passion. We may gather from what is seen of his providence, that he delights in giving wretched sinners every means by which they may be saved. He has bestowed upon the world a boon, the value of which might take an eternity to appreciate; he has put forth his wondrous attributes to win back aliens to his government; he has shown an astonishing patience in his receiving such a rebel sphere back again among his happy and blessed creation.

NATIONAL EDUCATION.

THE Dissenters of England have proved themselves to be the enemies of the poor. They cannot furnish education except to a very small number; yet they have resisted a measure for the education of all, because it did not reduce the Church of England to their own level. Few as the numbers in their schools comparatively are, it is from them that their future congregations are to be derived. Thus a Dissenting school is regarded as a nursery for the chapel to which it is attached. The congregation is, in successive years, drafted off, as it were, from the school into the chapel. A spirit of proselytism, not an anxiety to benefit the children of the poor, is the moving principle in many Dissenting schools. That we are not uncharitable in this view is evident from the means adopted in various schools, to instruct and train the children in the peculiarities of Dissent. Dissenters are awfully afraid of the Church Catechism; and yet what is there in that Catechism which an orthodox believer could not receive? There is nothing on the subject of Church government, or discipline, or ceremonies. It is altogether occupied with the great truths of the Bible-those truths which are professed by all parties. But, on the other hand, in Dissenting schools, the principles of Dissent, as such, are taught, and the children are instructed in those points on which they are at issue with the Anglican Church. Besides this, the children are also taught to believe the most nefarious falsehoods respecting the views of the Church. Hence it is evident that Dissenting schools are formed, not for the benefit of the poor, but for the support of Dissent.

The above considerations will serve as a key to the conduct of Dissenters respecting the Education Bill. They would rather leave the great mass in ignorance, than lose a few children from their own schools. We must bear in mind the fact, that Dissenting congregations are chiefly made up from Dissenting schools; for few proselytes are now made from the Church of England. By the proposed bill it is very probable that some children might be taken from the Dissenting schools to those of the State, and thus the ranks of Dissent would be thinned in future. This prospect was quite sufficient to arouse the opposition of Dissenters, by alarming their fears; and we may thus account for that abuse, and ribaldry, and hatred of the Church, which have been so conspicuous during the last few weeks. This is the secret of the Wesleyan opposition. The leaders saw

that by diminishing the numbers in their schools, their congregations would also be diminished. As far, therefore, as the efforts of Dissenters can avail, the children of the poor are to be left destitute of the means of education. They have appeared in their true colours in this business. Unless they can educate the people themselves, they would rather that they should remain uneducated. They know well that they are likely to have more influence on the uneducated masses in our manufacturing districts, than on the same masses when trained in the Government schools. We cannot, therefore, but characterize their opposition as most unholy, and most disgraceful to the parties by whom it was raised and cherished.

We cannot but notice the absurd notion of the Record relative to the cause of the Wesleyan opposition to the education clauses in the Factory Bill. It is contained in the following extract :—

"We have no doubt at all that what is suggested by a correspondent is perfectly true, namely, that the opposition of the Dissenters, and especially of the Wesleyan Methodists, to the Government Education scheme, has been greatly quickened by the exposition of the dogma of baptismal regeneration given by the Bishop of London and others as the doctrine of our Church."

This assertion is nearly allied to Popish infallibility. The Record has "no doubt at all" on the subject; consequently the assertion must be correct. We will add, that if the opposition of the party to a great national measure was quickened by the views of any man, or any men, it is of very little consequence what they oppose, or what they support, since the opinions of men who could be influenced by such a cause are of no value whatever. We, however, may venture, notwithstanding the Record's dictum, to give our view of the matter. We then state that the opposition to the bill arose from their hostility to the Church. They imagined that it would tend to weaken Dissent, and hence their opposition. And how should it be otherwise? The Wesleyans are Dissenters, and therefore they cannot love the Church of England. As to the Bishop of London's charge, as the thing is stated by the Record, it is all a pretence. They would have opposed the bill had the charge never been heard of.

