us a subject of regret, equally, and of alarm: we shall not be unmindful of them. The splendid advocacy of that gentleman, in the cause of religious freedom, on the present occasion, demands our warmest acknowledgments, and we beg leave hereby most respectfully to present them. "The Rev. WM. O'BRIEN, "Vicar-General, presiding in the conference of Buttevant. "The Rev. J. BURKE, D. D. "Presiding in the conference of Fermoy. 44 The Rev. JAMES WALSH, Secretary of the conference of Midleton. 66 "Presiding in the conference of Donoughmore. The Rev. DAVID WALSH, 66 "Presiding in the conference of Rosscarbery." The above resolutions refer to a society which has been in active operation for about nine years, and by which many of the poor in Ireland have been taught to read, without distinction of religious profession. It was a fundamental rule and leading principle of the society, "to afford equal facilities for education to all classes of professing Christians, without any attempt to interfere with the peculiar religious opinions of any;" and that "the scriptures, without note or comment, shall be read" in the schools; "but all catechisms and books of religious controversy excluded." The society was composed of both Protestants and Papists; and they proceeded for some time without any apparent schism, doing a great deal of good; but some of the more keen-sighted Papists began to perceive what they thought a snake in the grass. They found out that the permission of the Bible, without note or comment, was likely to produce consequences not very favourable to their religion; and that, moreover, it was inconsistent with the rules of holy church. An attempt was made to expunge that rule of the society which regarded the reading of the Bible; which, however, was effectually resisted. A similar attempt was made, in another form, at a meeting of the society, on the 24th of February last. The champion of Bible exclusion, on this occasion, was Daniel O'Connell, Esq., whose speech is given at length, in a report of the proceedings of the meeting, for which I have to thank my indefatigable correspondent in Lifford. If I were to give the speech entire, it would fill the remainder of this number; but I conceive it enough to give only those parts which relate more directly to the propriety of excluding the Bible from the schools: "I know," says counsellor O'Connell, "I know that by introducing the mention of the scriptures, I am treading on delicate and danger ous ground, and shall meet with censure, abuse, and calumny; but conscious of but one motive, I invite such censure, and court such calumny. My motive is pure, though my opinion may be mistaken. By means of this part of your resolution, you have already commenced to impede, and, as your plan goes along and attracts attention, you will still more and more impede, the progress of your society among a numerous class. I shall now clearly demonstrate that you do so, from actual facts. You do not grant the means of education to that class to which I belong. Let me not be mistaken: I shall always be ready to speak my own conviction, that my profession is the best; if I did not feel it to be so, I would not adhere to it for one hour. Every one here, I will allow, may feel the same. When I do therefore speak on the subject, I must protest against being supposed to infer disparagement to another's belief. I respect human freedom in opinion, and think every created being has a right to worship God according to his conscience: no human dignities would induce me to alter my opinion, whether I uttered it among the senators of England or the inquisitors of Spain. "Allow me now to revert to the question, Whether making it a preliminary to give the Bible, without note or comment, does not affect the principle? I say it does-as long as you insist on its being a school-book, you do not afford equal facilities to Catholics. I prove it thus. I begin with the lowest and humblest of my proofs; I begin with myself. I have, in a remote county, some property; not worth speaking of in any other way, than as it imposes on me the duty of assisting in the education of the poor who have claims upon me. I gave a school-house, at a low rent and tax-free, and contributed also; still, however, we wanted assistance, and looked for it to your society; but you would not afford it. I could not let the Bible be a schoolbook, and you insisted that I should. You, therefore, do not give equal facilities. 46 The next proof is from the schools in Tralee, under the Rev. Mr. Egan, supported by the voluntary contributions of tradesmen, containing 440 children. There are in it about seventeen or eighteen Protestants-no interference is used-the Catholics are not even taught in the presence of the Protestants. "There is another school, under the care of the Rev. Mr. Denny, a very amiable and liberal man. The number in his school is twenty. The Catholic clergyman made this proposal: Let us unite five days out of six-let us teach them indifferently without introducing religious instruction; let them separate then, and each teach his own; let us go to the society and apply for a grant.' Mr. Denny would have done so, but that from your resolution he found he could not succeed in such application. "I state these facts,-for what purpose? Not that you should decide upon them now, but to call on every honest man to pause and say, whether education is not the assertion of truth? Whether the man who asserts one thing and means another, be an honest man? or whether he does not himself most want education, who refuses a committee to inquire whether he may not have been mistaken? Since last meeting, matters have occurred with respect to the Catholic persuasion, which may be matters of ridicule to others, but are not so to us. The spiritual head of our church has issued what may not perhaps be obligatory on our consciences, even in spiritual matters, and it is well known that we often oppose him in temporals; but it is at least his advice, ex cathedra.