zoas not a man of his word; and I would say of any Protestant as well as of any Papist, if he is not a man of his word he is not a Christian. Speaking of my correspondent himself, I did not call him "an obscure son of the church," as he pretends to quote my words; but a "a more obscure," &c. that is, more obscure than the pope and the popish archbishop of Tuam, whom I had just mentioned. I spoke of him as obscure only comparatively, but not absolutely; for he may be a priest, for any thing that I know.

It is true, indeed, that I did in effect charge the popish archbishop with denying original sin, when he spoke of the innocent youth of his communion; and I would say the same of any other man who should use such language in a public address intended for the direction of persons who are called teachers of religion. I know that in light conversation, where words are often used in a loose sense, it is usual to call those innocent, who are comparatively so; and, if speaking of actual sin, I would have no hesitation in calling infants innocent: but the archbishop was not speaking of infants, but of youth, whose original depravity must have manifested itself in many of the bitter fruits of actual transgression: and we cannot suppose him to use words in a loose sense in a well studied address to all the learned clergy of his diocess. As, however, the church of Rome holds the doctrine of original sin, and as it would not be the design of the archbishop to deny it, he ought not to be offended, but rather to thank me for admonishing him to be more careful of his language.

I readily confess, that if Mr. Scott and Dr. Kelly were to come into my house, and to attempt to inculcate nonsense and blasphemy even upon my servants, I would send them about their business; and I hope all my Protestant friends would do the same; but this is not the true state of the question: my correspondent, in the most jesuitical manner, shifts it off the proper ground. I was speaking of the popish influence which was exercised, not in the way of teaching popery, but in the way of opposing the teaching of the Bible. I even went so far as to concede to Papists the right of doing all that they could do, by means of fair argument, to gain proselytes, and to prevent their people from becoming Protestants; but I am far from conceding to them the right of preventing Protestants from doing what they can by mere persuasion to gain Papists, young or old, from error and idolatry, to the knowledge of the truth, and the service of Jesus Christ. Popish priests have no right to speak of their children, because they cannot lawfully have any; but supposing Dr. Kelly and Mr. Scott to have numerous families, I would not think it lawful to force myself into the midst of them, and to endeavour to convert them, without their consent. I have no wish to diminish the lawful influence of parents of any religious persuasion, or to prevent their interference in what they may consider for the good of their families; but what I complain of, is the influence, and the interference, that will not permit those who wish for education to themselves and families to receive it. I claim no right to thrust myself into popish families against their will, though my object should be the important one of teaching the word of God; but when both parents and children are willing to be taught, and eagerly desiring to learn to read the Bible, as many of them are, I should consider myself entitled, nay, urgently called upon, to gratify their desire, and that in VOL. I.-84

spite of all the priests in the world; and I do complain of the influence of the priests exercised to prevent those who desire instruction from receiving it. This is an influence and interference which ought to be marred and effectually put down, for it is inconsistent with British freedom, as well as with the benign spirit of Christianity.

My correspondent is right when he says, "I am sure that Papist children cannot be saved unless they be converted." I am perfectly sure of this; and I am equally sure that neither can Protestant children be saved unless they be converted. The word of God concludes all under sin; and there is no name by which any can be saved but that of Jesus Christ; and my object in recommending the Hibernian and other societies, that are teaching the poor Irish to read the Bible, is not with the view of making them Protestants merely, but of making them Christians, through the knowledge of that Saviour whom the Bible reveals. I would "not allow the Papists the exclusive right of the religious and moral education of the youth of their communion;" for they have no title to it. Every youth among them has a right to seek for the best education he can get, and every British subject has a right to communicate instruction to all who are willing to receive it.

The cavils of my correspondent admit of a much larger exposure; but I satisfy myself with the above, which I hope will also satisfy my readers in general, though it will not satisfy him. I conclude the present number with the declaration of another Irish bishop, against the use of the Bible in schools; which is taken from an Irish newspaper. "To the Roman Catholic Clergy of the Diocess of Cloyne and Ross.

"Reverend BRETHREN,-During a series of years, from the time that schools were opened in Ireland, under the patronage of humane and respectable Protestants, for the professed purpose of educating poor Catholic children gratuitously, without infringing in any respect upon their religious principles, we have had repeated cause to complain that these liberal professions were uniformly deviated from; and so widely as to force us into effectual opposition. It was, we imagined, to be presumed, that when the education of the Irish poor became a national concern; when a great number of distinguished personages, noted for rank, learning, and affluence, formed an association, avowedly for this benevolent purpose; when the imperial parliament not only patronised the measure, but supported it by an abundant annual grant, it was, we hoped, to be presumed, that the narrow views of certain bigotted individuals would be liberalized by the above expanded association, and would merge in its wide liberality. We were the more warranted in this hope by the third article of the laws, which were to regulate the proceedings of the association; for it is there expressly declared, that the leading principle of the society is to afford equal facilities for education to all professing Christians, without any attempt to interfere with the peculiar religious opinions of any. Yet, in too many instances, it became difficult to reconcile the practice of the association with its previous professions. But at the last general meeting, in Kildare street, on the 24th day of February, the rejection of Mr. O'Connell's motion, by so great a majority as 80 against 19, has evinced, beyond the powers of tergiversation, that the professions of the society were not intended to regulate its practice but that un

