The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-12-16 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

Authorised version.—Gen. xxxvii, 35. For I will go down:
,into the grave unto my son, mourning.
.I)ouay.—l will go down to my soil to hel mourning.
sou to the place of the dead.
Lessons.-1 will go down to my
mourning. ,
Here the protestant translation, the- pare, is avoided ; and
Abe Roman Catholic explanation, the place of the deitd,
;aditpted. And thus the Irish lessons are fairly heed from what
Gregory Martin calls the "heretical translation against-purga-'
:;torie, Litnbus Patron), &e." On the contrary, they contain a
,transiation conceding all that the Church of Rome has con-
.tended fur upon this point. And these are the books prepared
for the hands of Protestant Children !—See Dr. NeWhiud's
Exntnination, Sec.
The Virgin Mary.—ln the - preface to 'the Lessons from St,
Luke, we ate informed—" It (this number) contains the whole
of the Gospel of St. Luke." Yet there is an omission of ten
'verses from the first chapter,lhe 27th to the end of the 37th.
his of itself is extraordinary. Bt.t what do the omitted verses
contain? They contain; among other things, the address of the
An,,tel Gabriel to the Virgin Marv. Why should this be
"Tea.itte,d? Because it does not contain the celebrated " angeli•
grtacs.aintation" of the Romish church—Hail, Marv. full of
To have introduekil tlfis into the text, without even one
convenient man
too daring a sae„, to Time in its favour, would have been
whiistrtte,: for time Ittsb Roth!. On the other hand.
to introduc
the exclusion ~t-truitlg:l really did say in• his own words, to
.Romlsh prejudice. A y, would have been treason a!Tdih,f
entry, wit boat either alartntn'ig'"io".d"icent rid "e
ing Roman Catholics itf th,il,uilerficialProtestants. or herenv-
was not translated- at at; but- '"lmg. anthem. The pa
I.araidu.„,E4 - •
otnitted,verses, in an abstract bf fhC
The effect of this is worthy of attention.
At the end of each lesson in these book„, there is list
of

. .
questions referring to the matter of the lesson ; by tiiese qtiestons
the master impresses the substance of the lesson on the attention
of the children. In the list after the lesson now before us, these
qUestions occur. ir How did the angel address her?" " What
more did he say to her ?" To these there is no direct answer
in the words of the lesson. 'the child naturally pauses for the
master's help. Howis the master to help the child? Is he to
give the scriptural answer, and suppress the Hail, Mary? Or
is he to. give the Roman Catholic answer, and. suppress the
Word of God.? Or is he to give both answers? Or is he to
give no answer? Is he to tamper with his own conscience, and
,evade any peculiar religious instruction, whatever his own con-
seient bias opinions may be ? Or is he to have no conscience of
his own,,that he may be an accommodatiug instrument of the
•new system ?. The best system. of education that ever was, or
can be, devised, can never work well
_without faithful, conscien-
tious, and intel.igeut masters; and masters of such a character,
are, by these books, placed in a predicament of intolerable
hardship.
The masters may be, in Ireland most of them are, Roman
Catholics. How will such mast. rs help the children in such
circumstances? What answer will they give? Undoubtedly
they will say, " Hail, Mary, full of Gracel" and thus they will
teach Protestant children what the Word of God does nut con-
tain, but what is a tradition of the Church of Route.
The sacrifice of the mass.
In the passages of Scripture where the institution of the
Lord's Supper is given by Christ, and repeated by St. Paul; the
language is in the present tense. It is to this effect in all,. and
in these words in one :—" This is my body, which is given for
you ; .this do in remembrance of me. This cep is my blood of
the, New Testament, which is shed for you." In the Rheituisli
Version of the New Testament, an alteration is made in the lat-
ter.part of the sentence. It stands thus; "This Chalice is my
blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for you." On
this difference between the present and the future tense, Re-
ines! Catholics, so far as they refer to
‘Scripture for authority,
build the doctrine of au unbloody sacrifice. _They tell us that
Christ then and there gave his body ; for he says, `"it is given;"
therefore then and there was an unbloody sacrifice. But that,
ip the second 'clause, there was a reference to the sacrifice on
the,eross, therefore it is.put in the future tense, and not in the
preseet—" it shall be shed for you."