The means, too, which were adopted to get signatures to petitions were most disgraceful, and quite unworthy of persons who make a profession of religion. Meetings were held in chapels, where the most egregious falsehoods were put forth respecting the Church and the clergy. The speakers, in many instances, must have known that their statements were false; it could not be otherwise.

Then the placards and the bills, which were carried about the streets of this metropolis and sent into all parts of the country, were such, that no man imbued with the Spirit of Christ could have given them his sanction. Yet they were put forth by professed ministers of the Gospel!! On one placard, after a call upon the public to attend some particular meeting, at some particular chapel, were the words in large letters, "Down with the abominable bill!” This was sanctioned by men calling themselves preachers of the

Gospel of Christ! We ask whether such conduct is in keeping with their profession?

But the means resorted to in the country were, if possible, still more nefarious. To our own certain knowledge, emissaries were sent down from London to various parishes and districts, for the purpose of poisoning the minds of the people. The most abominable lies were propagated. The poor were told that their children would be taken from them, and that no person would be employed in a mine or a factory who did not belong to the Church of England. These reports were circulated by London emissaries in parishes which we ourselves could name. We ask, then, how can the poor people honestly sign a petition under such circumstances? Yet numbers subscribed their names in consequence of these and similar misrepresentations. A cause so supported cannot prosper.

The members of the Church of England have taken little part in this business. They are anxious for education; but they were willing to leave the details of the measure to the Government. Had Churchmen petitioned Parliament, as they could have done in overwhelming numbers, the act would have been misrepresented. They, therefore, sat still, feeling assured that the Government were anxious for the welfare of the poor, and being ready to accept any measure which promised to promote the general good of the country. They supposed that even Dissenters would be more anxious to benefit the poor, than to promote the cause of Dissent. They were mistaken in this opinion, and the conclusion to which they have been compelled to come is most painful. The opposition is just that of the dog in the manger. Dissenters are unable to educate the people, yet they are unwilling to have them educated by others.

That the mass of the people are attached to the Church of England, notwithstanding the efforts of Dissenters to alienate their affections, is clear from the conduct of the opponents of the Education Bill. We conclude with the following remarks from the Church and State Gazette :

"We again invite the attention of our readers to the noble and successful efforts now making by the National Society for educating the children of the poorer classes in the principles of our beloved and venerated Church to supply the lack of moral and religious instruction so grievously felt in our manufacturing districts. The alarming disclosures lately exhibited, of the fearful extent to which ignorance and demoralization prevail, have startled the most apathetic, and forced the selfishly sceptical into an admission of the urgency of the evil. If we would have the poor classes trained up in those principles on which alone, under Divine Providence, the peace and order of society and the general happiness of the people depend, we must give them a sound moral and religious education; if we would have the rising generation taught to "fear God and honour the Queen," we must bring them up within the pale of Church influence and Church instruction. The abandonment of the education clauses of the Factory Bill has thrown the Church upon her own resources, and she now boldly steps forward to supply the lack of service

which the faint-hearted Liberalism of the present day forbids the State to render. The Church, however, has been for some time engaged in constructing its machinery for the education of the people. Many dioceses have their training-schools in operation-many have established institutions for the middle classes in the principal towns. Parochial schools are rising in places where hitherto they had not been; while existing schools are gradually placing themselves under the superintendence of the diocesan board, and experienced instructors are going from place to place, under the authority of the bishops, to assist the clergy and committees in organizing the institutions under their control. Moreover, every parochial clergyman acknowledges the duty of aiding the parochial schools; and, if not overwhelmed by other engagements, many devote much of their time to this important work. Nothing is wanted to the completion of the system, considered in itself; and nothing is wanted for its actual success but funds. A mighty movement has begun, which we trust will supply ample means. The subscription already amounts to one hundred thousand pounds!* and we fervently hope that every Churchman-every friend of his country-will feel it a pleasing duty to contribute, according to his ability, to this sacred treasury, dedicated as it is to the noblest purposes, under the auspices of our beloved Queen and the hierarchy of England."

