those who propose it. Sir John Pakington seems to imagine that, if he only prove that the existing schools do not adequately educate all the poor children of the country, it therefore follows, as a necessary consequence, that new schools should be established and managed by some public body or other. Yet is this a necessary consequence at all? There is a tertium quid far better calculated to accomplish the object of education and to avoid all its acknowledged difficulties. Give ample aid to the zealous committees of existing schools, so as to enable these friends and managers of education to respond alike to the public wants and to their own wishes. Is it not obvious that the men who are now, to the utmost of their limited means, caring for and fostering education, will do this work better than any public board? And can it be doubted that, if adequate pay out of an Education Rate be made the right of every child attending a school under government inspection, such schools will, through the spontaneous zeal of these men, rise up wherever they are wanted, especially if, in very poor districts, some little special contribution be accorded by the Education Committee of the Privy Council towards the erection of schools? If at Manchester, Sheffield, Newcastle on Tyne, and the other places mentioned by Sir John Pakington, the earnest members of each religious community knew that they could demand four-pence or five-pence a week for every scholar actually attending a school established by them under government inspection, would they not soon provide school-rooms and teachers for all the poor children of their respective bodies? Are not schools thus originating and thus managed, if only thus supported, far better than any composite schools under the composite management of any local board? and are they not free from all the difficulties and religious divisions which would embarrass the others? What need, then, of a new and hazardous experiment to do that which can be more safely and more effectually done by the expansion of a system of which we have had experience and recognize the merits, which in spite of scant meaus has already done much, and which, with larger means, may do more, indeed, everything possible?

But Sir John Pakington says in effect, "you can no more carry on educaton by means of voluntary management than you can carry on war by means of voluntary

management;" the objection sounds rather antithetically plausible, but it seems to us that the system we sug gest of enlarging, strengthening, and extending existing schools, and giving full pecuniary aid to all who may apply themselves to the conduct of education under government inspection very much resembles our British mode of warfare, wherein the military pay is raised by government taxes, whilst the soldiers entitle themselves to receive it by voluntary enlistment.

It is obvious also that Sir John Pakington's experiment of free schools can be just as well tried under an extension of the existing schools as by means of any new schools or any new organization.

There is one sophistical illustration in Sir John Pakington's speech which it may be well to expose. He says, that because the Poor Law Guardians give relief to the poor of all religions, equally can a local board impart education to all. The very statement of the sophism is its exposure. Every employer of labour might with equal truth say that he can as easily direct the education of all the children of his workmen as pay the latter their wages. Religion has nothing to do with ordinary parochial relief, but Sir John Pakington expressly says in one part of his speech:

If there are honourable gentlemen in this house who contend that religion has nothing to do with education, and that we should teach no religion to children, I can only say that with them I have nothing in common."

And in another part

"I am a Churchman myself, and will not forego the catechism."

We honour him for the sentiment; let him only concede to others what he claims for himself. He would deal with the religious difficulty by letting the majority in each place decide what shall be the general rule as to religious instruction, with leave of absence to the exceptional irregulars. If Sir John Pakington will tell us why this system was not adopted in Ireland, we will tell him why we think it ought not to be adopted in England. As it was not thought fair or favourable enough for the minority in Ireland, let the English minority have the benefit of the same consideration.

We beg, finally, to say that we have not proposed an education rate, but if it be adopted, we are sure, and we think careful reflection will lead most others to the conclusion, that, in the circumstances of this country, local public bodies cannot properly be entrusted with the management of Education; that their only appropriate duty would be to collect the rate, and pay over to the managers of each School under Government inspection, the sum due in respect of the actual number of scholars in weekly attendance at such school, and that, if private zeal were thus aided by public money, schools would soon spontaneously arise under the most effective management to meet the educational wants of the people. In these schools government and the public would deal with the religious difficulty in by far the most appropriate manner, viz., by letting it alone, and leaving each religious body to deal with it and with education together as they ought to be dealt with together, according to their own earnest convictions.

ART. IX.-1. The History of the Early Puritans; from the Reformation to the Opening of the Civil War, in 1642. By J. B. MARSDEN, M.A. Second Edition. London: Hamilton, Adams and Co. 1853.