Thus Ilardingi in his controversy with Bishop Jewel, says,
that " Christ offered eind sacrificed his body and blood twice ;
first, in the holy, supper, utibluotlify; and afterwatds on the
cross, with shedding of blood." • The bishop answers him :
Wherefore, whereas Mr. Harding saithoinly upon his min
warrant., that. Christ. realie sacrificed himselfe at two sundry
times, first at the table, _and afterwards upon the crosse ; the
untruth and folly hereof is easily reproved by these pinin words
of St. Paull Semel .oblates eat, ed maltorein eihaurientla.
.Peccat.a s and againe, Witt-cone sacrifice he liatlt:made perfect
them for ever that he sanctified.' I'hi4 places are clenre and
Without questieu, unless-Mr. Harding will say that stile and two
and once and twice be both one thing."—Jewes Ifciiks, 1,611,
p. 417.
The original language, and the analogy of Scriptural truth,
are in favour of the uuitorinity of tense. The change of tense,
Wholly unauthorised by- the original, is the apparent ground
for the Rotnish doctrine. We now turn to the leSsuns, -and
there we find the change of tense. " This cup is the New
'Testament which is about to he shed for you !" .
The history of the connexion between this translation and a
passage in Loid Stanley,s ,original letter to the Duke of
Iseinster upon the subject of the new systent,is very interesting.
His lordship wrote " The commissioners of education in 18/4-5,
* * hoped to have been able to agree upon a Selection
from the Scriptures, which Might have been generally acquisced
in by both parties. But it was found impriscticable." •
Thefact is that the change of tense in the pasitige now under
Consideration, which was a point that the Roman Catholic pre-
lates would by no means forego, was a point which the present
Primate and the late Archbishop of Dublin would by no insane
allow. Agreement was found to
,be impracticable. Dr. Murray
was too faithful to the Council of 'l'rent and Dr. Magee too
faithful to the Holy Sctiptures to admit Of the posSilility, of
legs eement. The present Archbishop of Dublin, hoWever, iihd
his Protestant coadjutors at the board have come to an agree-
inent with Dr. Murray. They have agreed to admit the Bornish
translation into books intended for national schools; and you,
gentlemen, havesunwarilY I trust, agreed to: put the booki so
translated into the hands of Protestant children.
I have thus endeavoured to give a thief, and I deeply feel a
very inadequate, view of the unfairness ofthe Irish lesson books.
They contain a new translation, introducing needless and finis-
Chievoue uncertainty as to what is scripture. They abound in
notes of pritiate interpretation, thereby rejecting a, fu ndemeri tal
principle of Protestautisth and adopting ihe invariable practice
of the Romish church. They elevate into eqiial authority With
our authorised version an utmethorised version made by men
who wets at.the time notoriously active, zealous, and unscru-
purous partisans. And they inculcate, both by tratislatioU and
notes, most objectionable Roman Catholic doctrines.
Yet, in the face of all this, we are assured in the preface that
"uothing is more remote flora the intention of the commission-
era than to offer then). (the lessonS) as a substitute fur the whole
Bible; or to seek to supersede, Istsl ANY DEGREE, by Means of
them, the authoriSed Version of the EstabliShed Church.
It is certainly difficult to discern the harinony between this
profesSion in the preface and the practice Which follows in the
Winks. .
It is poisibte, gentlentee, that some of yon May feel impatient
under this discuSsion ; and I do, indeed, readily acknowledge
that it is wholly unsuited to yetis habits and pursuits ; but excuse
me, when I remind you that you have brought it upon your-
selves; and that it would be highly inconsiktent in any of yOn
who have advocated so essential a change in the system of edu-
cation for the poor, to complain of, or shrink from, the inevitable
consequences of your own proceedings.
Remonstrance and opposition on our part were inevitable
consequences. We sincerely grieve over the divisions and dis-
sentions which could not fail to result therefrom : but the interests
of the truth of God occupy a higher place in Our estimation than
even peace amongst men. If we were in uncertainty as to what
is truth, we might then treat all opinions with indiscriminate
complacency, and speak, or not speak, as seemed most expes
dient. But we are not in uncertainty. Believing the Bible, we'
Must speak as the .Bible; although such speaking always has
been,:and 'must still be, the means of detecting (not producing)
the latent enmity of man's natural mind 'against God's truth ;
and thereby of occasioning division, according to the prediction
of our Saviour, when he said suppose ye that 1 con come to give
peace on earth ? I tell you nay, but rather division, 4-c.—St. Luke,
xii, 51-53.
