« السابقةمتابعة »
be opened, aud at the end of them, the school dismissed--but by one party coming before the commencement of this united school, or the other staying after its dissolution, both will be allowed to be taught any thing, without a possibility of annoyance, or wound of conscience being given to either party, by being present when a catechism, which it disapproves, is being learned and repeated, or explained, or when a book of religious controversy, could by any possibility be introduced. While both sects of children are present, it is merely required, that such as have attained a sufficient proficiency in reading, shall read, the one in the Protestant version, and the other in the Rhemish version of the sacred Scriptures; but that controversial notes, or controversial oral explanations, shall be excluded during this time, and nothing but mere grammatical or verbal explanations allowed. And this is the subject of their 10th query to schools applying for assistance, see 14th Report, appendix, p. 152-"As the fundamental principles, and the practice of the Society require, that the Bible or Testament, either in the authorized, or Douay version, without note or comment, written or oral, shall be read in its schools, by all the scholars who have attained suitable proficiency in reading-that catechisms, and all books inculcating peculiar religious opinions, should be excluded from the schools during school hours; and that there should be no distinction on account of religious opinions, in the appointment of masters, managers, or teachers, or in the admission of scholars, &c. &c."
To have given the fifth rule fairly, however, or any of the bye rules relative to it, or such an explanation of its principle, as has been done, over and over again, by the Society in its publications, would not have answered the purpose of The Free Schools Report; and therefore they falsify one, in order to misrepresent the other, and suppress much more, to prevent this double delusion being
Thus, too, they keep out of view the fact, that the Kildare Place Society not only have always recommended religious instruction, but expressly recommend "particular religious instruction" in the following words-see paragraph 5 of their "Statement, &c. &c." p. 156 of XIVth Report,) although an anxious consideration of the circumstances of this country has convinced the members of this institution, that particular religious instruction ought not to be introduced into the schools during school hours, yet the society is fully sensible of the value of such instruction, as forming an indispensable branch of education; and the mode of instruction recommended by the society, gives a facility to the parents and pastors of the children, to impart to them such religious instruction as they may think fit, out of school hours."
Now we can see, too, how the Free School Report blinds its readers, by a dishonest insertion of the new words—" or religion," after the singular form "catechism," in their fabricated fifth rule; and by disingenuously substituting "that the children shall not be taught their catechism, or religion, &c." for, "all catechisms
and books of religious controversy excluded," and by afterwards representing this as bearing against one party alone, by calling this an anti-catholic principle." How much fairer would it have been, to have quoted the real expression, or even its sense; "but all cate"chisms (that is as well Protestant as Roman Catholic,) and books "of religious controversy excluded." There is not even a semblance of truth in this latter part of their perverted gloss, unless they are prepared to say that "religious controversy" and "religion" are identical, commensurate, and convertible terms, which, I suppose, no sane man will state. Thus it is, that they metamorphose the whole, both principle and rule, facts and words, literality and sense, to prepare their unwary readers to join them in calling what they have, untruly, by a misquotation of words, substitution of sense, and perversion of meaning, attributed to the Kildare Place Society, an anti-Catholic and very unchristian principle." But let me ask, is it "Catholic" or "anti-Catholic," to put our own figment into another man's mouth, and then abuse it, and condemn also the innocent for it? What is it to be "unchristian," if to be "christian" be, to slander another, on account of our own suppositious misprint of his oft-published statement, and then hypocritically to pretend a "true Catholic" spirit, and a“ veritable christian" principle, "in entering their solemn protest against," not his truth, but their own fiction, not his statement of his own principles, but their own changeling caricature? Which is it, christian or unchristian, Catholic or anti-Catholic, first to feign a regulation, and then insert one fundamental principle for another; and, lastly, call it "pernicious," and shrink back with horror, from what is purely their own evil creation, and say, that as not "anti-Catholic," and not “unchristian," "they are, and ever will be, opposed" to both.
I know no better words, in which to characterize their conduct, than their own phrases "pernicious," "anti-Catholic and unchristian;" and especially I adopt their conclusion," It calls for, and must, eventually, meet public reprobation," as it surely has met, and shall meet mine.
