and mistresses are just as devoid of the information necessary for properly understanding such notes, as are the children, and they must be utterly unable to answer the inquiries which any of their intelligent scholars make, in regard to these matters. What Irish teacher of a National school could tell his pupils the amount of dependence to be placed on some "one" unspecified manuscript of the Greek Testament, or the degree of accuracy with which it has been collated? Could he tell how many manuscripts in all have been as yet collated, and the families to which they belong, so as to form any estimate of the amount of value to be attributed to such an assertion as that "three" of them have a particular reading? Could he tell any child that asked him the question, what was the relative value of the Syriac, or the Ethiopic version, as compared with other versions? Nay, if the teacher were himself anxious to acquire information of this kind, where could he obtain it? Is there any book accessible to him where he would find the subject explained? The Scripture Lessons afford no explanation of these matters. The National Board do not put into his hand any book which would render these notes intelligible. Having premised these remarks, I must give a few specimens of the kind of statements to which they refer.

Note on Luke, ix. 39:—[And he throweth him down.] "These words within brackets are found in three manuscripts, and several ancient translations."

Note on Luke, xvi. 21 ::-"One manuscript, with the Vulgate, reads here, ' and no man gave to him.'

Note on Psalm xxii. 17:-" I may number-or, they number, &c. Sept. Vulg. Syriac. Ethio."

Note on Isaiah, liii. 9:—“There is some difficulty in this passage. The authorized version reads, 'He made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death.' The Douay, nearly following the LXX, reads, ‘And he shal! give the ungodly for his burial, and the rich for his death.' Boothroyd adopts the supposition of Kennicott, that the words, 'grave' and 'death,' have incidentally been made to change places, and reads, And he was placed with the wicked in his death, and with the rich man in his sepulchre.' The translation in the text is nearly that of Bishop Lowth. Jesus did, in fact, die in company with malefactors, and was buried in the sepulchre of a rich man."

Note on Psalm xxxiv. 10:—" The rich are made poor, &c. The young lion do lack.-Auth. Trans. A single letter (the two letters being very like one another) makes the difference. The ancient Greek, Latin, and Syriac, read as in the text, which reading is preferred by Bishop Horsley. The word rendered 'made poor,' is never used of any inferior animal, to express its want of food; but always of men, to express poverty."

The Lord's Prayer, is thus given in the Scripture Lessons, from the New Testament, No. 1, p. 60:

"When ye pray, say, [Our] Father, [who art in heaven,] Hallowed be thy name: Thy kingdom come: [Thy will be done as in heaven so on earth.] Give us day by day our daily bread: And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."

To this is affixed the following note :

"The passages enclosed in brackets in this prayer are not found in some

manuscripts, and therefore are omitted by many modern critics-as Griesbach, &c. They are supposed to have been supplied from the parallel passages in Matt. vi. They are omitted in the Armenian and Vulgate translations. Origen says, that Luke has them not, though Matthew has."

Now, I would put it to any person of common sense, are notes of this description suited to the children in National schools? What can such children, what can their teachers, know-living, as they do, in the mountains of Connemarra, or the plains of Mayo, or the Bog of Allen-what can they possibly know of Griesbach, or Bishop Horsley, or Kennicott, or Boothroyd? Is it in the nature of things that they should be able to appreciate, according to the value respectively belonging to each, the Armenian version, the Syriac, the Ethiopic, the Septuagint? But, absurd as it is, and mischievous, to put these notes, suggestive of all manner of doubts, into the hands of persons who have no means of obtaining the information necessary to counteract their sceptical tendency, yet even the statements themselves are not always correct. In Luke, ix. 39, where the note says that the words, "And he throweth him down," are found in "three manuscripts," Griesbach mentions four, and Scholz six MSS. as having this addition. In the next example, Luke, xvi. 21, the note says, that 66 one manuscript" has the reading in question; Griesbach specifies "three," and Scholz "four" MSS. which have it. So miserably defective is the scholarship of which an ambitious display is made in these Books of Lessons.

But a still more erroneous statement is made with reference to 1 Cor. xv. 47. This text occurs in two numbers of the Scripture Lessons. Where it first occurs, p. 17, it is thus translated :—

"The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man from heaven, heavenly."

To this is appended a note, as follows:

"Heavenly; or the Lord from heaven."