Notwithstanding this high Scriptural polition, which should
eseeseust.itselr t:s all. and especially to all conscientious mare-
loess oi imule societies, Wu., War
the clergy of the Established Church should persevere in their
opposition to this new system ofeducation.ln your debate on
the 23d of November, we are charged with shameful dereliction
of duty iu not joining it : party zeal and religious bigotry are in-
sinuated as our actuating motives; we are described as your
natural enemies; 'and one eloquent councillor stigmatised our
opposition as the malignant howl of faction. The Sante -speakei
described my 'first letter to you -as 'breathirig infamous persecu-
tion, and Charged me with hurling the thunderbolts of omnipotent
vengeance. These- expressions are strangely characteristic of
liberal gentlemen, who are soloud in the praises of charity and
meekness,. and universal philanthropy. 'I do not quote for the
purpose of retort, but-in justice to myself, to call attention to an
instructive contrast. 1 have never used, or fancied, (and I hope
I never shall,) any such expressions concerning any of you, as
those which hatie been lavishly, and with much applause, heaped
upon one in your Council. Ido not Coinplain: •I merely wish
that our 'intelligent and unprejudiced townsmen may clearly
perceive the true bearing and legitimate application of all future
charges of uncharitableness of temper, and violence of language.
I hope I may here, without offence, quote a passage from Mr.
Blackburn's speech, with which I entirety agree. He said,
"The noise the party made was 'no proof of their numbers, no
proof of their strength ; on the contrary, violence and vehemence
were-pretty plain indications of their want of power."
I shall now, in conclusion, assign some of those reasons which
randeritilnpossiblefor us to sanction this new system.
First,'ashelievefs in the DIVINE COUmAND'to-bring up chil-
dren in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, we cannot
sanction by our co-operation a system which does not ensure
and enforce the reading of the Wotel of God.
Secondly, we cannot sanction this system, because it provides
for the effectual hindering of the children of our poor Roman
Catholic fellow-countrymen, from the possibility of hearing the
Word of God. Their own guides will not, and we, if we join this
system, give a practical pledge that we will not, teach them the
pure. Word of God. This, we cannot do. It is our duty as far as
Beth in us to avail ourselves of all'practicable opportunities, to
teach the Word of God to all men without distinction. If some
Will not receive our instruction, this is not our fault, but we can
never bind ourselves by any act of our own, to refrain from the
Scriptural instruction of any.
sanction Thirdly,:the system,
as ministers of the Eitablished Church, we cannot
which we are solemnly brel'ecda
gees ed
tiot
odpiirieocs tely nvceu
illcaavtee inculcates
edeonctatsikneeisi
with all solemnity before God, and an assembled congregation,
will you be ready, with all faithful,diligence, to bunish and drive
away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary lo God's wind ?
And we have each answered i will, the L01(1 being my helper.
We are not left in any doubt as to some of the doctrines in
question. With equal solemnity we have signed our assent to the
Articles of our Church, one of which says, " The Romisli doc-
trine concerning purgatoty, pardons, worshipping, and adoration,
as well of images as of reliques, as also invocation of saints, is a
jiind'thing.vainly' invented, and grtitinded Upon 7io warranty of
Scripture's,•but rather repugnant' to the Wurd of God."-Article
xxii.
.6,c•Y? to minister the sacraments in a
And another says, "It is a tthhiengp' rrimmtice eephaugrcnha,ntt(itohitihvee
public
rife ofp:Gayoed;sainndthielocciuurs :ohm,
tongue not understood' by the people. "—Article —Article xxiy.
