Christian Friends,
An advertisement has appeared in
the Norwich papers of the 26th instant, announcing that “a
public meeting of members of the Established Church will be held
in the Hall in the Market, Norwich, on Thursday, 7th of April,
for the purpose of forming a Society to promote the extension of
the Infant School system in the County and City.” It
is somewhat remarkable that a notice of such importance, and
addressed to a large and respectable body of Christians, should
have been inserted in the public papers anonymously, and
that you should be called upon to assemble in the Hall, without
knowing by whose authority such an assembly is convened, and
without even knowing who is to preside on the occasion.
Believing, however, that the advertisement does proceed from some
competent authority, and perceiving, from the terms in which it is
expressed, that all the inhabitants of this City, except
“the members of the Established Church,” are
prohibited from attending the meeting, I take the liberty, as one
of the excluded party, of addressing you from the press—and
my object in so doing, is to explain to you the principles on
which the Infant schools in Norwich have hitherto been conducted,
and to recommend those principles to your adoption at the
approaching meeting.
You are probably aware that several friends to the education
of children, and especially to their moral and religious
education, have originated, and, for some years, supported Infant
schools in this neighbourhood, the principal of which are to be
found in Lakenham, in Crook’s Place, and in the parish of
St. Miles. These schools have hitherto been conducted not
on sectarian, but on catholic and Christian principles.
Children of all classes have been admitted as scholars, and,
besides imparting to them the elements of general knowledge, they
have been taught, according to their capacities, the facts and
histories recorded in the Holy Scriptures, and the great
doctrines relative to the sinfulness of man, and to the
redemption which is in Christ Jesus, on which the majority of
Christians are agreed. The committees of these schools are
composed of members of the Establishment and of other Christian
churches, all of whom, without the slightest degree of jealousy, or
of difficulty, have cordially united in carrying into effect both
the intellectual and the religious parts of the system. The
committee of the Lakenham school, though it, as well as the other
schools, is, I believe, chiefly supported by Dissenters, has, I
am informed, regularly invited the respected clergyman of the
parish to attend its meetings; and my connexion with the school
in St. Miles’, enables me to declare, most confidently,
that repeated efforts have been made to induce members of the
Established church to afford greater help in directing its
concerns, as well as in defraying its expenses. I have no
doubt that in the other schools, equally liberal measures have
been adopted.
The children of these schools composed the principal part of
the interesting group which filled the platform in St.
Andrew’s Hall, on Tuesday the 22nd instant, when the mode
of teaching in Infant Schools, and the kind and degree of useful
knowledge acquired in them, were illustrated by the examination,
which Mr. Wilderspin conducted, in the presence of perhaps two
thousand spectators; and the satisfaction which he expressed,
both publicly and privately, with the manner in which the schools
had been trained, imperfect as they confessedly are, was in no
small degree gratifying to those who have hitherto supported them
amidst many difficulties and discouragements.
Hitherto, the labourers in the cause of Infant education, in
this city, have been principally Dissenters; but it is well known
that they have always desired, and that they would have gladly
received, a greater number of their brethren in the Establishment
as coadjutors. Whatever degree of influence they may have
had in the schools which have been referred to, they have never
formed any rules or adopted any principles or plans of education,
against which the most scrupulous Episcopalian need object; and,
during the recent visit of Mr. Wilderspin, they had their full
share in contributing to his introduction to this city, to the
support of his Lectures, and to the attendance in St.
Andrew’s Hall. The very first meeting that was held,
to make arrangements with Mr. Wilderspin, was summoned by a
member of the Society of Friends, who, without partiality,
invited both Churchmen and Dissenters to meet Mr. W. in the
Lakenham school. The Lectures, which Mr. W. delivered in
the Guildhall, were attended by at least as many Dissenters as
Episcopalians. When, after those lectures, a meeting of
Clergy and members of the Establishment, to which no Dissenter
was invited, resolved “that there should be an examination of
children now receiving instruction in the Infant schools of this
city,” the committees of those schools, whose concurrence
with the resolution was I believe never asked, kindly assented to
it, and suffered their teachers and children to assemble on the
platform in St. Andrew’s Hall. The Dissenters in this
city, gladly and gratuitously, sent forms from their chapels, on
which the spectators might be seated. They purchased
tickets, and attended the examination in very considerable
numbers. They beheld clergymen, and other churchmen,
beginning to manifest an interest in Infant schools, by
conducting the little children to the platform. And after
having, in these various ways, received assistance from your
dissenting fellow citizens, as well as from others—after
having borrowed our schools for a public examination—after
having received our money towards defraying the expenses of that
examination—after having told us that “such an
exhibition of Infant schools would afford a most agreeable
testimony of their efficacy, and be a means of enlisting both the
feelings and the judgment of the audience in their
favour”—we were not prepared to expect that such
friendly proceedings on our part would ultimately be used against
ourselves, and that they were to be rewarded by our utter
exclusion from all future participation with you in the system of
Infant education.
