The Press. — London, England, 1853-08-20 00:00:00

AUGUST 20, 1853. Ilitraturt. Conversions and Persecutions ; a Charge, in 1N53. by Richard Whately. P.D., Archbishop of Dublin. Address on Recent Changes in the System qf Irish National Education. By Richard Whately. P.D., Archbishop of Dublin. London : John W. Parker and Son. No candid person can deny, whatever may be the critical estimate formed on his peculiar school of theology, that the Archbishop of Dub lin is an ornament to the Church of England and Ireland. Not concurring with him in sonic of the views that he has propounded during his prolonged literary career, we can still cordially admire the transparent clearness and nervous simplicity of his style ; and, even where we dissent from his teaching, we can appreciate the candour of his nature and the purity of his exalted purposes. He has been foremost in the polemical battles of the last twenty years ; and many tut antagonist has retired before him, worsted in the encounter. But it would be impossible to name any eminent controversialist so entirely free from the odium theologicum proverbial in ecclesiastic strife. He has been criticised with severity as too cold and austerely logical in his religion. Never seeking for claptrap applause, he does not patch his unadorned style with the lour puretpanni ofmerebieious Obscurantism. In all that comes front his erudite and energetic pen we discern the serenity of a mind which, amid the noisy contentions of an age of orga nised clamour, muses serenely in the groves of the academy, and, recurring to its early habits of severely scientific thinking, never decides before it can demonstrate, and never accuses except when it can certainly convict. With such a character, so nue amongst theologians, the Archbishop of Dublin was eminently suited to give powerfid aid in the establishment of the Irish National System of Education. He brought to its support the dignity of his station and the strength of his well-won fame. There were vast difficulties in the introduction of the system whose existence is now in peril, but which up to the present time has flourished, even beyond the expecta tions of its original founder, the Earl of Derby. When such a man, therefore, as the Archbishop of Dublin retires from a system with which his reputation has been honourably identified, we must turn with anxiety to learn from him self the causes of his withdrawal. Let us, with the materials here before us, clearly ascertain them. At the head of this article our readers will perceive that we have given precedence to the masterly tract on " Conversions and Persecu tions." We have done so as recording its priority of publication ; but, in point of im portance, as bearing on the present crisis in the " National Board" system, the second tract—the " Address to the Clergy of the Diocese of Dublin"—is more important ; and, as far as our space will permit, we will let the Archbishop of Dublin explain to our readers the causes of his resignation. But, in the very first place, it will he neces sary for them to mark the fact that his Grace has not in anywise altered his opinion on the merits of the National Board system as founded by Lord Derby. It is important to have the archbishop's emphatic words on this point : - It is nut unlikely that 1 shall be represented by some persons u 1 each of the two most opposite parties as having changed my mind respecting the system of the national schools,—as no longer approving it, and as having there upon abandoned it. This is nut only untrue, but is the very reverse of the truth. I nut only approve the system as decidedly as ever, and am as ready as ever to carry it on, lint it is precisely lowans*, 1 will *,r o e be a party to its sub version that 1 have ceased to be a commissioner. but there is nothing so notoriously false or absurd that may not gain credence, it' maintained, .1 I common, by p e rs o ns the most adverse to each other. The italics in the foregoing ext met are not our own ; and, observing that "the system" is thus approved by the archbishop, our next step is to inquire what offensive and aggressive tanovations have been made to compel the archbishop—in his own words (p. 1$)—" as a Wall of honour," to withdraw. The causa teter• THE PRIESS. riot ma helli originated in the invidious expulsion (as we think) of certain educational books which had been in use for several years, and had been approved of by the late Roman Catholic Archbishop Murray. anti even by the late Pope. These books had been originally int►oduced tin• the reasons here stated lint some of the cinumissioners suggested, and the suggesti tttt was adopted by the rt•st, and sanctioned by tiote►nitnent. that it would be possible lu introduce i n t o the united education such port• of mitere d history wul of l'itristian instruction as might invillVe MI Miller Of cuntrtree►sy aunongChristians. 