The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-03-03 00:00:00

NATIQNAL EDUCATION.

LETTER FROM THE REV. THOMAS DREW, INCUMBENT OF
CHRIST CHURCH, BELFAST, TO THE REV. F. F. TRENCH,
RECTOR OF CLOUGHJORDAN.
• RESPECTED BROTHER.—This solemn subject which so
deeply occupies our minds, and the minds of thousands at
this eventful time, must be approached, with caution, pro-
tracted meditation and prayer. The eyes of many are upon
us ministers of the Redeemer ; and so, when we write to
each other, God and man expect that we shall write " soberly,
honestly, and advisedly. I graiefully acknowledge that you
have set me an excellent example.—your tone and temper are
additional reasons why, in dependence on the strength of the
Lord, I ahould seek to persuade you, and, if possible, to
enlist, you on the side of what in my heart 1 believe to be that
of God and of his church, and of the good of the millions of
this our native land.
The Searcher of hearts knows how I deplore the necessity
of lifting up a warning voice. There exists not within the
battalions of my own church a brother whose secession from
the platform of universal scriptural education I would de-
plore so much, as I do the separation of the Rev. Dr. Cooke
from the friends with whom so long and so powerfully he
testified against the board. His great mind cannot, through
grace, be long in error. Alas ! precedents for error are too
many ! but it is no disgrace for a man to follow a precedent
of retrogradation where conscience and reflection send him
back upon the position which may have been too rashly and
confidingly forsaken. The Synod of 1832 appointed a com-
mittee to treat with government, but the labours of that
committee were subsequently rendered null and void by the
Synod. The committee had made a mistake—the mistake
which it made was (tacitly, at least,) reprehended by the
Synod,—the shrewd policy of the government was penetrated
and the " snare was broken." Here is precedent for retreat
in time. I wish sincerely for such repudiation and retrogra-
dation now ; above all, I wish that he, the noblest and the
bravest of the sons of the Synod, should not be numbered
amidst the armies of the aliens : a moral pressure may have
weighed down a vigorous mind, but its elasticity was pro-
verbial, and its rugged honesty the theme of millions. I
WILL HOPE TO THE LAST.
I protest, solemnly, that one great desire of my mind is to
drag back from the Achanistic and contaminating defile-
ments of these negociations, every one known and dear to
me. Hence, I feel respectfully and fraternally an interest in
you. With piety of the purest character, with motives ever
unquestioned even by those who deprecated your public
measures, and with the command which you possess of a
public organ—(The Christian Journal)—the opposition of
such a brother as you, is to be deplored. May I then ask
your deepest attention to such sentiments as I humbly offer
for your patient consideration.
I trust you will thus be enabled to see that a junction with
the Board is, under any circumstances, to be deprecated ; and
that it is not possible to join it without (to use your own words)
an implied approval of its constitution, its principles, and
its conduct."
And I must say, that, in offering these sentiments, I am
far from being alone. The brethren are Now enlightened
upon the real state of the case, nor has one letter appeared
controverting one argument laid down by me. The declara-
tion of the Church Education Society for Ireland is a timely
and dignified document ; and I trust it may be generally cir-
culated. From every quarter testimonies are accumulating,
and as an individual, I feel most grateful for those which
have been forwarded by the brethren for the strengthening
of my hands.
I must acquaint you, that, in the beginning of this contro-
versy, I felt it my duty to apply to the Lord Bishop of Down
and Connor, laying before his lordship my grounds for alarm
lest the inauspicious movement of so influential a body as
that of the venerable Synod of Ulster should be imitated by
any of my brethren, and entreating his council. I was the
rather strengthened in my determination to make this appeal,
as I found that several of my brethren were already dazzled
and overcome by the specious prospects and pretensions held
forth in public statements made by individuals, as well as by
the comments put forward by the unguarded portion of the
press.
Though not at liberty to publish the contents of my
honoured Diocesan's reply, (but which was, however, freely
communicated by his express permission to the clergy,) I
may venture, I hope without infringing on my duty towards
him, to state that I feel deeply grateful for his kind notice of
my appeal.
The object of my anxiety was thus satisfied in one quarter,
but the great mass of the Christian public was never to be
appealed to. Connected, as I have been, with three great
Scriptural educational societies, and employed by them to
advocate their objects, I felt that silence might he misinter-
preted, and such a neglect of duty might be fatal in many
places where, heretofore, I was permitted to testify against
the constitution and workings of the Board of National Edu-
cation.