Correspondence.

THE TRINITY.

"THE THREE HEAVENLY WITNESSES."-1 JOHN V. 7.
To the Editor of the Churchman.

SIR-After a careful examination of the passage respecting the three heavenly witnesses, and of all which has been published on the subject, I have long arrived at the conclusion, that its genuineness is not to be impeached, and that the evidence in its favour far outweighs everything which has been advanced against it by the sophisms of the critic and the speculations of the philologist; and the reasons upon which my judgment has been settled may be permitted, I trust, to find a place in the pages of the Churchman:— In the year 1807, when I was preparing for holy orders, I enjoyed

"The list of subscribers to the National Society supplies a triumphant refutation of the calumnies with which the clergy of the Established Church are assailed, on the ground of their want of liberality. Of the seven hundred names on the list of subscribers, upwards of three hundred are those of dignitaries and ministers of the Church. Nor is it in numbers only that the clergy have come forward to aid this grand movement for the intellectual and moral advancement of the people. We find that out of one hundred and ten persons, comprising the class of contributors of 100%. each, no fewer than eighty-one are clergymen. These are facts no less honourable to the clerical than they should prove stimulating to the lay members of the Church,"

the privilege of studying in Sion College, and of reading in the London Institution, in the Old Jewry; and most of my mornings were passed in either the one or other of their libraries during that and a great proportion of the following year. At the London Institution I formed an acquaintance, which ultimately ripened into an intimacy, with its librarian, Professor Porson; and I had frequent opportunities of hearing his critical remarks on various passages of the written word, and of obtaining his opinion of the several authors whose works I was reading. I always found him frank and communicative, and most ready to answer my enquiries and to assist my studies. I had read his answer to Archdeacon Travis on the "Three Heavenly Witnesses;" and on one occasion I presumed to ask him whether, putting aside the controversy as to the authenticity or genuineness of the text, there was sufficient evidence besides in Scripture to support and establish the doctrine of the Trinity? His answer, which he subsequently repeated in different words, was as follows: "There can be no doubt on the point, if language has any meaning." And he then referred me to passages in which the testimony of the New Testament was decidedly in its favour. The opinion of so profound a scholar and critic may be thought, perhaps, by some to be the more valuable, as that of one regarded as not particularly orthodox. Upon this point I am unable to add anything; for in none of the numerous conversations with which he favoured me did he ever drop a hint that he was anything but a firm believer in the truth, and, with the exception of this particular text, in the genuineness of the Scriptures. His practical infidelity, which could not be disguised, was, I fear, more to be deplored than any theoretical views which he might either have privately entertained or have occasionally expressed. Whatever were his sentiments I have no solicitude to enquire, nor is it at all important. The human testimony of any one, however enlarged the sphere of his philological enquiries, and profound the depth of his classical attainments, makes for nothing, when put in competition with, or is opposed to, the explicit declarations of the written word. The all-important point, in all disputations, doubts, and difficulties, is, "What saith Scripture?" Now that avows, in language too plain to be misunderstood, and in terms too express to be mystified, the doctrine of the Trinity; or, to drop a term, which has given perhaps more occasion for railing than the sense of it, the union and co-operation of three Divine Personages in one in the work and perfecting of the mysterious and mighty scheme of human redemption. And it is quite certain that Porson thought that such was the doctrine of the written word, if language had any definite and intelligible meaning. And precisely of the same opinion was another profound critic and scholar-Bentley. Bentley's judgment of the contested passage in the apostle John (1 John v. 7) is thus conveyed in a letter addressed to a private friend :-" You endeavour to prove that it may have been writ by the apostle being consonant to his other doctrine. This I concede to you; and if the fourth century knew this text, let it come in, in God's name; but if that age did not know it, then Arianism, in its height, was bent down

Ꮓ Ꮓ