-This excludes from Catholic schools the Testament, even with note and comment, even though these might be acceptable to the Catholics. It is, in fact, a bull of the pope. This, therefore, has caused an additional difficulty; see, then, how you proceed: you say that you will afford equal facilities to each persuasion, and on the other hand comes the bull of the pope, refusing such aid. Can you now find any one with such powers of face, as to tell me that you give equal facilities? Nothing but religious delusion can account for this. On "To be sure, when I last had the honour of addressing you, my friend Mr. Burrowes answered me, and went near to persuade me that I knew nothing of the Catholic persuasion, and made a speech to prove ♦ it so; and a liberal and wealthy merchant, whom I see before me, did the same. I know that I shall have the same to encounter to-day. I did not wish to enter further into such controversies, and therefore applied to some of the heads of the Catholic persuasion in Ireland. the Most Reverend Dr. Murray I shall make no eulogium, I applied also to the Most Reverend Dr. Troy, and, in consequence, a meeting was held of the principal parish priests in Dublin, in order that I might have an authentic document to read to this meeting, to express their sentiments; and they have resolved that The scriptures, with or without note or comment, are not fit to be used as a school-book'-To be thumbed by every child in the school. "I end with a proof that is irrefragable; this document has been sent to me for the very purpose of being read to this meeting. The meeting was held, and this resolution framed, for this very purpose. "Now, my lord duke, see how this document calls on you to accede to my humble motion, to afford a committee to see if really equal facilities are granted. This document says, either with or without comment, it is not to be a school-book;' your resolution says it shall; put these together, and see how you can say 'equal facilities.' On the one hand, the determination of the prelates, that it shall not be a schoolbook; on the other, yours, that you will not give assistance unless it is; yet you still say, that you cannot see any thing in this document to require at least the decency of a committee,-the decorum of an investigation. As the only thing that is objected to, is the circulation of the holy scriptures, I will tell you the course you ought to pursue, as honest men-You ought to come forward to new model your resolution, and also to give aid to such as refuse to use the scriptures without note or comment. I well know that I shall hear to-day, as I did last year, something like prose run mad, something like half sermons about the value and the origin of this book, the Bible. (Applause, mixed with louder hisses.) If I have trod on the tail of the serpent of bigotry, let it hiss. Oh it was a good hiss! a noble hiss! an excellent hiss! and I thank you for the hiss. Those who hissed may suppose they are acting for the service of God; but they serve God by a falsehood. But there is more honesty in the hiss, than in those gentlemen who assert one thing and then say and do another. I have stated to you my own opinion, and shall re-state it, notwithstanding the peril of the hiss. The Bible never can be received without note or comment by the Catholic persuasion. Gentlemen hissers, we believe that the entire word of God has not been preserved in writing: we believe that a portion has been preserved in the church which preserved that writing; and this being our tenet, you cannot expect to have the Catholic clergy submit, when their attention is roused, to have the Bible used without note or comment, because they must have tradition, which we also call the word of God. Every Catholic is bound in life and in death to assert this; -you assert the opposite in your resolution." The reader will see that the pleadings of Counsellor O'Connell proceed upon the ground that the rules of the society are not consistent with themselves. The leading principle of the society, "to afford the same facilities for education to all classes of professing Christians, without any attempt to interfere with the peculiar religious opinions of any," is not consistent with the other rule, which requires that the scriptures, without note or comment, should be read in the schools. At first, Protestants and Papists met on this, which both, in their simplicity, considered common ground. The Protestant knew that the Bible alone was the foundation of his religion; and the Papist, without considering consequences, agreed to admit the Bible alone (that is, without note or comment) into the schools which were supported by the contributions