The Daubenies, Trimmers, and Spries, with the strange mystical personage who lectures against education at our Institutions, being now found quite unequal to the office of raising this alarm, recourse has been had to the greater engines of the Church:And first appears Mr Professor Marsh a person adorned with various and weighty titles, and occupying the Divinity Chair in one of the Universities celebrated too, we have no doubt, for his attainments in science, which have placed him in the Royal Society distinguished, it may be presumed, among his reverend brethren, for a peculiar devotion to the duties of the clerical character and the service of the Church, whose dangers seem uppermost in his thoughts, but, unquestionably, a good deal better known to the world as the author of a bulky ministerial pamphlet in defence of the war, than in any of his other capacities. This very circumstance, however, of his political services, the noted fact of his being a favoured writer in the interests of the court, and, consequently, of his belonging to the class of safe and flourishing politicians,-pointed him out as the proper person to begin this new charge. A sort of dignitary of the Church-one designated for its most snug, if not most splendid gifts a Prebendary, if not a Bishop elect-would not only lead the cry with authority, but would show the way to others, inducing them to fill up the concert, by setting before them the edifying example of a flourishing man devoted to this work. When Mr Professor Marsh walks in this way, it is safe to follow is a thought that has probably passed already in the mind of many a score in our universities and parsonages.

From this quarter, therefore, hath, proceeded one sermon, preached of course in St Paul's, and sundry letters, forming a little volume--besides whatever he may have contributed, in priyate, to the columns of the Treasury Journals. For, these respectable and enlightened publications no sooner heard that a new cry of the Church in danger was abroad, than, probably without waiting for instructions, they took it to be clear that it was in favour of their employers, and must needs turn to some account. To the sermon, however, we now confine our attention, observing only, that it contains whatever the other deal ers in clamour have got up for the present occasion; and that the best and most moderate of these, is certainly Mr Bowyer. We must now beg our readers not to be alarmed at the notion, that we are going to plunge into a theological controversy, for which we have neither the learning nor the gall!-nor let it be thought that we are disposed to treat irreverently any thing which comes from the ministers of religion in the discharge of their holy office. When the pulpit is kept pure by the teachers

T

of

of the Gospel, and the people only receive from it the blessings of religious instruction, we behold them with reverence, and approach with dread the combined sanctities of the place, the persons and the doctrines. But when it is perverted to common secular purposes, (a prostitution become almost habitual since the French revolution);-when we find it made a mere rostrum 2. from whence the vulgar effusions of political faction may be dis tributed, under the disguise of Christian homilies, and the multitude cajoled with the jobs of a party, by its emissaries in the pious garb of spiritual pastors;-then we view the ground as no longer holy; the gods are evoked; the priests are gone; and there remains only an ordinary political theatre, filled with the noisy passions of the forum,-but more ignoble, from the falseness of the arts with which it is thinly covered over.

The sermon of Professor Marsh is intended as a recommendation of Dr Bell's plan in preference to Mr Lancaster's, on this single ground, that Dr Bell is a churchman, and Mr Lancaster a sectary. This consideration comprises the whole of the superiority which he claims for that reverend person. He enters into no comparative statement of the efficacy or economy of the two systems, in teaching children the different branches of edu cation. He does not pretend that Mr Lancaster's is incompatible with every additional article taught by Dr Bell's. He can not affect to think, that schools might not be arranged on Mr Lancaster's, where the Creed, as well as the Bible, should be taught: He cannot hold out Dr Bell's plan as having any sort. of superiority in teaching the Liturgy, any more than he can maintain that it has a monopoly of prayer-books. His whole objections, therefore, are really extrinsic to the two systems and their merits they rest simply on the admitted fact, that the author of the one is a Quaker, and the author of the other a person in holy orders. We have said, that schools might be established in every parish on Mr Lancaster's plan;-we may add, established by the Committee of the New Institution; and that, in every such school, the Liturgy of the Church of England may be taught. But, suppose the question respected Mr Lancaster's own school, in which, as a dissenter, he cannot teach the Liturgy-It is not pretended that he teaches any thing else; he gives his boys no creed of his own: How, then, do his pupils receive injury in their spiritual concerns? Such of them as belong to Episcopalian families learn to read their prayerbook such as belong to disscuting parents learn to read their hymn-book while all of them learn Christianity by reading constantly their Bible. This is true, unless Professor Marsh shall be able to prove, that a child taught to read all the words ex

3

in the English language, is incapable of reading the Liturgy without separate and additional instructions; and unless he can show, that the actual daily perusal of the Scriptures disqualifies children for learning the doctrines of the English Church.

But we must look somewhat more minutely into the Profes sor's Sermon, and see whether he has ever taken the trouble to understand the subject upon which he is preaching, and whether he does not, after the manner of superficial and hasty talkers, furnish, himself, the answers to his own objections. We shall take leave to extract the passage which forms the groundwork, as it does the beginning, of his discourse; and we presume to say, that it affords a very complete refutation of the doctrines. maintained by him..