As Belfast occupies but a very small share in this question,
and its real effects are connected with many places far
removed from this industrious locality ; further, as the three
other provinces, and even England, were to be warned, (even
though some localinterests and friendships might be hazarded
in the process of my labours), I felt it an irresistible duty to
appeal, for the sake of the Christian public, to our brother
of Liverpool. The result has been blessed of God, and in
a time when " star after star decays," the honoured name,
and sanctified influence of Hugh M`Neile, have readily been
proffered to the " help of the Lord against the mighty."
Not only has Mr. M`Neile replied, but, as I have stated,
a host of Christian friends, lay and clerical, have come to my
assistance. Many are loudly calling upon me to continue
my appeals ; but my peculiar duties forbid me to do so ; and
my feeble advocacy has now become the less needful, for not
only has the conservative portion of the press, Evening Mail,
Statesman, &c. come to our aid, but the Rev. Dr. Martin, of
Killishandra, and other eminent men, (my superiors in office,
intellect, and influence), are vigorously entering the field.
I am satisfied that the thing now most needed is epistolary
agitation upon this subject. The more words are written
and read, the more the minds of men will become enlightened,
The simple fact is, that thousands of Protestants have, in
times past, only skimmed the surface of principles and
arrangements. They were wont to hang upon the character
and eloquence of presumedly faithful pastors, and the painful
investigation of the nature of principles, or of the tendency
of regulations, rarely became matter of study. Hence,
though it is the easiest thing in the world for those accus-
tomed to write for the press, some to mystify a subject, or
others to cajole their readers ; yet the repetition of plain and
honest explanations has generally the wholesome effect of
setting the public right.
Dear 13rother,—We have two classes of people to reason
with. I limit these classes to the honest, prOus, fattionleSS
people who, fearing God, are not unwilling to be convinced
by sound and simple reasoning. Of course, I cannot hope
to include among them those who merely look to the ecclesr-
astical interests of a party, or to the minikin considerations
of boroughmongering.
I am fully satisfied that throughout this earth there is a
growing and consistent body of such people as really seek to
do right. We ought to communicate, by letter and conver-
sation with such. Already many are avowing themselves on
our side—already some of our greatest landed proprietors
have made inquiry for themselves, and are determined to take
their stand upon the side of consistency, the Bible, and their
country's real and only good.
The first of these classes is formed from amongst the
straightforward, clear-headed followers of Mr. IVl`Neile's
school, who, believing that it was and is a part of the " Board"
system to "promote instruction in what is falsehood, they
consequently never could even parley with it." The avowed
design and original constitution of the Board cut them off
" from any approach towards even negotiation with it."
(Vide his reply.)
A second class object not to the constitution of the Board,
but think that "good could be made out of it ;" that its rule
could be so modified, or at least such special advantages could
be secured to themselves and their particular Church, as to
permit them to become the adherents of the system. With
regard to the first class, the reply of Mr. M`Neile contains
irrefragable testimony on the subject which should satisfy
their minds, and indeed every unbiassed mind. There is such
a manifestation of generous Catholic feeling in one part of
his letter, that I cannot help quoting it .
" My view of the Irish Education Board system has, from
the first, been very simple, and such as rendered all discus-
sion, in detail, wholly superfluous, so far as my own convic-
tions were concerned.
" It was, and is, a part of that system to promote instruc-
tion in what I believe to be falsehood : consequently, I never
could even parley about terms of connexion with it.
"If any system of education encourage instruction in
Popery or Socinianism, it is vain to plead, in its behalf, that
it also encourages instruction in Christianity.
" 'Be not partakers of other men's sins." Look not
every man on his own things,-but every man also on the things
of others.' These are Christian exhortations which condemn
all insulated selfishness. If the Board offered me the unre-
stricted use of the Bible and the prayer-book for my own
schools, I could not so exclusively look upon my own things,
and so uncharitably overlook the things of others, as to give