of both parties. But O'Connell has found out that the Bible alone is not the foundation of his religion; and that, therefore, the requiring of it to be read in the schools, is inconsistent with the professed object of the society, which is, to afford equal facilities for education to both Protestants and Papists. This is a declaration as plain as words can make it, that, in the opinion of Papists themselves, the Bible is against them. They will rather that their children shall go without education, than that they should have access to the Bible. This, however, is by no means the general feeling among the Irish Papists. Thousands of the peasantry are eagerly craving to have their children taught; but since the pope issued his bull, which O'Connell admits to be, "in fact, a bull of the pope," the clergy have taken the alarm, and he appears as their agent, in the School Society, in order, if possible, to get the Bible expelled from the schools. This eloquent counsellor uses a somewhat curious argument. "The Bible," says he, never can be received without note or comment by the Catholic persuasion. Gentlemen hissers, we believe that the entire word of God has not been preserved in writing: we believe that a portion has been preserved in the church which preserved that writing; and this being our tenet, you cannot expect to have the Catholic clergy submit, when their attention is roused, to have the Bible used without note or comment, because they must have tradition, which we also call the word of God." Now, suppose we grant that what they call tradition is also the word of God, it must be consistent with the written word: if it contain any thing of an opposite character, it cannot possibly have proceeded from the same source; but if it be the word of God, there can be no harm in giving other portions of the same word without it, or it without the other portions. Protestants admit that the Old Testament without the New, and that the New with out the Old, is not the whole word of God; but we never suspect danger in giving the one without the other, though we prefer giving both together, when we can. Nay, I venture to affirm that there is not one book in either of the Testaments, which may not be safely given and profitably read, though the reader should never see another page of the Bible. It is, in fact, to libel the inspired penmen, to say that the writings of any of them would be productive of mischief without the guardianship of the rest. How much greater the libel, when all of them taken together are declared to be dangerous, unless they be subjected to the control of an imaginary being, to whom they give the name of tradition, whose authority, in the church of Christ, is of no more value than that of the traditions of the elders among the Jews, which we are assured, by an infallible witness, made void the law. Besides, if it be dangerous to give the Bible without tradition, it must be also dangerous to give it with tradition, unless you give the whole mass of it. If the written word must not be given without the unwritten, much less must a part of the latter be given without the whole. I defy the church of Rome to say how big a book this would make; but I apprehend the stoutest dray-horse in the kingdom would. not be able to move it. And would the grave Counsellor O'Connell really propose to give such a primer to the poor popish children at school? I apprehend he has no such intention. His object, and that of his reverend fathers, is merely to get quit of the Bible altogether; and for his exertions in this behalf, the clergy are puffing him up to the skies. The counsellor insinuates that the Protestant part of the society are guilty of duplicity, in professing to give equal facilities for education to all parties, without interfering with the religious opinions of any; and, at the same time, persisting in giving the Bible to the children. This is plainly admitting, that to give the Bible to a Papist, is interfering with his religious opinions. It is not pretended that any Protestant gentleman of the society, or any of their Protestant teachers, attempted to expound the scriptures to the scholars, or to show their conformity with one system more than another. There has, therefore, been no interference with the religious opinions of any, in the sense in which they understood the word; and it is extremely unjust in the orator to bring such a charge against gentlemen who had done no more than what he and his popish brethren had agreed should be done; namely, giving the Bible without note or comment. If the Papist believed the Bible to contain his religion, the giving of it was as much an interference with the religion of Protestant children, as the Protestant giving it, was with that of popish children: and if there was any duplicity in the matter, it must attach to one party as well as the other. O'Connell's speech received an able reply from Richard B. Warren, Esq., in which, among other things, he proved, that to withhold the word of God from children, would be disobedience to the command of God. In answer to the objection founded on the alleged profanation of the Bible, "to be thumbed by every child in the school," Mr. Warren stated that it was not used as a spelling-book; or used at all, but by those children who had made such proficiency in reading, as to be VOL. I.-85 |