Again they say, "No aid will be given (by the Kildare Place Society,) to any school, unless this rule be observed." This, too, is not a full statement of the truth, for, first, "this rule to be observed" does not exist in any shape or form; next, neither the words nor the sense of ". no aid will be given, &c. unless, &c." are met in the real fifth rule, and its explanatory queries, &c.; and, lastly, the real fifth rule, and their reports state, in express words, the very contrary of what is here asserted. In the fifth rule, as given at full length above, the reader will find that, though the funds of the Institution (that is, unreturnable disbursements, for building, or fitting up school-rooms, for gratuities to deserving masters, or in unpurchased grants of school requisites, &c.) " shall be devoted to the support of such schools alone," as the real fifth rule (which see above) has already described. "yet the society is willing to communicate information, and afford such assistance as shall not dimi"nish its resources, to any seminary for the instruction of the poor,"
that is, either by sale of its various school requisites, or of its valuable collection of cheap books, &c. &c. at the lowest original cost price, and cheaper than any where else, as charging no profit whatever, or by allowing the masters or mistresses of any schools, no matter on what principle founded, or on what plan to be conducted, to be trained gratuitonsly at their model-school, provided the patrons of the school pay the mere expenses of their board and lodging, Dublin, during their stay under instruction. Yet the Free Schools Report, in the face of these facts, states" no aid will be given, &c." and pretends to give the whole truth.
In the above-mentioned note in the Free Schools Report, the Committee re-assert their own falsehood, by saying "the Kildare Place Society rejected applications made by schools, solely because the children were taught their catechism and religion," thus again torturing the expression "all catechisms and books of religious controversy excluded" into a prevention of teaching "religion." But let us examine the pages to which they refer in this note, for the facts asserted in it, viz. " XIIth Report, 1823-4, pages 20 & 35." In the former page the words are as follows, beginning, however, in page 19:"Your Committee have hitherto only stated the applications for assistance with which they deemed it proper to comply; there were, however, 98 other applications made to them during their year of office. They continued in correspondence with 62 of the applicants in the 5th of January, when the year expired, with a view to ascertain the necessity or expediency of granting the aid sought by them:-36 applications having been refused, on different grounds, which precluded your Committee from complying with them. And it is an extremely gratifying circumstance, that whilst, out of 29 rejected applications, which occurred during the preceding year, only four were refused on the ground of the managers declining to permit the sacred scriptures, without note or comment, to be read therein, by such of the scholars as had attained a suitable proficiency in reading; only one out of the 36 rejected applications has been refused on that ground, during the past year, notwithstanding the great increase in the number of applications. The grounds of refusal of the remaining 35 applications were as follow:
16 rejected, as religious distinction is made in the appointment of the teachers,~
4 on account of catechisms being taught during school-hours,and 15, the schools being situated too near others, already established, or being of that description, which it is not the object of the society to assist.
And thus, though in pages 21 and 19, it appears that “upwards of 1000 effective schools, containing upwards of 70,000 scholars," were at that moment" in connexion with the society, of which "395 new ones had been established and assisted during the last year," only one was refused, one year, for rejecting the scriptures from the school entirely, and four, and no more, were refused, another year, not for teaching "religion" to the children, nor even for teaching" catechisms," but because their stupid conductors in
sisted, that the catechism, or catechisms, of such a sect, or such a party, should be taught within certain hours, which they insisted, too, should be the school hours, and the only hours in which any of the children should be in the school room, and while the children of parents of other and different denominations were all present together in the room, thus doing all that lay in their power to give offence to some, and to introduce "pride, and knowing nothing, but "doting, or sickness about questions and strifes of words, whereof "arise envies, strife, contentions, blasphemies, railings, evil sur"misings or suspicions, perverse disputings, or conflicts of men of corrupt minds, and who are destitute of the truth,—FROM SUCH WITHDRAW THyself.”—(| Tim. vi. 4, Protestant and Rhemish versions.) If this be not their object, what will be its effect, but to produce it; or else cause utter indifferentism about all such matters. (To be Continued.)
To the Editor of THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.