the sanction (however insignificant) of my name and co-
operation to a system which must equally countenance the
unrestricted use of the mass-book, and the Unitarian new
version of the Testament."
Now, as many men of the second class to which I have re-
ferr, ed may not be able to see the truth of such conclusions,
or (like yourself) are fondly expecting that good can in any
wise come from the Board, it may be useful to enlarge upon
the subject. and to treat of principles and regulations in such
wise as to show, that, let the system be viewed as it may, its
principles and workings are fatal to the promotion of vital
Christianity in the land. To view this aright, let us say what
kind of grants should be given, and to whom. And here I
broadly state, that the Church might take a free grant from
THE STATE, for the purposes of education, provided this grant
be entrusted to orthodox hands, the state merely obtaining se-
curity that the education shall be scriptural, and that the ex-
penditure of the funds shall be duly accounted for : receiving
money thus, for educational purposes, the church would not be
a party to the injury of others, nor to the propagation of error.
The State, however, has now placed funds in the hands of a
number of individuals of the most discordant and mutually
adverse tenets. An able article in Frazer's Magazine for
this month shows how absurdly such an union is formed, and
by what mutual compromise only the Commissioners can
hope to work together. ' It is impossAble to accept aid from
this anamalous body without compromise : in fact, the State,
in the formation of this Board, have become the leading of-
fenders. The State never possessed—a PROTESTANT State
never possessed)—such a power as to give education without
true religion ; if they transmit, or affect to transmit, such a
power to others, they do so at the expense of their fealty to
God. I sincerely believe that the State is not permitted by
God to indulge any parent with the gift of a merely secular
education, that is to say—the State must not give the parent
his option " whether he would take that education for his
child which offers Scriptural instruction, or whether he would
have for his child secular instruction only ?" If God's word
is to be consulted and revered, the State can offer nothing
short of Scriptural instruction; it must say to the parent,
"We offer you education based on the Word of God—that
Word must be freely intermingled with your child's educa-
tion,—you may refuse this, but you do so at your peril,—
other education we dare not offer
I think it to be a fatal concession involved in the third pro-
position of the Synod, and I merely allude to it, because
some might be led to adopt it without careful investigation,—
" That all children, WHERE PARENTS AND GUARDIANS SO
DIRECT, shall daily read the Holy Scriptures during the pe-
riod appointed (i. e. when secular business is concluded, and
Roman Catholics afforded no obstruction in withdrawing.")
This is a concession which neither. State, Churchman, or
Presbyterian is at liberty to offer. I find one of my respected
correspondents, a clergyman of Down diocese, has noticed
this so forcibly, that I hope to be excused for quoting his
excellent sentiments :
" And is the view of Scriptural education reduced to this ?
Instruction in the Bible is not considered necessary—the
Bible is not put into the hands of a single scholar—the school'
is not furnished with a single Bible, until the parents of the
children require it. Does not the Rev. know, that
the love of the Bible is not natural,—that the value which
nine-tenths of Protestant parents show for the Bible is more
a thing they have received by tradition from their fathers,
than any sterling fixed principle, the result perhaps of habit
or custom ? and let it but grow with a custom, (which, under
the fostering care of government, it cannot fail to do in course
of time,) to exclude the Bible from our schools, and our
Protestant community will be as willing to dispense with the
boon as the Romanists ; and then what will avail all that the
Rev. so dearly purchased, viz., the liberty of parents
to require that their children should read the .Scriptures.
Does my eye deceive me, or do I see the cloven foot of the
voluntary demon peeping out beneath this principle ?"
It is thus plain that the State is not at liberty to offer such
a concession; nor even, if the duty of the state were problemati-
cal, is a Christian man at liberty to receive such a boon,
which my excellent brother has thus proved would work out
such deadly and overwhelming consequences.
I now desire to notice that point, of all others, on which
most mystery and confusion of ideas appear to rest at pre-

