ILLINOIS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
Production Note
Project Unica
Rare Book & Manuscript Library University of Illinois Library at Urbana-Champaign 2015








THE | CASE FAIRLY STATED
IKE im?1,Si OEBF til È
HfilVFBSITY OF*"ILLWOIS
“CLERICAL MISTAKES”
ur
THE REV. F. F. TRENCH.
COIiKECTED
ICY PRESE UTERO S,
Sanctify them through thy Truth: thy word is Truth.”
John xvii, 17.5 JUPl2Hli> a
THE CASE FAIRLY STATED, Etc.
I am quite sure that the Bishop of Cashel is much better able to answer Mr. Trench’s letter than I am; but as I have not been an inattentive observer of the subject of, and plans for, Education during the last 30 years, I may be permitted to offer a feiv remarks; and I do so in the sincere hope that my observations may be the means of preventing the mischief which Mr T.’s pamphlet is calculated to effect,
It so completely passes by the real question at issue, that many may be led astray, and no longer see the evil of the Government system—may think that they are safe in giving their adhesion to that system, as put forward by Mr. T., when it is, in fact, wholly and altogether different from that which he has set forth. He has stated it unfairly—he has used arguments, and adduced instances, which have nothing to say to the matter—it is, in fact, wholly and altogether different from that which he has set forth. The Government plan is not such as Mr. T. has put it forward to be, hut the very reverse; and as the principle of it is altogether different from what he states it to be, so the instances which he has adduced of children reading the Scriptures, do not at all prove what he wishes to establish.
My object is to warn the Clergy and Scripture-taught laity, and to prevent their giving up the simple, though sound notions which they entertain on the subject of Education—I wish to prevent their being led away from their iaith and practice, by the notions broached in this day of Utilitarianism and pseudo-liberality.
I assert, that the Government system of Education assists the Priests to keep the Word of God from the people, and that all who join it, indirectly lend their aid to do the same,4
I believe that the Priests would not have been able in any other way to have checked the growing disposition of the Roman Catholic people in favor of the Word of God— Whether the Clergy of a Church, whose distinctive character is—being the Great Maintainer of Scripture against an un-scriptural Church, ought to assist them to do this, I leave my readers to judge.
Before I set about to prove that such is the object of the Board, or to comment on some of Mr. T’s. observations, I should wish to shew, First—The proper position of a Scriptural Church. Second—To remedy a mistake into which many have fallen, viz :—That because we are the Established Church, and so in connection with the State or Government, that, therefore, we are bound to further any measure which the Government may propose; or, in other words, I wish to shew that though Church and State are supposed to be connected, it is a mistake to think that their plans, principles, or practices, must necessarily be identical.
Thirdly—I shall shew the reasons why the grant to the Kildare Place Society was withdrawn, and the present system was, not long afterwards, substituted in its place.
Fourthly—I would shew that had the wish of the Government been merely to give education to the Roman Catholics, the proposal made to it to give a separate grant to the Protestants, would at once have been acceded to, as it was admitted on all hands that the Government plan had failed as a “united plan of education.”
When I have brought these before my readers, I shall proceed to prove my assertion—“ That the Government, plan assists the Priests to keep the Word of God from the people,” and make some remarks on Mr. T.’s letter.
1st—The position of a Scriptural Church, I take to be, that she is—that her Ministers are—the teachers to all (Roman Catholics—Jews—Mahometans and Heathens) of the Word of God—That she is the Pillar of the Truth— the opposer of error, and that she can never lay this character aside—that she can never consent to forego her position.
Is,either the Church nor her ministers can, ever, in my judgment, consent to put themselves in the position the Archdeacon of Meath assumed when he said “ he incurs the5
highest moral obligation to refrain from any undue interference, direct or indirect, by himself or by any other, with that which is not intrusted to him”—that was the “ religious instruction of the children.” Now, in my opinion, when he said this he gave up his place as a Christian teacher—he renounced his duty to Christ, and yielded obedience to the National Board. I do not think that any minister can pre- ^ serve his allegiance to his Master, and undertake not to interfere “ directly or indirectly” with those whom he knows to be perishing in error.