Having thus briefly sketched the principles and the
proceedings which have been hitherto adopted by the conductors of
Infant schools in Norwich, I now proceed to direct your attention
to the advertisement, by which this letter was more
particularly occasioned. That advertisement calls upon you,
as “members of the Established Church,” to form
“a society to promote the extension of the Infant school
system in the county and city”—and I understand it to
mean that the members of no other Christian church shall be
allowed to participate with you in the formation of the society,
or in its committee, or in its operations. This mode of
proceeding, you perceive at once, is the very reverse of that
which has hitherto been adopted; it is contrary even to the bill
which has been passed for the emancipation of the slaves in the
West Indies, which provides that even black infants shall be
educated “on liberal and enlightened principles;” and
I ask you, what would have been your thoughts and feelings, if
any other Christian, and Protestant church, in this city, besides
your own, had ventured to suggest a society for the education of
little children so utterly exclusive and illiberal?
Whatever may have been the condition of other parts of
the kingdom, this city has been lamentably deficient in public
unity and cooperation in the accomplishment of that which is
good—and a different state of things is not to be expected
from the mere politician, or from any of “the men of the
world which have their portion in this life.” It is
to the religious only that we must look for the desired
reformation; and if mankind are ever taught to dwell together in
love, it must be by those who have imbibed and who exemplify the
spirit of Christianity. But if the religious—if those
who profess to have “the same mind that was in
Christ,” refuse to associate with those who love the same
Redeemer, and are regenerated by the same Spirit, merely because
they differ respecting some points of discipline in the
church—if they thus “set at nought their
brother”—if they thus practically declare that
“Christ is divided,” and so divided that his members
cannot unite even in the education of infants—will not such
conduct bring religion itself into dishonour, and will it not
“cause the enemies of God to blaspheme?”
“For if these things be done in the green tree, what shall
be done in the dry?”
Had the system of Infant schools been the offspring of the
Church of England—could it be shewn that no infants, but such as
have been baptized at its font, had the capacity to receive
instruction—or if the Dissenters of this city had set an
example of exclusiveness in infant education, then indeed some
apology or even justification might be offered for the course
which is advertised for adoption. But it is well known that
the system of infant education is quite independent of any form
of ecclesiastical polity. It is as much the property of the
nonconformist as of the conformist. It has nothing to do
with the peculiarities of either; but it asks, and has hitherto
cordially received the cooperation of both. And the attempt
to make it the appendage of a particular church, and “a
great gulph” of separation between Christians—to
enlist infants, just “weaned from the breast,” as
parties in ecclesiastical strife, must be productive of a
lamentable influence on the minds both of infants and adults, and
must be highly offensive to Him who rebuked his disciples and
said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and
forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
The Church of England—established by the authority of
parliament—having dissented from the pale of popery, whose
intolerance and exclusiveness she professes to
abhor—declaring that she is emphatically and eminently the
church of Christ—and praying, as she does, not only for
“all sorts and conditions of men,” but “more
especially for the good estate of the catholic church, that all
who profess and call themselves Christians may hold the faith in
unity of spirit, and in the bond of peace”—ought,
most assuredly, of all churches, to be the most comprehensive in
her charity, and to set “all sorts and conditions of
men,” and the whole “catholic church,” an
example of meekness and conciliation. But when an
opportunity presents itself, the most favourable for exhibiting
these graces, without the slightest compromise of principle, are
all these professions and all these prayers to be forgotten; and
must the unestablished and self-supported churches of our land be
the only sanctuaries where charity can take refuge, and the only
societies whose members add practice to profession and to
prayer? I hope not, my brethren; and devoutly as I am
attached to the great principles of nonconformity, because I
consider them to be in harmony with Christianity, yet I should
strongly suspect their character if I found that they prevented
me from cooperating with my fellow Christians in any “work
of faith or labour of love.”