sent. You state in your letter (and the board gives you leave
to state " That the Bible now may be admitted"—or, to use
the words which are generally put forward, "THE BIBLE is
FEEE DURING SCHOOL HOURS." Now, if the public will
only inquire what is meant by this term SCHOOL HOURS,
they will at once see that THE BIBLE IS NOT FREE. For-
merly, the times for separate religious instruction were not
included in "stated school hours," now they "re; during
several of the school hours the Bible must not be read,—
and when it is about to be read, all those parents who do not
require it (Roman Catholics practically ' included) must
ivithdraw : this is the new thing under a new name. Here
the public. require to be particularly cautious lest any wrong
impression shduld go forth ; let the board speak for itself :
in page 17 of the Digest of Evidence, published by.the board,
we find this explanation given !—" There has been a good
deal of discussion respecting what is meant by school hours.
Conductors of sehools may call the HOURS FOR SCRIPTURE
READING SCHOOL HOURS OR NOT !!!"'

So, if the Bible cannot be introduced until the secular
business is ended,—if no Protestant, even then, is to read
unless his parent require it,—if no Roman Catholic is to read
at all (which will be the case) what becomes of tire assertion,
" That the Bible is free during school hours !"
It is plain, then,' that in progres of time the very Pro-
testant children may themselves become strangers to the
Word of God by the workings of the system; in the mean
time, let us contemplate how pitiable has the case become of
our unhappy Romanist brethren.
Mark, I pray you, the injury done to the Roman Catholics
by this succumbency of Protestants ! Formerly in all Pro-
.

testant schools, whether of the church, Hibernian Society,
or Synod (previous to the concordat with the board), the
Holy Scriptures were open to all—yea, as was most just, all
children, without any exception whatever, were obliged to
submit to instruction in the Holy Scriptures—what a deplo-
rablechange will now take place in all these schools hereto-
fore of the classes I name, which may, through any delusion
of perversity, become united with the board !—the Roman
Catholic will now have the Bible plucked from his hand!
I will make this plainer still. There are at this moment, in
the scriptural schools of the London Hibernian Society, in
ULSTER ALONE, 740 schools, in these (hear it ye lovers of the
board !) are seventeen thousand, two hundred, and ninety-six
Roman Catholic children; I do not hesitate to say, that, if
by any powerful influence, these schools may be transferred
to the board, the Bible would immediately_be wrested from

the hands of seventeen thousand Roman Catholic children
in Ulster alone unless their parents come forward and insist
upon their being taught the Holy Scriptures. Alas ! who
does not know that, in Ireland, the utunost a Roman Catho-
lic parent may do is, to connive at his. child's reading the
Bible ?—who ever dreamt of a Roman Catholic going pub-
licly to a school-house and demanding that his child should
be permitted to read it ?
I confess, the more I reflect upon it, the more I shrink
back with horror at the idea of being a party to the expulsion
of 17,000 copies of the Bible from the schoolS of Ulster. If
this may be done at one blow, how must such a system work
for coming years ? And now, AT A WORD, we demolish the

enquiry made by yOu and many worthy men, namely—" what
is the difference between receiving a grant from the Boarc
and a grant from the State ?" I SAY THERE IS DIFFER-

ENCE: Take money from the State, and, as in former days
with other societies, you teach God's word freely to all.
Take moneyfrom the Board, and you—people of Ulster !
become party to a bond more fatal to the souls of the Roman-
ists than St. Bartholomew's day was to the bodies of 60,000
Protestants. When the State appoints bishops, bishops are
appointed to teach truth unmixed with error, yea, sworn
are they to banish error and false doctrine, They do not
take Jhese appointments pledging themselves to be silent as
to Romish errors, but as sworn to "speak the truth in love,"
and to labour for the souls of Roman Catholics sedulously
and fearlessly : not so those who take money or office from
the Board ; not one shilling is transmitted unless a letter be
forwarded, in which a pledge is broadly given, that secular
teaching shall ,be distinct from the reading of the Holy
Scripture, and that when the Scriptures are read, no child
shall be present except by permission of his parent ; and fur-
ther, a pledge must be given to let the Roman Catholic chil-
dren go " ELSEWHERE," to the priest's house, or to his cha-
pel, as the case may be ! The Protestant bishop, in his dio-
cese, preaches to all without limitation ; the chaplain, in the
jail gives no pledge of witholding truth from any ; the church
institutions of Ireland (Association for Discountenancing
Vice, 8:;c.) received money in like manner unfettered by one
restriction, but all you who now bow down to the Board, are
solemnly, universally, and legally pledged (vary and change
words as men may) to deprive millions of the Bible, and to
" ENCOURAGE" error and the votaries of error.
Let not any doubting, easy-minded individuals suppose, if
the poor Roman Catholic child does not obtain the Bible,