But it is said, “ It is better to have some education than none.” I reply, “ with that I have nothing do do.” The Government may, but / have not. My business is to teach truth to a child, to combat his sins and his errors, from the time that he comes into contact with me—while he continues in connection with me, or wherever and whenever I can reach him. Mr. 1'. speaks as if we wanted to kidnap the children into a knowledge of the truth or bribe them. I want to do neither one or the other. I want to be recognised as the Maintainer of Truth, the Saver of Souls—and, I wish the Roman Catholics to know, that I am such; that if they want God’s truth, or are anxious about their souls, they can know where to get help. I should be very sorry that a Roman Catholic could say of me, “ You can go to his School and have reading, writing, &c., and whenever the Bible, (the Book the Priest warns you against) is read, you can come away.” This is my duty—this is my business—I cannot leave this position—if I do, I am unfaithful to my Master.
“ Oh, then,” it is said, “ you would proselytise.” To be sure I would, I would make proselytes from sin and error—what ‘ else is my business ? To whom can the poor, oppressed, and ' benighted Roman Catholics look but to us ? I can just imagine a poor Roman Catholic parent saying to Mr. T, and those who join the Board—“ Alas ! we little thought that you “ would have acted thus—we had hoped that you would have “ taken our part—we are not surprised that our tyrannical “ Priests or a truckling Government should deprive us of “ the Word of God—but we had a right to suppose that “ Protestant Ministers would have maintained our rights.”
Do you ask then “ What system of Education would you “ have ?” I answer—“ A system in which I could teach “ pure Scripture truth to all, and at all times.” But, then, youG
say, the Roman Catholics would not come to it. That is not my fault. I cannot leave my principles—forego my duty to Christ, and forsake my position as a Christian Minister—because the Priests do not like them. I am not now entering on any question of details, as to how I should read the sacred Scriptures, which books I should begin with, whether I might not begin to teach Scripture truth to children without reading at all—all these have been urged merely for the purpose of embarassing simple minds, and drawing them away from the broad principles of the case—of producing confusion in their mind<, as regards a very plain and simple truth which is this.—They are the Ministers of Christ, bound at all times and in all places, to banish error from, and to teach the truth of God to all men—and, if they forego this, they forego their duty.
Now this, I maintain, is the position of a Minister of a Christian Church, (and, I would fain hope, of a Minister of the Church of England,) and if so, then I am sure that he could not join the National Board.
2ndly—I have to shew that it by no means follows, that because we are the “ Established Church” that therefore we are bound to further any measure which the Government may propose.
We hold one position, (what that is I have just shewn,) Government another.
Government may issue an order for the troops to present arms to the Host—we have nothing to say to that, except to warn people against Idolatry.
Government may grant money to have the Popish Catechism taught—we cannot help it (except by petitioning.) but we will not directly or indirectly sanction it.
Government may grant money to enable the Priests to have Schools in which the children can have literary instruction— but from which the Sacred Scripture and all Scriptural instruction is bona fide and carefully withheld. We cannot help it—-but we will not directly or indirectly sanction it. If the children, having received literary instruction, desire to read the Scriptures, and become converted, we are very thankful, but it was not the way we should have set about it,7
nor what we could have joined in, nor a plan we could have wished success to ; though the result might issue in goo . hope that I have made this plain, because I have known men who felt bound to yield to Government measures, merely because they belonged to the Established Church.
3rdly—.1 have to show the reasons why the grant was withdrawn from the Kildare Place system, and the present plan adopted, and I earnestly beg attention to this because, think, that due attention to it would induce those who have joined the Board to withdraw from it ; and would tor ever prevent those who might be disposed to lean towards it, from having anything to say to it. I would just premise that I am not going to advocate the Kildare Place system—my opinion always was, that it did not go far enough—but still it was too Scriptural for the Priests. In 1824-5, over 400,000 child- / ren (I quote from memory) were enjoying the benefits of a partially Scriptural Education. It is true the Doway version was used—which was a mistake—but still the Sacred Scriptures were used. The people began to feel a value for them.
