With neither of these opinions have we the slenderest sympathy. We repudiate both. We maintain that it is the state's duty to educate the people; and that is no less its duty to educate them religiously. There may be obstacles in the way of both of these; -but obstacles do not alter the ruler's duty. That duty he must ever keep in view; that duty the nation ought ever to recog nize. The whole of that duty he may not be able to discharge, but the duty itself remains still undiminished and uncompromised.

It is plain that the present condition of the nation presents a fearful barrier to the full discharge of this whole duty. Rulers cannot, however willing they may be, carry through any complete scheme of religious education. The nation lies before them, not united and compact, but broken into an hundred fragments, and what one scheme can be devised which shall adjust itself to all of these?

But if they cannot fully discharge their mighty duty, they are bound to fulfil as much of it as they can. They are bound to recognize their obligation to see that the people be religiously educated, and to provide, as far as conflicting interests allow them, the means for a religious education. If they do not even aim at this we may well be jealous of them; we may righteously condemn them. This much at least we may expect at their hands. In this direction at least lies the true solution of the problem adverted to above, the true unravelling of the calamitous perplexity in which our discords have involved us.

Does the present government scheme of education go thus far? Does it testify to the necessity of a religious education? Does it recognize the ruler's obligation to take order that the people be religiously educated?

31

Let us honestly answer this question-We think that to a considerable extent it does. It does not go so far as we could desire; it is not explicit enough, not definite enough. But we must concede that it recognizes the necessity of a religious education, and the duty of the state to provide this, or to aid in providing it. With all its imperfections, it is by no means so thoroughly vicious as many of its opponents represent it to be. But let us give proof of our averment. We take first of all the qualifications laid down in the Minutes of Council of candidates for the situation of pupil teachers.

"In schools connected with the Church of England the clergyman and managers, and in other schools the managers, must certify that the moral character of the candidates and of their families justifies an expectation that the instruction and training of the school will be seconded by their own efforts, and by the example of their parents. If this cannot be certified of the family, the apprentice will be required to board in some approved household.

"In Schools connected with the Church of England they will be required to repeat the Catechism, and that they understand its meaning, and are acquainted with the outline of Scripture history. The parochial clergyman will assist in this part of the examination.

"In other schools the state of the religious knowledge will be certified by the managers."

Again observe what are the required qualifications of pupil teachers in the several years of their apprenticeship. They are to be examined

"In the holy Scriptures and in the Catechism, with illustrations by passages from holy writ in Church of England schools-the parochial clergyman assisting in the examination.

"The managers will in other schools certify in this, and in the succeeding years of the apprenticeship, that they are satisfied with the state of the religious knowledge of the pupil teachers."

Then as to the qualifications of stipendiary monitors, the following is the statement of Council.

"In Church of England schools, to repeat the Catechism, and show a knowledge of its meaning-the parochial clergyman assisting in the religious examination.

"In other schools, the managers will certify that they are satisfied with the state of their religious knowledge.

"In Church of England schools, to show a general acquaintance with the Scriptures the parochial clergyman in this, and the succeeding years, assisting in the religious examination.

"In other schools, the managers will certify, in this and succeeding years, that the religious knowledge of the stipendiary monitors is satisfactory to them.

"At the close of each year pupil teachers, or stipendiary monitors, will be required to present certificates of good conduct from the managers of the school, and of punctuality, diligence, obedience, and attention to their duties, from the master or mistress.

"In Church of England schools the parochial clergyman, and in other schools the managers, will certify that the pupil teachers or stipendiary monitors have been attentive to their religious duties."

These extracts are enough to show us that government is anxious to make its educational system a religious one; and that though it is in this direction that the chief difficulties lie, yet that it is resolved to face these difficulties, and not to evade them, or to escape from the recognition of its own solemn duty. So far then there is something to satisfy. This scheme of government may turn out to be a very imperfect one, but still it cannot be called a mere secular or irreligious one. Its aim at least is at something religious, even if in operation it should prove a failure in this respect. And surely it is right to give our rulers credit for honesty of purpose until we have good reason for sus

T

"

MOT

pecting the opposite. We have no sympathy with the liberalism of the present government. Its political principles we repudiate Its latitudinarianism we condemn. Its friendship for popery, we cannot away with. But let us do our rulers justice; let us calmly weigh their plans, especially when it is every where acknowledged that something must be done, and that both with speed and energy of They are men grappling with an enormous evil, strug gling hard with an overwhelming difficulty, labouring to solve a mighty national problem! Let us act with fairness and forbearance. We may well be cautious; but let us be equally candid and honourableng gackor mon baladong 293foamon) flod for vedi plingasan, von 7d astbildɔ pilofteƆ nsw But it may be said that "religion" is a vague word, and may after all mean nothing or anything. In some respects there may be truth in this remark; and we confess that we should have liked something more definite than the above regulations.wIn regard to Church of England schools indeed there may be said to be defiə niteness; but not so in regard to others: we should greatly desire something more explicit respecting them. Even on this point however our apprehensions have been in some measure removed by information received subsequently to the publication of the Minutes of Council We are assured that it is the authorised version of the Scriptures that must be employed in all government schools. We give a brief extract from the London Recoril of April, on this point.lol d vit of bolitas od lliw noisey gailost „Jasmin15762 462 of 2 wub terdto on „Jesal to emit asem - We are happy to say, that much progress has been made within the last few days in clearing up the doubtful or suspicious points in the go-l vernment proposals relative to education, ezingo591 tedt tose dogo "When the recent Minutes were first read and discussed, it was asked, in many quarters, Is it intended, by these enlargements and tions, to embrace parties who have been such, for in