Here the original, as well as the authorized version, is departed from, and the Rheims translation is adopted. The reading of the authorized Bible is given, indeed, in the note, but not a word of reference or allusion to its being grounded on the authority of any MSS. or ancient versions. When, however, this passage occurs again, at p. 150 of the first number of Lessons from the New Testament, the correct reading is given in the text, and the following note is affixed to it :

"The Lord from heaven, or, according to a large proportion of the ancient manuscripts which have been examined, the second man from heaven."

Here you perceive how an attempt is made to prop up the reading found in the Rheims version, and maintain its credit, although it is not adopted in the text of the lesson. But what is the fact in regard to the manuscripts? Out of 121 which Griesbach collated, the word "Lord" was found in 113, and was wanting in eight. Yet the Scripture Lessons aver that it is omitted in "a large proportion of the ancient manuscripts"!

And now I would ask the English clergy, would they give their

sanction to a volume of this kind for the use of the children in their schools? Yet this was the only book of Scriptural instruction which was admissible for the combined education of the children in the Irish National schools. But still further it is to be observed, that even if the clergyman wished to use these Scripture Lessons in his school, as the means of giving some instruction in religion to the Roman-catholic children, it still was in the power of the Roman-catholic priest to raise objections against the use of them, and to prevent their being read. The commissioners did not enforce, they only " recommended," their being used. And in the inquiry which was made into the working of the system by a committee of the House of Commons, in 1837, the Secretary of the Board was asked, "To whose will is it left whether they shall be read or not?" He answered, "To the patrons of the schools." He was then asked, "If the parent of any child should object, would the child be withdrawn, or the book ?" His answer was, "That would be a question to be decided. If the parents of a single child objected, the obvious course would be, that the child should not be in the Scripture class; if the objection extended to any number, so as to lead to the inference that an objection was felt by the parents to the use of the Scripture extracts, their use in that school would be contrary to the principles of the Board." The view of the principles of the system which was thus laid down by the secretary is confirmed by the change which has recently been made in the wording of the rule respecting the Scripture Lessons. That rule is now as follows:

"The Commissioners do not insist on the Scripture Lessons being read in any of the National Schools, nor do they allow them to be read during the time of secular or literary instruction, in any school attended by children whose parents or guardians object to their being so read. In such case, the Commissioners prohibit the use of them, except at the times of religious instruction, when the persons giving it may use these lessons or not, as they think proper."

Let the reader now call to mind the passages which I quoted in my former letter from the testimony of the Roman-catholic prelates, wherein they stated that they altogether objected to the children of Roman catholics receiving any scriptural instruction whatever in schools which were under the patronage of Protestant clergymen. It was, therefore, perfectly evident to the clergy of the established church, that as the commissioners did not render the use of the Scripture Lessons obligatory in all the National schools, the authority of the Roman-catholic priests would be exerted to prevent the children of their communion reading those lessons in the parish schools, if placed in connexion with the National Board. So far as regarded the employing of these volumes of extracts as the medium of giving religious instruction to all children of every persuasion who attended their schools, the clergy were left dependent on the non-interference of the Romish priesthood; for, all that was needed to prevent the Scripture Lessons being read was, that the priests should influence some of the parents to make an objection to their children reading them under the eye of a Protestant clergyman, and forthwith the use of the book

must be abandoned in that school as a book of united instruction. That the priest would, whenever a fitting occasion presented itself, thus interpose with the parents for the purpose of excluding the Scripture, was manifest from the distinct declaration of the Roman-catholic bishops, that they thought it their duty to interfere with the parents if they sent their children to a school where any scriptural instruction was given, unless it was imparted by a Roman-catholic teacher, and under a Roman-catholic superintendent.

Enough, I trust, has now been said, to make it evident to your readers, that the mere fact of the Commissioners of National Education having recommended the use of the Scripture Lessons, was not enough to remove the objections of the clergy against the system, and that those lesson books were themselves of a description that could not meet with the approval of the clergy. I am, Sir, yours faithfully, AN IRISH CLERGYMAN.

THE CHURCH IN NEWFOUNDLAND.