In hedge Schools, not under any Society, nor any patronage, the masters introduced the Sacred Scriptures, because the Parents and Scholars liked them. It made his school popular. The Priests got alarmed. An order came^ from Pome that the Scriptures were not to be allowed to be in the hands of the people, and that the children were to be withdrawn from the Schools. Now, what did this intimate i It shewed two things—both most important—and I beg the especial attention of my readers to both. It shewed first, that the Priests were alarmed at the great spread of Scriptural truth—and, secondly, that it required higher authority than their own to check it. It is a rule with Koine never to appeal to a higher power, if an inferior one will do —and it was because the matter was getting above the hands of the Priests, that Rome interfered.
Now, bear this in mind, it is the pith of the whole matter. The people did not appeal against the Scriptural instruction— / they valued it, and availed themselves of it. Money alone was wanting to double the numbers. The Priests were alarmed and had influence enough to get the grant with-dawn. But this was not all. A plan—the present plan of education (rather the original, for some changes have taken place in the National Board)—was concocted at Rome. A8
gentleman of some rank, who has had a good deal to say to the Board, went to Rome, to assist in framing it. A Cardi nal stated to a foreign nobleman at Rome, that the plan was under consideration, stated the outline of it, and added fur-ther, that it was fully anticipated at Rome, that the proposed plan was of such a nature as rendered it impossible for the Clergy of the Established Church to join it, but if they did generally adopt it, the Priest’s were, in a body, to withdraw trom it, and to agitate for one mofe decidedly Popish ; such as altogether to prevent the interference of the Protestant Clergy.
Bear this m mind, the Priests were alarmed at the spread oi ¡scripture truth_a plan was hatched at Rome-such as to make it impossible for the Protestant Clergy to have anything to say to it, but if they did. (i. e. as a body) the Priests were to withdraw, as it was a sign that it was not sufficiently Anti-¡scriptural, and this is the plan which Mr. T. advocates.
4thly—I have to shew that had it been the wish of the Government, &c.
Now, whatever good intentions the Government might have had in setting this scheme on foot—supposing that it did not see the design of Rome—supposing that it was led astray by a specious pretence, that it would be a nice idea to have United Education, they must after trial have admitted (all admitted it) that as a plan for United Education, it had signally failed. Why then did they not accede to the request oi the I lotestant Church, headed by its Primate, and grant a sum of money to assist us in giving a Scriptural Education to our children ?
did not ask them to withhold a grant from the Roman Catholic Church—we left the Government free—we only asked tor some assistance. It was sternly refused, and why ? Because it was the wish of the Government to keep on o-0od terms with Popery.
Had the wish of the Government merely been to secure a literary education to the Roman Catholics (a thing in itself dcsirabie,) they might have given a grant to the Roman Ca-tiiohe »c.iools and another to the Protestants—but that would not have answered their purpose—and the poor children—yea, the Roman Catholic children of Ireland were sacrificed upon the altar of Priestly hatred of truth, and the fears of Government.9
I say the above is what ought to weigh with us—the animus is everything. Mr. T. culls out a few cases which may or may not apply to the question—but leaves out of sight altogether the spirit that set the plan agoing—and the position of the Clergy of the Church. The Clergy are the guardians of Scripture truth, and the Roman Catholics have a right to look to them to maintain it; instead of joining its enemies and theirs in its suppression.
I say that when a Scriptural plan was quashed, and an Anti-Scriptural plan was substituted at the request of the Roman Catholic Priests through their agents, that we have a right to distrust it—a right to hold aloof from it, (and this perhaps more for the poor Roman Catholics than for ourselves) and the more we examine its working, so much the more shall we feel ourselves compelled to do so.
I say the animus—the principle on which it was established should weigh with us, but Mr. T. says I want facts—well then to facts let us go.
I wish to state the case fairly—I wish to admit all for him that I can—I admit that where a patron wishes it, the Scriptures can be read in a school at the hour appointed—I admit that no child need leave the school at the time they are read, if he does not wish it (the wish being supposed to be instilled by the parent). I admit that the parents may desire the children to stay at the school while the Sacred Scriptures are read against the commands of the Priest and in spite of him— these are strong facts—but wliat do they prove ? -I ust nothing at all. Nay I admit more, the Protestant version of the Sacred Scriptures might be read in the schools of which the Priest was patron, if he liked it, all these prove just what they affirm and no more.