And another says, " Transubstantiation is tepttynopt to the plain
'Words of Scripture, oeerthroweth the stature of a sacrament. and
hath gieen occaiien tontany suPE.nspTinNs."—Article
Yeats school system
.provides for the teaching of these doe-
.
trines-Hhow then can we sanction .it How, upon your own
principlesof private judgment and _liberty of conscience, Can
sou ash. Us to join in it, and so, by our co-eperatioa.give prac-
tical expression to our approbation of it ? How any clergyman
can- do it, we cannot understand; but, for ourselves, we, have
net so learned the English lauguage as to interpret a solemn
pledge to give all diligence to-banish and drive away Roman
Catholic doctrines, into a permission to join ourselves to the
working of such a system. Yon. have aimed at a system in
which you designed ,to include all denominations ;
but light
and darkness cannot be Mended, and therefore, the accomplish-.
went of such a design is impracticable. The old system re-
quired what operated as an exclusion of Roman Catholics.—s
The new system requires what operates as'an exclusion-id' Pros
testants: In reference to the old system, you call the Roman
Catholics conscientiouslyicrupulous. Iry refetente to the new
system you call us factiously bigotted. The -truth is, however,
that we are conscientionsly' scrupulous, although- your liberality;
may not- be large- enough to believe us when we sayso.. Hatt
You retained the former schools exclusively -Protestant for the
Protestant population, and estabtished additional ' schools exs
elusively Heinen Catholic for the Roman Catholic population,
this would hove been on your own principles,-impartial. And,
however; we might hayeanourned over your indiscriminate pati
ronage of truth and error, we would-not have practically inter+
fend. But when you unprotestantise the existing srhools, and
•stiti require us to attend them, and condemn us for not doing
so,-then, although as regards your condemnation we might
well be content to continue silent •andunconcerned, as•tegards
the best interests of the children of the poor, we cannot be
silent, because we cannot be unconcerned.
Be assured, gentlemen, the system which COD have 'introduced
Cannot proceed in peace. The new Pt otestant schonls will soon
he in operation. 'l'he town will present this extraordinary as-
pect : two sets of public schools for the children of the poor,
one Protestant, the other Roman Catholic; the Protestant
schools supported entirely by voluntary contributions—rho Ro-
moman Catholic schools supported entirely by the corporate
funds. And this in a town where the population is three-fourths
Protestant ! It is an anomaly', even on these limes principles.
the permanence of which cannot reasonably be anticipated. It
is true you have at present a considerable:majority on this ques-
tiew-a Majority, however, which was • obtieusly erilaiged he
'treating the sul;ject 'as a turning point of party polities; The
fiSne merits of the'n'nestien involve discussions is hicli are irk-
some to you, and' uith the details of 'which nis ns if you are
i:4fes'sedly, not coliVersant. 'Then 'l6ok at the inajorits' the
'other sidle,'amdiv,i the ltirgy...Whd are, and whicse apiropriate
CimVersant 4itli'lhe merits of this queition.—
WhtPeedee it)4 to One 'the pi* syeti:rit !
GentlettAlkS,'llittie'nfiti—disathOd 'i he y lb( 00.4 ittion
me, by Mr. Rathbone's mention of my name in his printed let-

ter to yout There are other duties'connected with this subject
which I and my brother clergymen will not fail,to continue to
discharge, and, I trust, with all fidelity and affection.-1 am,
gentlemen, with Much respect, your'obeaii.nt servant,. •
FIUGH kNEILE.

St. Jude's, 13th Dec., 1836.

TO THE REV. DOCTORS DICKINSON AND WILSON,
DOMESTIC CHAPLAINS. TO fIIS GRACE THE
ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN.

_ Dublin, Dec. 5, 1836.
,Ray. -GENTLEMEN,—Some time having elapsed since the pub-
li •ation of toy letter to the Archbishop of Dublin, and not hay-
i
it g received any auswer from either his Grace or Dr. Dickinson,
i explanation of their unwarrantable attack upon my charac-
tar, I now consider it my imperative duty to reply to your let-
WI. which first appeared in the Saunders's of the 28th of No-
vetnber • and though, gentlemen, great as has been my cause-
filr retaliation, still I trust that the same spirit which guided my
On in my preceding letter, will influence my conduct in this,
and that no feelings of a personal nature will cause me to de-
scend to acts unbecoming the character of a clergyman or un-
orthy of the name of a Christian. With regard to you, Mr.