'omplete religious instruc tion. indeed, it Wits 101ditl. euulel not be imparted in com to those of ditlerent persuasions. Hut it lA**ll sie,4fested that, as there alt• Stink' points on which all Christians are agreed, it would hi desirable that in these the children should be instructed together, leaving it fuller ri.ligious in struction to be supplied to them separately, in conformity with the will of their parents. Lot it be observed that the reading of those books Was not made compulsory : We did not think it right to enforee on any patron of SehOol the nuts of ally hook he might not approve. And with ' respect to these Scripture Lessons," and also to book Sitered Poetry," and " 1.e5140101 on the Triad' or christianity," we did not allow any child, whose parents had a conseient it tits objection, to be compelled to attend the reading of them. " - The next faet important to learn is whether the extruded volume, " Lessons on the T►uth of Christianity," contained matter calculated to displease Roman Catholics? The history of this little work is thus given by his Brace. Here, however, the italics are our own : For though drawn up by Protestants—Dr. Carlile, the late Bishop Dickinson, and myself—it is, as far as regards the present question, nut al all less lie mork of .Irchbishop Murray thou ours. For he, us well as the rest of the corn mis.sionertt, deliberately recommended it. Ile perused it with scrupulous care; and he sent over a copy to the lute Pope, who had it read to him in Italian, and found it un exceptionable. The other edition of the I)o4lk—that not published but merely sanctioned by th e b oar d— was n uns . lated into Italian by a Roman Catholic priest at Florence, timing the present l'ope's reign. - - Now, at this point we must interpose with some narrative matter of our own. Dr. Whately, on account of his station, is justified in a certain amount of reticence, and he has expressly stated (p. 4) that " he has no wishes to bring charges against others." But we must remind our readers of these filets—viz., that the Roman Catholic Church, as L►rtl Jo hn Russell stated on Mr. Moore's " Irish Church Debath " in the present session, " has of late "years aimed at political authority ;" that Cardinal Wiseman s aggression had taken place ; and that Lord John Russell had used the most insulting expressions towards the Roman Catholics. By a remarkable dispensation, during the same period, a vast number of con versions to scriptural religion had been taking place in Irelund ; and when the fact of these conversions was doubted by some, and dis puted by others, the testimony of the Arch bishop of Dublin placed the fact beyond con troversy. Such being the state of affairs, what took place under the " National Board " ? That question is thus answered by the arch bishop. whose " Address " we here resume :-- l'nfortunately, in some of the lately-established district model-sehomols, without any meeting of the board, hum moiled specially to discuss mod decide so important matter 11'411 the knowledge of many of the 4'1111l• missioners,—mnue odicens of the board took upon them ut the tint opening of these schools) to exeludoi altogether some of the books published and recommended by the Immurd. And to this moo& stly irregular i§roci.dune may lot: traced, chiefly, if not entirely, the present deplorable state of things. As soon as I discovered—which WllB its the autumn of lust year—what an unwarrantable step had been taken, I applied to the board for the redress of so manifest and gross a usurpation of our authority. ltut, unhappily, so great an encouragement had been aflinded by the very ocenrrence of the irregularity to the party secretly or openly adverse to the existing system, lima, after so many delays and excuses, there seemed to he a disposition in the majority of the commissioners, instead of rectifying the manifest wrong that had been done, rather to continn and intit'y it, and to follow it up by still further eneroaehments on the system. And a suspicion %%PS thus—mot 111111104 nigy—gcumited, that over and above any innovat• that might lie introduced by the commiumoners themselves, direct, other innovations also might, to un indefinite ex tent, be intromlueed withool any authority from them, and might afterwards, instead of being checked, receive their So here we have all the links of the evidence befi►re us on a question upon which so much has been written to so little purpose. For the sake of perspicuity we resume the facts at which we have arrived :—I. The archbishop has not changed his opinion of the system, as supported by him heretofore. 1. The eommiss• sioners unanimously sanctioned the admission of certain works in use for many years. 