They do not disprove that the Priests got the Government to introduce a system by which the poor Roman Catholics might be deprived of Scriptural instruction.
They do not disprove that the Protestants who join it neglect their duty to Christ—as it is their business to assert and maintain the right of all to have the truth, and to see the truth is taught them.
They do not disprove that the Government plan assists the10
Priests to keep the Sacred Scriptures from the people and that all who join it, lend their aid indirectly to do so.
I will now notice some passages in Mr. T.’s letter I do not wish to charge him with being unfair and disingenuous though there is something very like it in page four, line four. “ The National system does not require us &c.”
The Bishop never said it did. The Board does not require us, because as Patrons we may have the Sacred Scriptures read but it establishes a system at the wish, and according to the plan of those who are opposed to them—and this plan requires aboard to be put up stating the hour at which the sacred scriptures are to be read, that those who do not like truth may withdraw. It would not alter the principle one whit it every Roman Catholic child in Ireland was at school and every one of them staid in when the Sacred Scriptures were read. All I should say was that the good sense of the Roman Catholics had caused the plan to fail, and that the intention of the Priests and Government was rendered abortive. No rules of the Board can alter this, so I need not notice them.
The only rule I could submit to would be “that the truth of God contained in the Sacred Scriptures should be taught fully and openly in the school, and those who did not like this, need not attend, but if I failed in getting them under its influence there, I would seek them out at home.
Nothing short of this would satisfy me, and anything short of this would be “ entering into a compact to withhold the Sacred Scriptures from the Roman Catholics.”
I have already noticed the words of the Archdeacon of leath. Page 6 line 15 from bottom. 66 The Board does not require the patron &e.’
To be sure not—who ever said it did ? This is the way T* evades the real question, and it is in this way he is likely to mislead unwary minds, by keeping the real question at issue out of sight.
.The instance adduced by the Archdeacon of Meath proves nothing. It only shews that the Roman Catholics were wise enough to go against their Priests. “ O yes,” says Mr. T. “it11
proves that when parents wish it, their children can read the sacred scriptures under the Board. I answer neither the plan nor the Priests calculated on such resistance. The plan f was founded under the idea that it would effectually exclude the sacred scriptures—a placard was stuck up to give warning when the proscribed book was read—in spite of all however, a solitary instance may occur — it proves nothing. Suppose the Government gave an order that all were to bow to the Host, and that the Roman Catholics said, they saw the evil of it and would not do it, this would not lessen the guilt of the Government in having proposed it.
Page 7, line 5 from bottom—“God’s word” &c., but our business is to overcome that objection, not to give place to it, and further it.
Page 8—We come now to Mr. T’s doctrine of obedience to parents—here again is a strange perversion of truth. Obedience to parents is doubtless a plain and paramount duty— a duty enjoined in Holy Scriptures but “ in the Lord.”
Now the Roman Catholic religion itself supposes a child fit for confirmation at seven i.e.—supposes it able to decide and act for itself—so that all Roman Catholic children over that age are supposed to be able to judge independent of Priest or parent in things relating to God—but we do not reason on such grounds—I adduce it only as setting aside Mr. T.’s arguments.
Oh ! how sad is it to see good men giving up the simple principles of the faith of Christ! When once we diverge from the plain, straight path, how clouded does our judgment become.
This is, I humbly think, Mr. Trench’s misfortune—I say that it is our duty to put the truth before the child as soon as he can understand it.
I wish every R. C. in Ireland to know that it is my business to put the truth before their children—yea to seek them out, for the purpose of doing so, and that if they wish to hide the truth from them, they must hide them from me; God is light; I, as his minister, am the minister of light; I cannot hide it. If people do not wish to see it, but wish for darkness, they must not come in contact with me. I will12
nnter into no compact whereby the children of those who love darkness, (or rather whose spiritual guides force them to live in darkness, for I deny that the people love it,) shall be allowed to depart from the light, when I am exhibiting it. If I do I am guilty of helping the Government to help the Priests to suppress the word of truth.