Dickiuson, notwithstanding the brevity of your letters, you have
fallen into some palpable errors—errors, perhaps, of no bad in-
tention upon your.part, but which an im partial and
discriminating
public consider as of no trivial importance. In your first epistle
Upon the late inhibition affair, you have asserted that you would
make no further comment either " now or hereafter or, the sub-
ject ;" and yet, with this statement before the public,.and without
my having given you the least provocation, you come forward
with a second rejoinder to stamp upon my character one of your
must unjustifiable accusations. In the saute letter you also
asserted that you would publish the whole of the correspondence
between the Archbishop and Archdeacon Magee, concerning
the inhibition ; and yet, by some unaccountable circumstance,
yfou omitted the principal letter on the occasion. In another of
tour letters, you stated I called upon you to expoStulate as to his
Grace having refused me leave to preach; whereas it was your-
self requested of me to call at your house at an appointed hour,
that you might explain the Archbishop's reasons for having ex-
pressed to others his displeasure at my preaching. at Lucan.
Again, in the same letter, you said when I was examined before
the Archbishop, (which is now nearly three years ago,-.) that I
*as fOund "miserably ignorant of the Scriptures," and conse-
quently then refused to preach ; whereas you told many clergy
men,- whose names will be mentioned if required, that it was for
a deficiency in Greek I was unputronised by his Grace. How
are such contradictions to be reconciled,.Dr. Dickinson? With
regard to I.lr. Wilson, I must say, that I never, in my recollec-.
tints, saw that gentleman but once, about three weeks ago, at
Dr. Dickinson's house; though, from the tenor of his and Dr.
Dickinson's letter it would appear that Dr. Wilson was present
at the only interview I ever had with the Archbishop of Dublin.
Gentlemen, your joint letter says :,-.-- . . ..
" We thinl it right, therefore, to undeceive the public by a
simple statement of facts, which have come under our know-
ledge. The transaction alluded to is, in reality, totally uncon-
nected with anything relating to the Church of Rome, to its
doctrines, or to its members, considered as such.—The Arch-
bishop proceeded exactly in the saute manner in which he, and
it.is to be presumed every other Bishop would, in the case of an
individual brought up either in the Protestant or Roman Catholic
persuasion. Mr. Nolan having, some time ago, appea i edbefore
the Archbishop, applying for some clerical appointment,. was
found on examination nut to possess that knowledge which is
required for a candidate for Holy Orders."
From the perusal of this extract it. would appear. that Dr.
Wilson was present during my interview with, the Archbishop ;
whereas the contrary is the fact. How will Dr. Wilson apolo-
kise for this description ? As for the other part of the extract
which says—" I was filtind; upon examination, not to pusses:
that knowledge which is required in a candidate for lady orders,"
I must say these expressions are a great falling off from the un-
justifiable attack made by the Archbishop and Dr. Dickinson
against use, as being miserably ignorant of the Scriptures; and
all this for my not having understood the meaning of a Greek
word!! ! In another part, gentlemen, of your joint letter, you
I say :

--"" In an interview with us lately, Mr. Nolan admitted that he
was ignorant of the Scriptures at the period of the examination,
and that the Archbishop had acted rightly in refusing him leave
to preach. He added, that since that period he had acquired
religious knowledge. Of this the Archbishop had no opportu-
nity of judging."
Now, gentlemen, I will not call this a wilful suppression of
the truth; but I must beg leave to rectify your mistake upon
the subject. I admitted that I did not understand the meaning
of the Greek word, at which the Archbishop exclaimed at my
examination, Oh ! Mayuooth ! Maynooth !" But such an
admission is different from what is generally maant by the ex-
pressions, " of a person being miserably ignorant of the Scrip-
tures, in my examination before the Archbishop, since he never
proposed to me a question even as to a knowledge of the truth
of. the Scriptures, nor as to any historical, allegorical, or any
other defiutte passage in the word of God ? There is another
point, gentlemen, upon which you seem to have misunderstood
use, at my interview with both of you. You say that I also'
admitted " that the Archbishop had acted rightly in refusing
toe leave to preach." Such an Unqualified assertion as this,
gentlemen, carries with it its own.refutation; for how could it
be, supposed I admitted that.the Archbishop was right in .pro-
hibiting me from preaching, the very circumstance I most
heartily condemn, and upon the injudiciousness of which I
called (as Dr. Dickinson remarks) upon him to expostulate.
