« AnteriorContinuar »
of the people ? Is there not the greatest want of schools where they prevail? I am quite aware that the proportion (in large towns) under instruction is considerably below what it ought to be; and that every fair motive ought to be used to urge the exertions of those who have the power to remedy the defect. But I do not think that general surinises, or party correspondents, form the best ground of judgment. I have compared the proofs brought by the Society with the actual returns of schools made to Government, as far as the two printed volumes will allow ; and, in some instances, at least, there appears to me something both like vagueness and exaggeration.
I assume that one in seven of the active population may be a fair proportion of children, between the ages of 7 and 14 inclusive, who may be expected to attend schools. But, in manufacturing and coal districts, a great number of young people are employed at work, from the age of 8, or 9. In consequence, it may be necessary to refer in these places to Sunday schools, which may contain and instruct those who are at labour during the week. With respect to Sunday schools, we may observe, that a few years ago they were preferred to day schools by the dissenters; and to the present time they constitute the chief object of their care, as connecting the children with their conventicles. But as there is now a chance of obtaining money from the country at large, they are beginning to be clamorous for day schools, and depreciate that instruction which before they so highly praised. In 1816, a Mr. Hargrave was pleased to give his opinion to the Committee of the House “On the benefit of Sunday schools over that of other schools. We have found, generally, that once a week, which is on the Sabbath day, the child will learn as much in that time as he would, if placed in a National school, or in a school on the British system of education, in a week.” Mr. Henry Althans (I suppose the same person who is now the inspector of the British schools) also said, at that time, “We have had many instances occur where children who go to day schools have been taken from them by their parents, and sent to our Sunday schools, on account of their education being so much neglected.” (What became of the children during the week?) And Mr. Lloyd then thought that the children
seem to pay more attention on Sundays.” But now, Mr. Dunn, the Secretary of the British Society, reckons very little of “ Sunday instruction.”—(310.) “I put that out of the question, because I never yet saw a Sunday school which I should consider worth taking into account as a place of literary instruction. I think that the moral and religious influence of Sunday schools cannot be estimated too highly; but I think it is impossible to communicate literary knowledge to any extent, during the few hours that can be devoted to such a task on the Sunday." Let us, then, look to the actual state of education in some places which the British Society has brought into notice as especially destitute.
The communication, dated “ Durham city,” states that “in one parish" [of the colliery districts “there are 2200 human beings; and if one in thirty be under instruction, it is all that can possibly be found.” Now, with respect to “ Durham city,” where the church is
powerful, daily instruction prevails to a great extent.-Population, 10,125 : forty-four day schools ; children, 1819; being about one in five-and-a-half of the whole inhabitants. To these we may add 245, who attend the three infant schools ; the proportion will then be a little less than one in five. So much for “ Durham city.” The parish, whose state is represented as so“ lamentable,” is, I conjecture, that of Houghton-le-Spring, the population of which, in 1831, was 20,524. The number of children in daily schools is returned as 2486 ; on Sundays, 2724. So that the proportion under instruction is one in eight-and-a-quarter, in day schools; and on Sundays, one in seven-and-a-half; and not as the Society's correspondent affirms, one in thirty? Is this not exaggeration ? The deficiency in some other places seems also enlarged. Constantine, Cornwall,—Population, 2004. The Society say, that, “including all the dame schools, only 130 are under instruction, so that there are full 300 receiving no education whatever.” The 7th of 2004 is 286 ; and there are 219 children under instruction in day schools—whence arise the “ 300 without any education whatever ?
At Redruth, out of 8191 inhabitants, it is reported, that " The only public provision made for the education of the poor, is the parish workhouse, where about fifty children are taught, who are all paupers." Now the returns give eight schools, with 716 daily attendants, and three Sunday, with 744 scholars.
At Grantham, and hamlets adjoining, the Society report, “ There is a population of about 8000 souls; and, after deducting the existing schools, there must be, at least, 1300 children without any daily instruction whatever." The existing schools, in Grantham alone, contain 1197 children, being one in six of the population, (7427,) under full daily instruction. Yet the report says, there are besides these, out of about 8000 inhabitants, still “ 1300 children without any daily instruction whatever.” Can this be possible ?
The report from Brentford calculates that there are, “in this town and neighbourhood not less than 1000 children uninstructed." Population-9868: daily children in thirty-three schools, 1238, being in the proportion of nearly one in eight. Can there be “1000" still “uninstructed," who may be expected to attend school?
“ Stafford : in this town and immediate vicinity, there are from 800 to 1000 children uneducated.” Now what are the facts? The population of Stafford is 6956. There are thirteen daily schools with 622 children ; and 711 attend on Sundays. From whence come the “ 1000 uneducated”? No doubt there is here, as in other places, a deficiency—but can it be so great ? About one in eleven are under daily instruction.