that notwithstanding, he will have an opportunity afforded to
him of obtaining some useful religious instruction from the
ordinary school books as supplied by the Board, and used in
the hours (called for distinction sake) secular; one may say,
surely the school books will contain some of the saving
truths of the Gospel ; ' I boldly answer—No ! remember
who are the compilers. Would the Socinian admit any allu-
sion to be made (in these school books) to original sin, the
converting influence of the Holy Spirit and to the Divinity of
Jesus ? Would the Romanist prelate or councillor admit any
reference to Luther's article of a standing or falling church
(justification by faith only ?) Would even a hint be afforded
of the error of certain doctrines—purgatory—transubstantia-
tion—worshipping of saints and images, &c. The idea is
absurd—neither would truth be propounded, nor error dis-
claimed.

Protestants ! what an " insulated selfishness" would it be
in us if we thus proceed to wrest the Bible from the young
Romanist ? But worse remains :—not only by joining the
Board do we take the " bread of life" from him, but corn-
Mend " a poisoned chalice to his lips."
And here I beg to refer to the language of a learned and
experienced brother of the Droinore diocese, who thus, in
his le .ter to me, writes:—
" I am also sure that it is of no small moment to ourselves,
that we resolutely decline being subscribaig parties to any
compact which hands over the children of the Roman Ca-
tholics to the unmitigated instruction of their priests. No
doubt we are unable to prevent the teaching of the Popish
doctrine; but we ought never voluntarily to agree that op-
portunities of such are to be afforded, while the only effi-
cient-corrective of all false doctrine and evil practice is sys-
tematically held back : consequently, I cannot see how any
clergyman of our church, in consistency with principles which
ought to be stringently obligatory on his conscience, can be
an applicant ,to, the Board.';
A respected brother of the diocese of Derry writes thus:—
" I would say that the strong ground of your letter is the
point that Popery is calculating, and permanently the gainer
by the Synod',; arrangements: Theyhave become parties to
the recognised teaching of error om a broad scale. They
cannot .say they are not responsible for that, inasmuch as
they do not include it in their articles of surrender. They
know that " Damns, petimus vicissim" must be the basis of
any accommodation, and that the license to bring in their
own catechism includes, by implication, the licensing of
Murray to bring in his; and the amount of the evil recog-
nised is to the quantum of good procured (if good will be
procured), as the millions of Romanists are to the thousands
of Protestants ; and the proportion of the grant made to one
party is to the small amount of that made to the other."
This point cannot be made too plain. From the beginning
the Boat d has adhered steadily to this teaching of error with
truth—they started with this deterinination ; and however
words may be twisted, and modes of expression varied, the
Board proceeds, just as it ever did, to ENCOURAGE the teach-
ing of error. Say what we may, it we become adherents of
the Board, we are aiding and abetting in the propagatiou of
error.

Thus, in the " Plan and Progress" of the Board, as: pub-
lished in their " Digest of Evidence," and which was pre-
sented to inc at their office, Marlborough-street, Dublin
(page 14), it is stated " That the commissioners will also per-
mit and ENCOURAGE the clergy (i.e., Roman Catholic Priests
and Protestant Ministers) to give religious instruction."
Further (aide same page), " The books to be used in time
of separate religious instruction must be under the sanction
of the Board, and must have the APPROBATION of those
members of the Board (Murra) , Blake, &c.), who are of the
same religious persuasion with the child for whose use they
are intended !!"

Now connect this with Dr. Cooke's ' own testimony—it
appears from his letter to the Ulster Times, of Feb. 1, 1510,
that he and the deputation were actually called upon by the
Lord Lieutenant and Commissioners to say, " that the Synod
will afford every REASONABLE FACILITY" for the children
of " such parents (as object,) receiving such instruction
elsewhere, as they may think proper." The Doctor pru-
dently, as he would show, had this resolution altered into
" OFFERING no obstruction." But let the alteration be what
it may, the result is perniciously one and the same deplorable
result !