What I.admitted to, you, gentlemen, was this—Lsaid that if
the Archbishup examined me in the Scriptures, and found me
deficient in them. he would then have acted rightly in refusing
me leave to preach.
With regard,to you, Dr. Wilson, I must say I would be sorry
to speak disreputably of you; however, as an apology for your
forgetfulness on the occasion alluded to becomes requisite, I
consider it necessary to remark, that you have arrived at that
period of time when the human intellect becomes obscured, and
when a forgetfulness of facts and a want of strict distinction as
to circumstances become necessary consequences of advanced
life. The justice of my remark may be easily conceived from a
recital of the following fact:—When I mentioned to you, Dr.
Wilson, at our interview, that I heartily forgave the last recep-
tion I met with front the Archbishop, but that I could not forget
it, you instantly and unceremoniously pronounced such conduct
inconsistent; as much as to say, that a person could not forgive
a thing without also forgetting it, or that forgiving and forget-
ting are the Caine! ! ! The circumstances of your beinjdomes,
tic chaplain to the Archbishop, and your having lately received
some distirwei4ea --I". qOacial
savour trom his tirrace, cannot hear (I presume) upon the pre-
sent subject. With regard to the part of your letter which says
. that the ArchbiShop had no opportunity of judging of the re-
knowledge I acquired," I cannot, conceive how you, Dr.
Dickinson, would iecur to such in assertion, especially as your-
self was finced to adMit at coy interview with you and
Wil-
son 1 acquired that religious 'knowledge; whilst his Grace must
also have known the same_ circumstance Irons my writings, my
sermons, and the many testimonials his Grace received from
zealous and truly Christian clergymen. In another part of
Vont. letter you assert that the Archbishop 'marked out for Mr.
Nolan a course of study. Pray, what were the books, or what
the course he marked out for ine ? Tbe Archbishop'salirections
to me on 'the occasion were nothing more nor less than a cold
and a peremptory command to study the Greek, which circum-
stance (without mentioning the others before adduced) suf-
ficiently demonstrates that it was for what his Grace considered
a deficiency in the Greek, and not for "a miserable ignorance
of the Scriptures," I was then discountenanced. Your letter
concludes with what the world esteems an indirect and miserable
apology to Dr. Murray and the Roinish priests, for having pro-
nout.ced a convert from their body as " miserably ignorant of
the Scriptures." But now, Dr. Dickinson, I call upon you and
,the Archbishop to lay before the public the supposed scriptural
examination for which you pronounced me as "miserably igno-
rant of the Scriptures." Can you mention any scriptural
turical facts, any scriptural parables or allegories, or, in fine,
any'scriptural passage you then preposed-to rite ? No, You can-
pot.: for you are well aware that it was a few quibbles upon
Roniish,lnfallibility and a reference to 'a Gieek passage that
constituted my examination, which occurred three years ago,
and for which you now publicly upbraid me as being miserably
deficient of the Scriptures.
In conclusion, gentlemen, allow use to say that my case is no
longer a private one. It has long since become.one ptiblici
jii-
ris. The eyes of many are on it, And earnestly look to its
tis-
sue. Though an humble individual, a dangerous blow has been
aimed-1 will not say intentionally—and a grievous wound
sought to be inflicted upon the holy cause of religion. Hun-
dreds of Roman Catholics who were wavering in their faith,
and pursuing the road of religious inquiry, now halt in their
course, and stand alarmed at your conduct. The dread of per-
secution from those whom they intended to leave on one hand,
and the tear of similar treatment from those with whom they
were about to unite on the other, must naturally torture the wa-
vering mind, and leave it in the most miserable state of tearful
.suspense. Gentlemen, it is. time that personal feeliuog should
yield to a sense of public utility; come forward, then, and en-
-deavour to make some reparation fin the injuries inflicted, .not
so much upon me as an individual, as upon the cause of reli-
-gion. I should in charity hope that yours is not the perverie
'ambition to resemble those whoare the mere nominal professors
,of the faith—who would embrace the gospel' with one hand. and
stab its religion with the other; or who would endeavour to
,persuade the world by their words, that they love the truth,
whilst their actions aim at the extinction of its most vital prin-
ciples. Hoping, gentlemen, that the Lord may direct you in
,vour intentions, I remain your much persecuted,-but still your
huMble well-wisher in Christ, L. J. NOLAN.