Our Reformers deemed it expedient, at the first Christian office of which we partake, the Office of Baptism, to introduce an Exhortation to the godfathers and godmothers of the baptized infant, not only reminding them of the "solemn vow, promise, and profession," which they had made in his name, but requiring, at their hands, shall be able to learn" them. It is required at their hands, that he learn, not only the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments, but the CREED," and all other things which a Christian ought to know and be lieve to his soul's health. "They are then admonished" to take care that this child be brought to the Bishop, to be confirmed by him, so soon as he can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments in the vulgar tongue, and be further instructed in the CHURCH CATECHISM set forth for that purpose." Immediately after the forms of Baptism, this catechism is inserted as a part of the liturgy; and is there termed, "An instruction to be learnt of every person before he be brought to be confirmed by the bishop." In the rubrics annexed to it, the curate of every parish is enjoined to instruct and examine openly in the church, on Sundays and holidays," so many children of his parish, sent unto him, as he shall think convenient, in some parts of this catechism." Parents are enjoined to send their children, and d masters even their servants and apprentices (if they have not learnt their catechism) "obediently to hear and be ordered by the curate, until such time as they have learnt all that is here pointed for them to learn. "

that the child be instructed in those things, so soon as s he s

ap

From this short statement it appears, that our Reformers themselves laid at least the foundation for a system of religious education, to be conducted under the superintendance of the parochial clergy. And to afford additional security that this religious education be conducted according to the doctrines of the Church of England; it?s was enacted, by the seventy-seventh canon, that every schoolmaster should not only be licensed by the bishop of the Diocese, but pre-t viously subscribe to the Liturgy and Articles. And this canon was soufrmed by the act of uniformity which requires every schools fo

master,

3

master, both to obtain a license from the bishop, and to declare that he will" conform to the liturgy of the Church of England, as now by law established." Lastly, by the seventy-ninth canon, all schoolmasters are enjoined, not only to use the catechism, but to bring their scholars to their parish CHURCH.

The plan therefore of conducting a Church of England educa tion is very clearly prescribed, and prescribed also by authority. Now the liturgy, the chief of this authority, is confirmed by the law of the land: it is the repository of the religion" by law estab. lished" and the religion by law established, must always be regarded as the national religion. But in every country the national education must be conducted on the principles of the national religion. For a violation of this rule would involve, not only an absurdity, but a principle of self-destruction; it would counteract by authority what it enjoins by authority.' p. 4-5.

The Professor afterwards admits, that the Toleration acts allow Dissenters to teach without restraint, and even to teach their own religious opinions; but he adds, that "no such acts apply to the members of the Establishment. Indeed," says he,

it would be preposterous in men to plead an act of toleration, who have solemnly bound themselves to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England."

{

Now, can any thing be more obvious than the sense of the passages quoted by the reverend author in the above extract? What does the teaching and instruction there enjoined mean, but the religious teaching and instruction by the clergy of the Establishment? Indeed, the clerical instructors are named expressly. The godfathers and godmothers promise that the child shall learn the liturgy as soon as he is able: Does Mr Lancaster prevent this? On the contrary, he renders the child able to learn it, by enabling him to read it, and making him read the Bible, on which it is, as we are taught to believe, wholly founded. The child is then to be taught the Church catechism: Will he be the less likely to learn it, because Mr Lancaster has enabled him to read it? But the Rubric shows how he is to be taught:Not by the schoolmaster-not at the place where reading and writing are taught-but by the curate in the church which he serves-and upon Sundays and holidays. It requires the genius of a very polemic to make the transition which carries the reverend author from this point to his next. Immediately after quoting the passages which enjoin curates to teach the cate -chism, and parents to send their children for this purpose, he says, that from hence it appears that our reformers laid the foundation of a religious education, to be conducted under the 9. superintendance of the parochial clergy. Now, the very reverse

3

verse of this is the case, if by religious education be meant instruction in reading, combined with instruction in the cate chism; and if this be not the meaning of the phrase, no possible inference can be drawn from hence to bear on the present question: for we, as well as the professor, maintain that religious education in this sense, viz. religious instruction independent of teaching to read, belongs to the clergy; and that they have no more to do with teaching to read, than with teaching any of the ordinary mechanical arts-the art of painting, for instance, which may be used in adorning an altar. The argument from the Canons and Act of Uniformity, is entirely refuted by the admission respecting the Acts of Toleration. Previous to those acts, no doubt, education of every kind was, at least by the letter of the law, subject to the superintendance of the clergy. But, now that Dissenters may teach-schools as freely as Churchmen, who shall say that the law discourages seminaries where the liturgy and catechism are not taught? Who shall tell us that the law gives any preference whatever to schools licensed by a bishop? The acts of toleration, says our author, apply, not to Church of England persons, but to dissenters. Can controversy really have so far blinded this acute author, as to prevent him seeing, in this remark, either a mistatement, or a piece of nonsense? If he intends to say, that the act of toleration does not permit members of the Church to support schools, the teachers of which are not licensed, the assertion is untrue. No law ever did exist to prohibit this. The act of Uniformity, only prohibited schools from being taught, except by licensed persons and, the act of Toleration allowing unlicensed teachers, all men, whether members of the Church, or dissenters, may -support them in whatever way they please. If he intends to say, that the toleration acts for exempting dissenters from certain restrictions, do not exempt teachers belonging to the Church, from the provisions respecting licenses, the proposi<tion is no doubt true; but it is also self-evident, and wholly useless in the present dispute.

t

Where, then, can the learned and reverend Professor find any authority for his doctrine, that the law and constitution of these realms give a preference to one mode of education-that is, one mode of teaching reading and writing- before another? A doctrine, be it observed, which he himself is so fearful of stating broadly and tangibly, that we in vain search his pages ( for any distinct enunciation of it; although his arguments plain

ly imply it, or they have no meaning at all. Let him be informed, once for all, that there is in this country no national education that the law of the land is utterly indifferent to the

subject