In Wednesbury, also, it is estimated that there are “ 2000 children in this place destitute of instruction.” As the population is 8-137, the deficiency would nearly equal a quarter of the whole inhabitants. Can this be so ? Certainly there are but 379 in the day schools, but on Sunday there are 1237, which is about one in seven.
These instances are sufficient to shew, that, whatever need there may be of an extension of the means of education among the poor,
and I allow that in places it is great, the British Society has not been so careful and exact in its proofs as it ought to have been. Mere general guessing and partial calculations ought not to be set forth, with authority, as conclusive facts. Daily instruction, generally speaking, is most wanting where it is said the inhabitants are chiefly dissenters. Why do they not instruct their children, and build schools for themselves? In several of the most destitute places, however, the number in Sunday schools exceeds one-seventh of the population. From the above reports, it would appear, that one-third or one quarter of the whole inhabitants has been taken as the criterion of those who ought to be under instruction in schools ; but this proportion, especially in places where children go to work very young, is larger, I apprehend, than ought to be assumed. At any rate, the want of schools, whatever it may be, in dissenting districts, can be no reflection on the clergy, who can only secure education by the aid of their wealthy and welldisposed parishioners. It does not seem quite fair that the members of the church, having provided so many places of instruction for their own members without any aid from the dissenters, should be taxed to erect sectarian seminaries.
R. W. B.
SOME ACCOUNT OF WRITERS AGAINST THE ROMANISTS.
SIR,—The Romish controversy, which, to borrow your words, (Brit. Mag. for July, p. 92,) is “at this present moment of the greatest importance,” induces me to request “the clergy,” who “must, in many quarters, make themselves again fully masters of even the details” thereof, to remember the directions of one well qualified to bestow them. “If (says Dr. Wotton*) we would successfully attack the papists, we must see what the church of Rome has professedly taught in any authentic books of her own. The Canons of the Council of Trent, the Catechismus ad Parochos, and the Offices of the Church, which have been set forth since the celebration of that council, may be depended upon. The Catechismus ad Parochos is the clearest and best system of
popery that we have, and its authority cannot possibly be evaded, it having been composed by order of Pope Pius V., in pursuit of a decree of the Council of Trent for that purpose.” To these we may add, “ The Creed of Pius IV.,” usually found with the Catechismus ad Parochos; which creed, as the late Dr. Doyle observed in his examination before parliament, “Every (Roman) Catholic acknowledges." +
“ Bellarmine, and Perron, and Stapleton, are deservedly esteemed " (as Dr. Wotton previously observes, “among the ablest defenders of popery; and yet, whenever Papists are pressed from the writings of any, or all of these men by our divines, they immediately tell us, that what these doctors say, is only their private opinion, in which the Church (as they call themselves) are not obliged to acquiesce.”
Wotton's “Some Thoughts concerning the Study of Divinity," republished at Oxford in 1818, p. 47.
+ Phelan's and O'Sullivan's “ Digest of Evidence,” part i. p. 174. Lond. 1826.
Here, then, we have, in the first place, a statement of the authorized works in which we must seek the doctrines and discipline of the Roman church; if we would wish, in examining these various points, to confine ourselves to one work, that written by a learned Lutheran, Chemnitii Examen Concilii Tridentini, must be the one; although Heideggeri Anatome Concilii Tridentini and others might be mentioned. If, from the larger works written in Latin, and by foreigners, we come home, it will be found that Bishop Stillingfleet's “ Council of Trent examined and disproved by Catholic Tradition"* is well deserving of perusal; and as the Creed of Pius IV. contains a summary of the doctrines, &c., of the Papal or Latin church, the tract written by Mr. Altham, entitled, “The Creed of Pius IV., or a Prospect of Popery taken from that Authentic Record, with short Notes," and “ A Brief Examination of the present Roman Catholic Faith, contained in Pope Pius's New Creed," by Mr. Gardiner, together with Bishop Bull's “Corruptions of the Church of Rome,” will be found useful, and, it may be, sufficient for general purposes.t To these productions of the seventeenth century, I may be permitted to add, two works of the present day, well deserving attention, “ Cramp's TextBook of Popery,” and “Mendham's Memoirs of the Council of Trent;" nor must we omit, “ the two principal and celebrated historians of the Council of Trent, Fra Paolo Sarpi and Cardinal Pallavicino;" son whose comparative merits and demerits, Aquilinius should be consulted, in his “De Tribus Historicis Concilii Tridentini.”
Of the “ Offices of the Church,” or Romish liturgical books, it is difficult to speak in few words. Barlow, Bishop of Lincoln, in his « Directions to a Young Divine," has enumerated them; but Koecher, in his “Bibliotheca Theologiæ Symbolicæ et Catecheticæ, itemque Liturgicæ," under the last division, has entered into the consideration of all necessary particulars. Of these, but more especially the breviaries, both before and since the time of the Tridentine Council, the English reader will find much information in the “Reflections upon the Devotions of the Romish Church;" (London, 1674;) and in the series of papers inserted in “ The Protestant Guardian;" (London, 1828;) entitled “Roman Breviary.” To these, for ordinary purposes,
* See Catalogue of all the Discourses (separately) published against popery during the reign of King James II., (Lond. 1689,) where the above work of Dr. Stillingfleet is No. 54 in the list. Also in his Works (Lond. 1710,) vol. vi. pp. 421—515; and partly in Bishop Gibson's Collection of Tracts, entitled, “ A Preservative against Popery,” (Lond. 1738,) vol. ii., Appendix, pp. 103_133. Ibid. Title, vii.