der the name of education, proselytism was the determined object. To Mr. O'Connell, for his spirited exertions on this occasion, the thanks of Catholic Ireland are eminently due; and surely, if confiding apathy had hitherto benumbed any individual among us, the present electrifying fact must restore his energies, and rouse him to a due sense of the danger. With you, my reverend brethren, I am long and intimately acquainted. Your sentiments on the Bible without note or comment, as an initiatory book for schools, are well known to me. It is important, however, at this juncture, and after what was flippantly asserted at the above meeting, that these sentiments be emphatically declared to the entire kingdom. The Roman Catholic clergy of every other diocess, may now probably feel bound to proclaim their sentiments also. For my own part, I have long since recorded mine upon this subject. The brightest luminaries of the Protestant church have led the way for us, with arguments, to this very moment unanswered. I shall not here advert to them; neither is it necessary that you should. Your opinion, I am confident, will be unanimous, and in perfect accord with what has been lately published by the Most Rev. Dr. Kelly, of Tuam, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Doyle, of Kildare and Leighlin, and the Rt. Rev. Dr. Archdeacon of Kilmacdugh and Kilfenora. The plan suggested by the last named prelate, and more forcibly recommended by Mr. O'Connell, for educating children of the different religions, in the same school, without any reference to religious subjects, which may more properly be treated by their own clergy, in their respective places of worship, has my entire assent, and shall have my most cordial co-operation. Mutual confidence, good understanding, and brotherly regard, may be thus happily promoted throughout this hitherto distracted country; a blessing so invaluable, that every effort should be made by us for the attainment of it. No real friend of Ireland will, I trust, be backward to affix his name, and contribute his support, to Mr. O'Connell's project of a National Association for educating the Irish poor. That such project may be speedily adopted, and that it may promote all the good intended by the benevolent patrons of it, is the ardent prayer of your faithfully devoted friend and humble servant,

WILLIAM COPINGER, R. C. Bishop.

RESOLUTIONS OF THE POPISH CLERGY IN IRELAND AGAINST THE USE OF THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. REMARKS ON THESE RESOLUTIONS. COUNSELLOR O'CONNELL'S SPEECH ON THE SAME SUBJECT.

REMARKS UPON IT.

SATURDAY, May 13th, 1820.

I THOUGHT I had done with Dr. Kelly of Tuam, when I finished my remarks on his own archiepiscopal manifesto against the Bible and the schools in which it is taught; but I find that this manifesto, together with that of the pope which occasioned it, has laid the foundation of certain proceedings which require to be noticed in such a

work as "THE PROTESTANT." It is evident that the popish clergy in Ireland are in such a state of anxiety and alarm as was never witnessed before. They are in the condition of persons who know that there is an enemy at their door, and this enemy is the Bible. This is precisely the state in which I wish to see them, while they look upon the Bible as an enemy; but whenever they shall become reconciled to it, and accept of it as a precious gift of God to sinful men, I wish that their alarm may cease, and that they may enjoy all the peace and comfort which it imparts to every one who truly receives it as the word of God.

I concluded my last number with an address by Bishop Copinger to the clergy of his diocess, in which he also discovers his dread of that alarming book, which has been in fact the occasion of all the calamities which have befallen the church of Rome, during the last three hundred years. Our Irish Papists have found out that the Bible is not only formidable in the hands of men and women; but that even in the hands of children it is a most dangerous weapon Children, therefore, must not be trusted with it, lest they should become champions of Protestantism, and eventually overthrow the infallible church.

Following up the address of the said bishop, a number of popish clergymen met, and adopted the following resolutions, which I take from the Cork Mercantile Chronicle of March 27, 1820:

"We, the Roman Catholic clergy of the diocess of Cloyne and Ross, being called upon by our bishop, the Right Rev. Doctor Copinger, to declare our sentiments concerning the introduction of the Bible, without note or comment, as an initiatory book into Catholic schools, have resolved unanimously, at our several conferences holden in the course of this present month:

"First-That in the profession of faith adopted universally throughout the whole Catholic church, it is stated: I also admit the holy scriptures, according to that sense which our holy mother, the church, has held and doth hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the scriptures; neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.'- -This article of our belief, precluding, as it does, all private and arbitrary interpretation of the scriptures, wisely guards the unlearned and unstable of our communion against wresting the sacred volume to their own destruction: it further goes to prevent their being carried about by every wind of doctrine, while it tends to effect what the Redeemer so strongly inculcates, viz. that we be all one, as He and his heavenly Father are one;' or, as the apostle has it, that we be all of one mind, and that there be no schism among us'—while, moreover, it assuredly does not sanction the Bible, without note or comment, as a fit school-book for thoughtless and inconsiderate children.

"Resolved, Secondly-That however, we respect those distinguished personages who patronize and support an opposite system, we never can acknowledge in them, or in any society of laymen, a right to regulate the religious concerns of the poor children committed to our care, much less to force upon them a plan of education obviously incompatible with the principles of their religion.

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 several 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.

66

64

"The Rev. J. BURKE, D. D. "Presiding in the conference of Fermoy.

66

The Rev. JAMES WALSH, Secretary of the conference of Midleton. "The Rev. JAMES MOLONY,

Presiding in the conference of Donoughmore. "The Rev. DAVID WALSH,

"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 Bibie from the schools: