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 Professor'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 Echortation 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, that the child be instructed in those things, so soon as he 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 believe 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 CHURCIÉ 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 an nexed 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 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 ppointed for them to learn. "

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 was enacted, by the seventy-seventh canon, that every schoolmaster should not only be licensed by the bishop of the Diocese, but previously subscribe to the Liturgy and Articles. And this canon was onfirmed by the act of uniformity; which requires every school

master,

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 established" 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, notnly 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 preposterons 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 superintendance of the parochial clergy. Now, the very re

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 proposition is no doubt true; but it is also self-evident, and wholly useless in the present dispute.

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 plainly 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

subject that (whether happily or not, we have no present wish to inquire) every man is left to educate his children as he pleases ; and that the public funds afford as little assistance to the poor in attaining this object, as the laws impose restrictions upon the mode of pursuing it.

The reverend author condescends to quote the example of Scotland, when discoursing of what he terms parochial education--a phrase absolutely foreign, and even unintelligible in England. The good effects (he says) of this system, in Scotland, on the religion there established, is (are) known to every man who is acquainted with that part of our island.' Any man, however, but inoderately acquainted with our island,' must know, that in Scotland there is an established national system of education, supported by the same funds which maintain the Church, and arranged on a similar plan. A preacher, who undertakes to lecture on this subject from the chair of St Paul's, might really have been presumed to know that every parish in Scotland has a school, as well as a kirk-that the supplies for its support are payable, y law, from the lands in the parish, as certainly as the stipend of the clergyman-and that the ecclesiastical courts hold themselves entitled to superintend the conduct of the schoolmasters, both public and private, exactly as they exercise their rigorous discipline over the lives of persons having the cure of souls. It is true, that there exist great doubts upon the matter of right, respecting this superintendance. It is equally true that, the Scotish church having no liturgy-no form either of prayer or of worship-no peculiarity, in short, except an absence of all peculiar ceremonials he who speaks in big terms of the conformity required of teachers, and the advantages resulting to the national religion in Scotland, from the adoption of its tenets by the parochial schools, uses a language whereof he knows not the import, and mouths large and sounding sentences, which in truth mean nothing.

But we need not go further than to state the essential

difference between the two countries in the matter of education. The law, the canons, the liturgy, the rubrics, the ecclesiastical practice, in England, leave what is commonly called education wholly unnoticed and unprovided for; leave reading, writing, and accounts, to be taught by what persons soever shall choose to teach those branches of knowledge; while they leave religion to be taught by a richly endowed and powerfully supported clergy: While the constitution of Scotland, on the other hand, has established an education as well as a religion; endowed a school as well as a church; and beneficed a body of schoolmasters as well as of pricsts. What should we saywhat would the author of the war pamphlets of 1794 say (for sure

he must have the safe and loyal feelings on this point), were the American Government, which knows no established religion, and pays for none, to insist, all of a sudden, on superintending the spiritual concerns of the people, and dictating what churches should be frequented, and what deserted or run down? What then shall we say, who know full well that the Government and the land of England pay not a penny for the education of the peo ple-when we find the minions of the Church, which contributes full as little-arrogating to their order a right, which, all the while, they dare not explicitly define, of interfering with the general education of youth throughout the realm? Have we not a right to say, at the least, this-Found a system of national instruction-adopt some plan for facilitating the path of knowledge to the poor-entertain with candour such measures as Mr Whitbread (for example) proposed to you-avoid branding with the name of levellers and atheists, such as recommend schemes for putting ignorance to flight; and then you will acquire some right, not, indeed, to control the whole system of education, or to prescribe the mode and manner in which all children shall be taught, but to be heard upon the subject with respect, and to superintend the system of education patronized and supported by yourselves. Imitate, if you will, the example of Scotland, by endowing a free school in every parish, and we will hear you with less impatience affect the office of regulators of education, and at any rate allow you to manage the establish ments which you have formed. The most important thing, however, with regard to this example of Scotland, is, that our presbyterian clergy, who have thus a sort of legal right to interfere with all teachers of youth, and who certainly do not yield to the clergy of any other communion, in a sincere and enlightened zeal for their own peculiar doctrines, have never, in point of fact, thought it necessary to interfere, in any degree, with any of the additional schools which the friends of Mr Lancaster have established in this kingdom. Though divided into parties, and contending perpetually, upon points of discipline, in their presbyteries and synods, no one has yet ventured to allege, that an improved method of teaching reading and writing is dangerous to the national establishment; or that it becomes them to discourage such an improvement, because it was invented or brought to perfection by a Dissenter. On the contrary, the established clergymen, throughout Scotland, have been the warmest friends and the most efficient patrons of this most valuable institution.

The reverend Professor, through his whole discourse, bestows great pains-sometimes in plain statements, which he would

have