8. Themc works were optionally, not compul sorily, read. 4. So far front containing matter displeasing to the Roman Catholics. they had been circulated with the approval of the late Archbishop Murray. and the concurrence of the late Pope. 5. Serious changes have been introduced, as stated above by Dr. Whitely, invalidating the original system as founded by Lord I)erby. The only question that remains upon that statement, of facts is one of policy, viz.—whe ther it would have been judicious to have com• promised twitters, and allowed the fulminations of Doctor Cullen to take place without oppo sition. On this point the " Address " says : I, however (besides that 1 knew that much tAore was actually designed). perceived—as I think an man of eolith tttt sense most—that them could no longer Is' any security against any amount of tttt ovations ; that those who had broken faith with the piddle could never enjoy or de serve any limber public eontitlence; and that 1 could not, eonsistently with principles of honour, consent to be a party to proceedings which an ttttt nted to an abandonment of all fixed principles, and to a consequent subversion of the existing system, and a nusapplicatiou of a podia mennuy grant. _ . And further we may cite from the " Appen dix " a passage which contains the whole pith of his li we's views, am he has expressed them in one of him " Memorandums " I have no doubt that to make mach n coneession as this would lead to objections being raised to *lint' of our routing is and, if we were to alter or withdraw these fresh objections would be slatted against others; stubs, on till we had quite spoilt honks which have been MI Justly valued wherever the English language is spoken, and su widely circulated. And, alter all, we should probably have fresh and fresh encronehmenta attempted, and double complaints made, if we did not give way to them. The mildness of the archbishop's nature, and the consistency of his career, are good securities that in withdrawing front the board he has tinted neither " peevishly," nor front passing caprice. We have read some ingenious special pleading in which it has been eon• tended that, though the exclusion of the books could not be justified, still that the archbishop should have recollected that he was in a coun try where " the factions are as much at war its in the days of Strongbow a nd, by way o f appeasing bigotry, he Ought to have truckled to it. We reply to such a ludicrous anode of reasoning, that Br. Whately is an archbishop of the " United Church of Urea Britain and Ireland ;" that the " National Board " was founded by parliamentary authority, Mill is paid for, not by " Strougbowian fitetions," but from the treasury of the British empire. Of the anxiety in the archbishop not to give ofliqwu to " the factions " in Ireland we could not have it more decisive limo!' than in tt passage from our firstiouned tract, in which, discuss ing the policy of the recent " missionary visi tation " of Ireland, he says : lf, tier instance, some sock pia ti should be ouleepted as so have heard of that of mewling birth fnan Eng. l a nd a hog of mia,hionarn s, chiaroamli Ham dissoit,rs ititurnii‘Cd—appiiiiitral I I way say ordained, that is wind it virtually punomlts tee) by a NCIfeOIIO4tiDIDCII 14/41OlVill• Ineji Witilidtt any reference to the existing authierities our Chureh—without any security tier their soundness of doctrine, or their discretion, or their taispiunitanis• with the language of a larFe portion of our pe.pulatbai—s iilisout any priiression of being attached to our Cleitreh, or 1 . 11•11 Dot 111/Stilf• to it—and without any responsibility except tee the body which thus appoints them—if such a ewhenie should lee set oil foot, I mil eienvinced that any rimotenuitee giVl'll to it by any of us would involve a danger I Is'sisie'ee others) of favouring the charge brought against els, of intenial union and indifference to our own Church. The tbresight of which sentiments has been illustrated by the recent proeectlings towards those " missionaries " of the Evangelical So ciety. Our space compels um here to dose our re marks. We have siteeeetled, we hope, in plowing before our readers, as far as our limits would allow. the groltitibt of the late secession front the " National Board " Its Ilublin. on the present occasion our sympathies go very tar with the Archbishop of lhablin. To another oppor tunity we 'oust defer our critical remarks upon his gener a ) writings, which are too remarkable, both in their merits and their defects, to be summarily criticised. Since this article has been in type we have read the further explanations offered by Arch bishop Whately, in a letter addressed to the Irish Viceroy. This letter evinces, as we con ceive, en extreme tensibility to the charge of