Utilitarianism has misled Mr. T.; what sort of reasoning does he adopt ? He argues thus “ I wish the Roman Catholic to be educated, I, as patron can teacli him scriptural truth, i ic will sta} and hear it, and so I will lend myself to a sytem planned to suppress the truth.”
rSTow, I say I want no secrets; I wish the Homan Catholic to know as a moral certainty, as a matter of course, that if he sends ins child to my school, he will he taught the truth oj Cod, after a manner, suited to his tender years.
That is my position and duty, if lie does not choose to trust his child to me, that is his fault, but he should be quite sure that I should do this. “ That it is as much a matter of course, that a Gospel Minister should do so, as that if he went out in a bright day in June, he would see the sun and feel its influence.
, I have nothing to say to the guilt of the parent, if he withholds the child; the servant going to mass is pure nonsense, I et hiiii go to mass ; and I let the Roman Catholic keep his child from my school, because I cannot help it.
1 lie case for Mr. T. to use, would be if the Roman Catholic servant came to Church, and I shut the Bible for that da}, and so led him to conclude that his Priest was right in forbidding its use.
M e lia\e notning to say to the evidence of the clergyman befoie the House of Lords, but we have something to say to the.“ Mixed Government ” (page 10, line 10 from bottom), here is the origin of all, Mr. TVs sad mistakes, because we have a mixed government, we are to have a mixed gospel, or rather we, Christian Ministers—are to hide it altogether. This was the object of my second preliminary head viz,—to shew that we have nothing to say to Government in such cases—our business is to maintain the truth, teach the truth, expose error, seek out those who are astray, and openly, con-13
stantly to affirm that we are paid, that we live to uphold the standard of truth, that all who seek it, may know where it is to be found.
We do not wish to mention Dr. Wilson’s name (Bishop of Calcutta), with any feeling but that ot respect, but we think he has in this instanceyforsaken the straight and simple path.
I am glad that Dr. IVdlson holds u 1 he Great Docti incs of Redemption.” I wish he had stated wliat he believes them to be, as I would be quite content, to coniine myself to what J call the doctrines of redemption in teaching children ; but I am quite sure that I could not teach them tor halt an hour without falling foul of many gross Roman Catholic errors ; I am sorry Dr. Wilson classes the Sacraments among “ Other matters of Controversy.” Perhaps he would call the mass, praying to the Virgin, obtaining peace from the touch of a priest, while sin was unrepented of, and the srul unconverted, “ Matters of Controversy all I can say is, 1 could not join a Popish Priest in teaching the great doctrines of redemption, with the slightest hope that we should run the same road for five minutes.
I think if Mr. T. will read the extract from Archbishop Usher again, he will see that it is quite impossible to give it the interpretation he puts upon it; he says that he would ^ teach the “ Main Points,” to be sure he would ; but is this ' anything like the children getting literary instruction, and a placard being put up on the Avail to prevent their having any of the “ Main Points ” taught them at all. If I were allowed to teach pardon through Christ’s death, and peace with God through him, peace that sets the conscience at rest, and requires no purgatory—one mediator and intercessor—sanctification through the Holy Spirit, not by outward penances. If 1 could°teach these and such like “ Main Points,” (and I am sure Archbishop Usher would have taught no less), I would be satisfied to abstain from matters of Church discipline &c..
So that we see that Archbishop Usher would not have been “ a patron of any National School.”
With the Provost, Dr. Hincks, and Trinity College, I have nothing to do; whenever they or it decline from the plain path of Christian duty, I am sorry for it, it only makes it the more important that we should hold firm our principle. I repeat it here once again, we offer the fullest instruction in14
r the truth of God, and the best literary instruction—whoever will accept it we will receive them ; those who will not, we grieve over, we cannot use fire and sword to compel them— their blood is upon their own heads, we are pure.
Page 13, line 27. “ Ungenerous to refuse.” What a perversion of plain common sense ! I offer a man bread—he prefers dirt, and Mr. T. says there is something ungenerous in my “ refusing ” him bread. He “ refuses to take,” not 1 to give.