2. The History of Later Puritans; from the Opening of the Civil War, in 1642, to the Ejection of the non-conforming Clergy in 1662. By J. B. MARSDEN, M.A. Second Edition. London: Hamilton, Adams and Co. 1854.

3. Origin and Development of Anglicanism; or a History of the Litanies, Homilies, Articles, Bibles, Principles, and Governmental System of the Church of England. By the Rev. W. WATERWORTH, S.J. London: Burns and Lambert. 1854.

4. A History of the Articles of Religion. By CHARLES HARDWICKE, M.A. Svo. Cambridge: Deighton. 1851.

5. A History of the Book of Common Prayer, with a Rationale of its Offices. By the REV. FRANCIS PROCTER, M.A., 8vo. Cambridge: Mc. Millan and Co. 1855.

WE

E are beginning to outgrow the memory of the once celebrated illustration by which Dr. Hook made it plain that the Anglican Church, before the Reformation, remains precisely identical with the Anglican Church of the present day, "as a man who has washed his face in the morning remains the same man as he was before he had washed." For a long series of years, in the popular Anglican theory of the modern history of the National Church, the attitude which she has maintained from the sixteenth century downwards, was explained as purely or principally a self-reformation. It was held to have been purely her own act. She herself took the initiative. She herself laid down the great principles by which the reforms were to be guided; she herself followed up the leading details in the work. If a Catholic historian or controversialist ventured to suggest that the moving power was the State and not the Church, he was met by an indignant denial. The State, it was admitted, had assisted in the carrying out of the plan. But it was the Church herself who conceived and matured it. She but accepted the assistance and support which were offered in her struggle. The State was but the "nursing mother" of the second infancy through which the Church had to pass in her progress towards a new and more perfect organisation.

Still, even while Dr. Hook's very primitive illustration was still in all the freshness of its novelty, there were found persons hard headed enough to question its appropriateness; and some of our readers may yet recollect, in an early number of this Journal, a very brilliant and masterly dissertation, one of the last great efforts of the illustrious Catholic historian of England, by which the silliness and absurdity of the pretension was unsparingly laid bare. It is an old theory of ours, that there are very few of the positions assumed by the antagonists of the Catholic

A Sermon, preached at the Chapel Royal, in St. James's Palace, on the first Sunday after Trinity, June 17, 1838. By Walter Farquhar Hook, D.D., p. 7.

↑ Vol. viii. pp. 334 and following.

Church, which may not be turned against each other, with far more effect than they carry against the common adversary whom they all seek to assail. A skilful use of the weapons employed against each other by various sects of Protestantism, in their internecine warfare, would supply one of the most curious, and we will venture to say, one of the most solid and convincing, arguments of the truth of the Catholic Religion to be found in the whole range of polemical literature. And it is a very remarkable confirmation of the line of argument adopted by Dr. Lingard in the memorable article to which we refer, that the main theory by which Mr. Marsden, in his history of the Puritans, accounts for the character impressed upon the English Reformation, and for the contrasts which its system presents to that of the Reformation as developed in any of the churches of the Continent, is, that in the latter the movement was a spontaneous one, in the former it was but the result of an impulse from the power above. "The Reformation in England," says he "originated with the monarch and was transmitted to the people through the regular forms of the constitution. Upon the continent and in Scotland the order was reversed. With the exception of a few of the minor German states, in which the reigning princes led the movement they were unable to control, the reformation was begun by the people, and carried into effect against the will of the higher civil authorities, or without their assistance. The character of this vast revolution, both at home and abroad, partook of the circumstances of its origin, and in each case still retains the visible impression of its peculiar parentage. In England, the reformed religion immediately assumed the outward symbols of a monarchical institution and the church, represented by its higher clergy, again, as before the Reformation, took its place in the constitution, without exciting jealousy in the crown, or stimulating those passions which the possession of a new and formidable power invariably creates amongst the people. The spirit of the institution was naturally tinged by the same circumstances. It was a matter of course, in a reformation of which a succession of sovereigns were the first promoters, that episcopacy should be retained, and not less so that a certain degree of magnificence and splendour should invest the national church, and display itself both in the dignities of its hierarchy and in the ceremonial of its public worship: and