SIR,-Perhaps some of your correspondents is sufficiently well read in the old romances, to be able to throw light on the original meaning of the word "SANGREAL," of which so many derivations have been given. A theory has occurred to me on the subject; but I have no means of confirming or disproving it. I therefore throw it out, in the hope that some one, who has access to old romances, and inclination to examine them, may investigate the matter, and favour the public with the result of his inquiries.
My idea is, that the original legend was that, which states that Joseph of Arimathea collected the blood which flowed from the Saviour's side, into a vessel, and brought it with him to Britain; and that the original derivation, grounded on this legend, was Sangreal, qu. sanguis realis, the real blood, in opposition to that of the Eucharist. Afterwards, I conceive, when the fable of transubstantiation was invented, the advocates ef that doctrine endeavoured to alter the legend and the derivation, to make them conformable to it. Being bound to believe that there was no difference between the blood that flowed from Christ's side, and that in the chalice of the Eucharist, they invented a new ground for ascribing a peculiar sanctity to this imaginary relic; viz. that it was either the dish from which Christ and his apostles eat the last supper, or the cup from which they drank. Both these stories are to be found in romances; and the period at which both of these contradictory legends is first to be met with, may, I think, throw light on the period when transubstantiation was first believed by the common people. Between its first invention in the 9th century, and its establishment, as a doctrine of the Romish church, in the 13th, it made, no doubt, a gradual progress, and, perhaps, a very slow one among the people. As the legend was altered, so was the derivation, which, as given above, is in direct opposition to the new doctrine. Some made it sang real, the royal blood;
and others, more daringly, saint greal, the holy dish, fabricating a new word "", greal," which they assumed to mean a dish. I believe I am correct in saying that no such word occurs, except in this. supposed compound, nor has any derivation been given for it. Strype, indeed, uses the word "grail," but he means by it, not a dish, but a book, a collection of graduals used in the Romish service. In Italian the word is Sagradale, which seems to insinuate a still different derivation. Ederton, and some others, have supposed that there were two imaginary relics, the Sangreal, or real blood, and the Saint Greal, or holy grail; but I am most inclined to adopt the theory stated above. There is, I understand, a good deal of information on this subject in Roqueforts' "Glossaire de la Langue Romaine," a book to which some of your correspondents may have access.-I am, &c. E. H.
*THE following notes had been sent by the author of the above article, to be appended to his interesting and learned Paper on Egyptian Hieroglyphics, published in our last, but having been unaccountably delayed, we have great pleasure in inserting them here.
ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HEBREW AND SEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGY OF THE BOOKS OF KINGS.
The difference between the Hebrew and Septuagint Chronologies of the Books is small, and has not been much attended to. It amounts to three, or perhaps four years; the difference in the texts is simply this-According to the LXX, Jehoshaphat began his reign in the 11th of Omri, and Ahab in the 2d of Jehoshaphat; whereas, according to the Hebrew, Ahab began to reign in the 38th of Asa, and Jehoshaphat in the 4th of Ahab. To reconcile these dates, Usher has reduced the reign of Jehoram of Judah from eight years to four, and has omitted the interregnum of four years between the death of Elah and the establishment of Omri, (compare 1 Kings xvi. 15 and 23). The following tables will show the precise points of difference between the two authorities. The difference of these years will affect every event prior to those here mentioned.
According to the Hebrew Chronology, the duration of the Jewish Monarchy from the death of Solomon to the destruction of the Temple, was 387 years; according to the LXX, it was 390. Whether the under-mentioned, Ezekiel iv. 5, be any confirmation of this latter date, I leave to others to decide.
ON THE LATER EGYPTIAN DYNASTIES.
The following tables of the later Egyptian dynasties, obtained from a comparison of the old Egyptian Chronicle, cited by Syncellus, and the fragments of Manetho, preserved by Eusebius and Africanus, will throw light on this article. The dynasty called the 18th, commenced about 1787, and lasted according to Josephus, 393 years. This dynasty commenced with Tethmosis, who expelled the shepherds. Josephus considers the account of their expulsion to be a disguised account of the Exodus of the Israelites.