+ Mr. Altham's Tract, in the Catalogue, ibid., No. 183. “ Gibson's Preservative," vol. iii., title, x. pp. 3—6. Mr. Gardiner's, Gibson, ibid., pp. 7–59.
“ A Text-Book of Popery, comprising a brief history of the Council of Trent, a translation of its doctrinal decrees, and copious extracts from the Catechism published by its authority,” &c.; by J. M, Cramp. “ Memoirs of the Council of Trent, principally derived from manuscript and unpublished records, namely, histories, diaries, letters, &c., of the leading actors in that assembly," By the Rev. J. Mendham, A.M. Lond. 1834.
Mendham, ibid., pref. p.5.
if we add Bishop Stillingfleet's “Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome," and its “Defence;" Hospinian's * De Festis Christianorum ;” and Rivet's “ Apologia pro Sanct. Virgine Maria ;''* full proof will be had of the heathenish origin of saint worship, and the monstrous absurdities and falsities of the daily companion of the priests of that church,
the Roman Breviary.t In speaking of the three chief defenders of the Roman church, Bellarmine, Perron, and Stapleton, who were severally natives of, or connected with Italy, France, and England, it may be observed, that the “ Disputationes” of the first are now almost the only ones to be met with. His “Disputationes de Controversiis Fidei," are, as the younger Spanheim observes, arranged after the three-fold division of the Apostle's Creed; viz., the Catholic church, the communion of saints, and the forgiveness of sins, to which is prefixed that entitled, “De Verbo Dei,” in four books. I am not aware that we have any extended reply to these works of Bellarmine, taken as a whole; we have, however, “ Vorstius's Anti-Bellarminus Contractus," and “ Ames's Bellarminus Enervatus ;' books which, though small in size, contain, with some exception, very much useful matter. § Among a vast variety of writers who have replied to Bellarmine, as to principal points, Whitaker deserves especial regard; these are, his “Prælectiones, De Ecclesia; De Conciliis; De Romano Pontifice;"|| his “ De Sacra Scriptura;" against Bellarmine and Stapleton, jointly;! and, although somewhat out of place, his “De Peccato Originali; De Authoritate Sacræ Scripturæ,” against Stapleton, alone. Rainolds also wrote his “De Romanæ Ecclesiæ Idololatria,' (Oxon, 1596,) principally against Bellarmine; and “ The Notes of the Church, as laid down” hy the latter, we have “examined and confuted,” under their fifteen heads, with a “general introduction," by Drs. Sherlock, Patrick, Tenison, and other learned bishops and di. vines, in the time of James II.tf If we pass on to Perron, we shall
Stillingfleet's Works, vol. v., contains the above, which also, as all other of his controversial works, were first published separately. “Hospiniani De Festis Christianorum,” separately, and in his collected works, tom. i. Genev. 1674. Rivet's “ Apologia pro Sanct. Virgine Maria,” separately, and in his collected works, tom. iii. pp. 597-744. Roterod. 1660.
+ " The Protestant Guardian,” p. 10, quoting Blanco White's “ Practical and Internal Evidence," pp. 159-161.
"Spanhemii Opera,” tom. iii. col. 749. Lugd. Bat. 1703.
“ Anti Bellarminus Contractus : hoc est, Compendiosum Examen omnium Fidei Controversiarum,” &c. Conr. Vorstio auctore. Hanov. 1610. « Bellarminus enervatus a Guil. Amesio," ( Amstel. 1658,) beside other editions. Of Ames, says Bishop Barlow, in his “ Directions" before inentioned, "he was a non-conformist, and so caute legendus; but for Rome and Bellarmine, he has distinctly proposed their pretences, and given a clear, short, and rational answer to them." See * Barlow's Genuine Remains,” (Lond. 1693,) pp. 47 and 59.
lll “ Whitakeri Opera Theologica,” (Aureliæ Allobrogum, 1610,) tom. i. pp. 419-568, De Ecclesia : ibid. pp. 569—626, De Conciliis : tom. ii. pp. 510-7:30, De Romano Pontifice.
Ibid., tom. i. pp. 251–417, De Sacra Scriptura.
Ibid., tom. i. pp. 631-690, De Peccato Originali: tom. ii. p. 1-509, De Authoritate Sacræ Scripturæ.
Catalogue, ibid. pp. 11-13. “ Gibson's Preservative," vol. i. title, 3, pp. 44-190,