Now, brethren, it is impossible for us to he connected with
this hoard—its combination of Commissioners, (holding such
various creeds)—its principles—its workings all forbid us ,
but there is one view brought forward by one of my reverend
correspondents so awful and so plain, that 1 feel bound to
submit it to you, with sincere respect. It certainly never
was so presented to me before, nor do I see how it can be
answered. •

From a Clergyman in the Diocese of Dronzore.
" Now, dear and reverend brother, I take it as a thing
that must be granted, that if any one agrees to any part of
the system, he gives his consent to the entire ; and from this
premise I deduce, and distinctly declare, that any clergyman
of the Church of England who does so, is morally guilty of
PERJURY. For he breaks the most solemn of all oaths,_ his
'
ordination vows. By that latter part of the system, the Pro-
testant clergyman and the Popish priest are placed on equal
terms, the Gospel is no more esteemed than the dogmas of
Dens. Truth is ranked no higher than falsehood, and all the
refuges of Popish lies. And he who has sworn to 'banish and
drive away all erroneous doctrines,' takes the priest of Rome
by the right hand, and gives him permission to teach those
very doctrines he knows in his conscience are damnable and
idolatrous, and subversive of the salvation of souls. Nay
more, he surrenders his christian liberty, and cannot, must
not, dare not, teach his own children the truths of the blessed
Gospel, or bring them to Christ, till he has given permission
to the priest to bind the conscience, the body and soul of
those unhappy children, whose only misfortune it is to be
born within the pale of that anti-christian church."
I would close this portion of my letter, adopting the pithy
and pointed argument of a respected brother of the Arch-
diocese of Dublin. He says—
" I would ask your attention to the pith of the question.
Does the rejection of a religious education (granting it ex-
ists) by the-Roman Catholics, release a-professedly Christian
nation, or the faithful clergy of this land, from the obligation
of constantly offering it—and can we be constantly offering
it when we cease to offer it, and give them a mere literary
education without it ?"

In conclusion—l beg humbly to say, if in my first letter I
sought for relief for my own mind, now I have cause to bless
God for such aid and satisfaction as have been afforded by
many of my beloved brethren, several of whom I have never
met in this world, but whose names are known of all as
" faithful and beloved." To our brother of Liverpool, and
to all my correspondents, I return my grateful thanks. My
first letter is to this hour unanswered. The Board is un-
changed—unchanged in constitution and unchanged in prin-
ciples ; secular instruction is still separated from religious
instruction, and error is encouraged as freely as truth ; the
Bible is not a book of the school—it is not free at any time
to all; the Romanist is to be deprived of his last hope of
ever reading God's Word ; the school-house cannot be
opened for any preacher who would dare to be valiant for
the " faith once delivered to the saints ;"—the armies of
the witnesses for the truth are diminished, but the remnant
will not, I trust, be forsaken. The " Church of England and
Ireland," though left alone now, holds before God and man
a high and holy position ; impoverished by repeated spolia-
tion, frowned upon by the State, her resources crippled, her
allies withdrawn, her children reviled as bigots or laughed
down as incapables—but " the Lord reigneth !" May she
still be (as she has long been permitted to be) a bulwark
against foes, and a protection to all Dissenting Churches
against the fearful and swelling surges of Roman power and
perseverance. _ . .

It is now but as a dream to me that I have heard the va-
liant testimony of those of other churches uniting with us
in this cause, which is now left to us, and us only. MAY A
PAUSE AND RE-CONSIDERATION TAKE PLACE ! I feel in
my heart love springing up for the Church of Knox, which
had its sufferings for the truth with the Church of Crantner
and Ridley. I feel we may yet hope for better things.
Arise, 0 God, in thy might—pour thy Spirit as a sunbeam,
and dispel every cloud—restore light and peace and union,
nor let Satan triumph in our divisions !
And now, dear brother, farewell! It will gladden my
heart if I have been in anywise instrumental in.exhibiting to
you various circumstances, and affording you certain expla-
nations, of which I am satisfied your honest head and pious
heart were utterly unsuspecting. To all my kind corre.:
spondents, I again return my grateful thanks, desiring the
blessing of God to abide with you and them for ever !
THOMAS DREW,
Incumbent of Christ Church, Belfast.