Page 14. Instance of Dr. Adam Clarke, it is extraordinary how prejudice can blind a good man. From all I have heard of Mr. 1 ’s character, he is just the man who would have taken such an opportunity of speaking to the young woman about her soul. Do not let me bo misunderstood. If he had undertaken the charge of her, pledging himself not to speak on religion, he would not of course have done so. But he would have taken charge of her, under the conviction that her parents were fully sensible that as a Christian Minister he was already pledged to a higher than they, to speak to her about her soul ; and I feel satisfied that such would be Mr. T.’s. judgment too, if the National Board had not blinded his eyes,
As to Mr. Dalt/s observations in the Christian Examiner of March, 1842, I leave Bishop Daly, to answer them.
Page 15, and 16, (beginning) I believe both these assertions to be strictly “ Correct in point of fact.” I hope that I have succeeded in proving that they are so. The scriptures are excluded during the hours of general instruction, a board being hung up in the school, for the express purpose of showing the hour when they will be read, so that those who do not wish to hear them, may go out.
That this is in “avowed concession” to the usurped authority of the “ unscriptural Church of Rome,” I think I have already proved. I say that the paragraph (page 16) “ How Very incorrect then,” &c., is wholly contrary to historical fact. A system was in being, by which the Roman Catholic people could enjoy the privilege of hearing the Sacred Scriptures, and they valued it. I deny that the parents or children were prejudiced against the Sacred Scriptures, or Scriptural instruction. It is such men as Mr. T. that have prejudiced them against them, by leading them to suppose that Scrip-15
tural instruction ouglit to be banished from our Schools ; and by leading them to look upon the Sacred Scriptures as a proscribed book—thereby leading them to the conclusion that perhaps their Priests are right in forbidding its use. Mr. i T. confounds Priests and Parents. I say again, the Parents . were not against the Sacred Scriptures, but that in “ awowed concession” to the Roman Catholic Priests, through their influence, the Scriptural system was broken up, and the parents and children deprived of their privileges and advantages. They did not object—“ Church Authority” did.
Page 17___The “ Weightiest objection” is founded on plain
unmistakeable facts. Rome was the originator of the National Board. The Roman Catholic Priests, not the Roman Catholic people, wished for it. Their object was to banish Scriptural instruction from the Schools, and they have, lor the most part, succeeded. That Roman Catholic children can stay if they please, has nothing to say to the question.
Page 17 (bottom). I hope that I have proved all these of the Government system ; and if so, the Protestant clergy do not lay themselves open to the charge of “outrageous error.”
Page 18. I never in my life met with an instance which so remarkably proved the truth of Mr. T’s. observation—
“ I believe the human mind is so constructed, &c,” as Mr. T’s own pamphlet. To see a good man—a useful minister—so blinded by prejudice as to take the side of the Roman Catholic Priests against the poor people of Ireland, and quarrel with the Clergy because they will not see with his eyes, and do the same, is one of the most remarkable perversions of human intellect, and (so far as the case goes) of moral obliquity, I ever witnessed.
Page 19» I do believe that the facts that condemn the Government system are not only “ ascertainable,” but are ascertained, so as to condemn it for ever in the mind of any one who wishes the poor Roman Catholics to enjoy the Word of God.
No letter to the Board, nor any letter from the Board, can make the smallest possible difference. I trust the clergy will never write to, nor receive a letter from the Board.
We ask for our children—we ask for the Roman Catholicchildren—for a system by which we are fj/ee to expose all errors and teach all truth in our Schools to all, and at all times. A system which holds us up as the Teachers of Truth —as the protectors of the poor Roman Catholics, against the unhallowed tyranny of their Priests. Nothing short of this would I consent to accept. Nothing short oi this, I do humbly trust, will my Protestant Brethren ever accept.
This or None,
Mr. Trench has appealed to the right quarter in behalf of a pamphlet written in defence of the National Board—viz., to ‘fCicsar.” I appeal (I say it with the most profound reve-' renee) in behalf of my principles—to'
CHRIST.