12

T

herto excluded, modifica.

stance, as the Romanists
to and Socinians 2334110

schoomoediiw ei

-Inquiries on these points were made of the Secretary, De Kave Shuttleworth, and his answer was, Roman Catholic schools have been, and will be, practically excluded; for, by minute of the years 1839, was provided, that schools applying for aid, and not in connexion with either the National Society or the British and Foreign, should at least) show that they provided for the daily reading of the Scriptures by their Pidt of argibs vltzogod bae plummitti answer did not at first on that the held to be a ing of Scripture. And it also was feared that the Romanists night Be inclined to permit the reading of the Douay Bible, with its Apocrypha and its notes, if that would satisfy the condition.o od 1950 fejant 9On further inquiry, however, an additional explanation was gained that by the use of the Scriptureso in tsuchi schools, the Committee soft Council meant the use of the volume of Scripture, and not of selections: Lyme пoqu roob oɗt 920lo tom 290b ti 92m399dsmode aidt of joejdo

reading of selections from pear satisfactory. It was read

as to place in for me pasive up

عالي

from it. And it certainly did not seem probable that the Romish authorities would their repugnance to the use of the Bible their school-children the entire volume of holy writ, even when accompanied by notes and the Apocryphal books. Within the last day or two, however, a still / further guarantee has been given; for the Committee of Privy Council have stated, in writing, that by the reading of holy Scripture, they understand, holy Scripture in the authorised version.ifth gaualed wrovo as ditų bred zaile - So far, then, Protestants may be satisfied, It is true, that in giving these assurances, the Committee of Privy Council take care to add, that they will not hold themselves precluded from making provision for Roman Catholic children, by new they shall deem it advisable." minutes, This reservation only us what we knew the present before; tha ment, like the last, is disposed to make grants or otherwise give aid to Romanists, whenever they can find an opportunity. Our present business, however, is with the present measure; and so far as that is concerned, we hope that a sufficient guarantee has now been obtained.?!) of orizab viisors bluode ov ero of breyst ni os tou 3nd,

This regulation for the present excludes Socinians and Papists, and thus far there is something definite about the scheme. It seeks to provide religious education, and it engages that this education shall be based upon the authorised version of the Bible, in other words that it shall neither be a Popish nor a Socinian education, Every seet that will recognise and use that version will be entitled to the benefits of this scheme, but, in the mean time at least, no others; that is to say, government, feeling itself incompetent or unable to provide : a uniform system of religious education for all, has come to the resolution of enabling each sect that recognises our authorised version, to provide a religious education for its own people, in its own way. and /**

1

One objection that has been raised against this scheme is its supposed latitudinarian character. Now we are certainly jealous, in some degree, of the scheme in this respect. But still let us be reasonable in our jealousy. If the authorised version is adhered to, there is at least a distinct limit to its latitudinarianism. We might: desire something more explicit, such as a reference to the Shorter Catechism, if Scotland be included, but still we are thankful for the limits thus prescribed. It cannot be very latitudinarian if it firmly and honestly adhere to this. It is with some surprise," we confess that we have heard this objection from some quarters. Not a few who are clamouring for the abolition of university tests, are loudly objecting to this scheme, because it has na tests! Others who would gladly hail a bill to compel the site-refusers to grant sites to all sects, object to this scheme, because they think it will extend itself to all: sects ! . Others who would throw open the parish schools to teachers of all denominations, object to this scheme, because it does not close the door upon any!

VOL. IX. NO. II.

8

It is objected that this is a scheme for the aggrandizement of the Church of England, at the expense of every other sect. Whether this may be the case or not, in so far as the future and permanent workings of the scheme are concerned, we shall not undertake to say. But that it is not intended for this end, and that none of its provisions are framed for this end, must be evident to every reader of the "Minutes." We have been surprised at the misrepresentations which have been devised and promulgated regarding this. The Church of England is placed upon the same footing as any other church. Her own resources may be greater, and hence her means of using the scheme more ample, but the scheme itself is as friendly to the Methodist or Independent as to the Episcopalian. It encroaches upon no man's liberty. It respects the conscience of all.

It is objected that this scheme places an immense amount of patronage at the disposal of government. We answer that it places almost no patronage at government disposal. Influence it may confer; patronage it does not. It appoints no teachers, but leaves each church, or society, or congregation to appoint their own. It pays teachers, but it does not nominate them. Neither does it dictate to any as to the method of education pursued, the books used, or the denomination with which the school is to be connected. It throws the patronage into the hands of those best fitted to exercise it. But besides, if this objection be well founded, it will apply equally to the best and most Scriptural system that could be devised.

It is objected that this is just a deep-laid plot of Tractarians and Jesuits for getting the education of the country into their own hands. Now, granting that it is so, this will not alter the real character of the scheme; and besides, it will be our own fault if we allow these enemies of the truth to seize upon this scheme, and supersede or exclude all other bodies. But apart from this, education has never been an engine which Popery has willingly either worked or set a-going. She may strike in and pervert or corrupt it, but she will not originate it. And were she the originator of the scheme, she has often outwitted herself-often dug a pit for her own destruction.

We cannot however enter further into the matter. We have offered a few suggestions, and there we leave the scheme for the present. We do not come forward as advocates for it; we have sought to place it fairly before our readers, and to divest it of the misrepresentations that have been thrown around it. At the same time we have our misgivings as to the future. One of our great objections to it is that it is unfinished. It is not sufficiently definite even at present, and this indefiniteness leaves it open to