SIR, It is always interesting to trace the progress of the church of Christ in the several nations of the world, and I would hope that an attempt to show its present condition and to guess at its future fortunes in Newfoundland-one of the most ancient, as well as most important, of the British colonies-may find acceptance with yourself and some your readers.

of

We shall have a clearer view of the subject, if we, first of all, give a rapid sketch of the efforts which have been made in former days to extend the knowledge of God in that bleak country. And this we are enabled to do, without much trouble of research to ourselves, by the help of the various books which are now published relative to our colonial empire, and more particularly Sir R. Bonnycastle's very interesting and valuable account of Newfoundland in 1842.

We need not go farther back than the 16th century. Robertson and Pinkerton do, indeed, say something of a visit of Eric, Bishop of Greenland, in 1227, to those inhospitable shores, to convert the inhabitants. But we cannot look upon this as anything more than the legendary history of a remote age. No traces of the pious labours of this holy man, and his devoted followers, are left, and all that the story can serve for now is to encourage the minds of those who love to regard themselves as links in a golden chain let down from Heaven to Earth to draw men upwards, with the pleasant thought that the feet of Saints may, haply, have walked over the ground which they now tread, and the prayers of saints may have gone up from those very spots on which they now seem at times to labour in vain; and when they think thereon, they call to mind our blessed Lord's words"And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily." (St. Luke, xviii. 7, 8.) And in the strength of this promise they go on their dreary way with fresh courage and

energy.

However, we may date the first authentic knowledge of Newfoundland at 1497. In that year it seems certain that Cabot not only discovered the island, but landed upon it, surveyed its harbours and coasts-saw its inhabitants-perceived the capabilities of wealth and greatness which were contained in its bordering seas and other natural resources and went back to Henry the 7th with a cargo of spoil, which might prove to that prudent monarch the probable advantage of securing to the crown of England so rich a dependency as this new country promised to be. Although we cannot suppose from the short stay which he made there, that Cabot could have attempted to plant the cross in that frozen clime-(and this we generally find to have been the first aim and foremost thought of the travellers of those days)-it is certain, from the fact of his giving the name of St. John to the island off the main land, because it was first seen on St. John the Baptist's day, that he was neither ashamed of holy things, nor neglectful of any opportunity, however slight, of reminding those around him that there were other matters to be thought of besides the worldly gains which might accrue to themselves and their employers from this new discovered island. How forcibly does Dr. Arnold touch upon the importance of giving sacred names to new countries, when in a letter to Mr. Gell, he says-"By all means, if possible, stick to your idea of naming your place Christ's College. Such a name seems of itself to hallow Van Diemen's Land; and the Spaniards did so wisely in transplanting their religious names with them to the new world. We, unhappily, in omnia alia abiimus.""

From 1497 till 1527, we read of Newfoundland being resorted to by the ships of several nations for the sake of the fish; but whether any of those ships brought to its desolate coasts the "fishers of men," who, though they had toiled many a long night without success, would again" at their Master's word, let down the net for a draught," we have no tidings at all. There is no voice, nor sign, to enable us to hope favourably. One vessel, indeed, did sail from England in this year (1527), for the express purpose of the discovery of the Northern parts of the island, whose name, "Dominus Vobiscum," would lead us to infer that it sailed with some higher purpose than merely that of promoting trade, or even science. May the Hawk,+

Life of Dr. Arnold, vol. ii. p. 206.

"The Hawk, schooner, was the munificent gift of the Rev. R. Eden, rector of Leigh, Essex, to the Bishop of Newfoundland. Some time was necessarily occupied in adapting it to the purposes of a church ship, for the use of that diocese. With this object the lower deck, with the exception of that part reserved for the Bishop's cabin, has been fitted up so as to answer the purposes of a small floating church. By such an arrangement, the vessel will be often rendered available for holding divine worship off some of the retired settlements in the numerous bays of Newfoundland, where no church has as yet been erected, while the bishop himself may be engaged in visiting larger stations, which have a church on shore already built.

On the 12th of August, the Bishop of London having previously visited the vessel and given a parting charge to those who were about to sail in it, the Hawk proceeded on her voyage down the river, carrying a flag bearing the arms of the See of Newfoundland. This flag, it is hoped, will be often greeted by the fishermen of Newfoundland, and the inhabitants of its coasting villages, as conveying to them a glad summons to attend the worship of God, which will thus be carried to many a