If, my brethren, you seize the present occasion for the
purpose of widening the distance between Christians of
other communions and of your own—if you render the Infant
school system, which has hitherto been made a bond of union, a
“wall of separation” between yourselves and others,
the sin will lie at your own door, and you alone will be
answerable for the consequences. I know well that such an
exclusive system is not the desire of you all. There are
some among you who wish to see the Church of England
“national” in her feelings and in her philanthropy,
as well as in her name; and who would be glad to cooperate with
other Christians in educating and in evangelizing the people, but
who at the same time deem it desirable on the whole, to submit to
other parties in the church whose patronage and support are
valued. Permit me to say, however, that such policy is of a
very questionable character; and the course of conduct, which
your acquiescence sanctions, appears to me not likely either to
promote the interests of true religion, or to increase any
feelings of respect for that Establishment which you
conscientiously support. For if, in the nineteenth century,
you legislate as if you were in the dark ages—if you try to
revive again the spirit of “the five mile act,” which
denounced the nonconformist as “incapable of teaching any
public or private schools”—depend upon it that you
will find the current of feeling in the present times to be decidedly
against you; and not only so, but you will sin against the spirit
of that religion whose essential doctrines and whose hallowed
influences ought to be far dearer to us all than any forms of
ecclesiastical government. “For the kingdom of God is
not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the
Holy Ghost.”
In many parts of Great Britain, where Infant schools have been
established, the population generally have been united in their
support; and Mr. Wilderspin, in his book entitled “Early
Discipline Illustrated,” furnishes many facts, in addition
to his own opinion, to shew that such schools always succeed well
when various Christians are associated in their committees and in
their operations. “I proceeded to Durham,” says
he in page 45, “where a committee was formed of
Churchmen and Dissenters.” When speaking of
Ireland, in page 76, he says, “it may be well to shew that
wherever Infant schools have been established in that country,
and properly conducted, they have been found to be real blessings
by all parties, as the following circular will
shew.” That “circular” was an address of
the parish of Booterstown to the Rev. A. Sillery, from which I
extract the following sentence: “That invaluable
institution, the Infant school, which in this parish owes
its origin to you—and the many other excellent arrangements
for promoting education and religious instruction, bear ample
testimony to the talent, zeal, and piety, which characterize
their exemplary founder and promoter; whilst the impartiality
with which you administered to the wants of all, without
distinction of sect or party, manifest the unbiassed
liberality of your truly Christian mind.” “I
distributed many circulars and papers at Leicester,” says
he, page 87, “but hostility was threatened from one of the
pulpits of the Establishment;” and he then quotes what he
justly calls “an admirable speech, by M. Babington,
Esq.” a member of the Church of England, from which I
extract the following sentences. “I proceed to that
objection on which the greatest stress will probably be laid,
that we are forming an unnatural and improper union of
individuals of different denominations; and that we are
undermining the influence and doctrines of the Church of
England. It seems to me that those who thus argue shew
some distrust of the excellence of that church. The
extension of knowledge can hardly fail to be favourable to the
cause of truth; and as a member of that church, I am of
opinion that its doctrines will be more fully established by such
intercourse. But it has ceased to be a question,
whether a mixed committee can succeed satisfactorily in such an
object; for the experiment has been tried extensively in other
towns for nearly seven years, and has lived down the opposition
which was first raised against it.—Really such arguments
are too trifling even for ridicule, if it were not, as it appears
to me, a suicidal act, on the part of our church,
to urge a system so repugnant to the feelings of
mankind.” After relating some interesting
occurrences at Taunton, Mr. Wilderspin says in page 118, that
“a committee of various denominations proceeded with great
encouragement, intimating, by their union, that
their object was the general good, and that no party
apprehended the occurrence of injury.” Injury was
however inflicted by unhallowed hands, and a school was set up
“on opposite principles.” In page 202, when
speaking of Joseph Lancaster, Mr. Wilderspin says, “with
one part of his system I was always charmed, and, so far from the
feeling diminishing, it is even now increasing in
vigour,—I mean its freedom from all
shackles—its entire exemption from
sectarianism—its benevolent and catholic spirit,
which urges not merely to the establishment of schools,
but ‘SCHOOLS FOR
ALL.’ Often have I regretted that this is not
universally discoverable. There are still some who wish to
confine the element of water to their own well, and to find the
full ripe corn only in their fields:—with them I confess I have no
sympathy; on the broadest principle I have hitherto
labored; and on that, and that alone I propose to
act through the remainder of my life.” But I must
conclude these testimonies, which might be greatly multiplied, by
recording a sentence or two from page 259, respecting
Sheffield. “Five Schools,” says Mr. Wilderspin,
“containing little short of one thousand infants, are now
in full and efficient operation. The harmony of
Churchmen and Dissenters in the work is here most delightful;
and as a specimen of the generosity displayed, it may be stated,
that one gentleman built a school, at his own expense, which cost
£1000.” These quotations abundantly prove that
“the originator of Infant schools,” who has visited
many of the towns in the three kingdoms, and who is perhaps
better qualified than any other person to form an opinion as to
the best mode of conducting them, is decidedly opposed to the
exclusive system advertised for Norwich. He has “no
sympathy” with it—and he declares, as the result of
his extensive observation and experience, that “the union
between Churchmen and Dissenters is delightful.”
Should the decision of the approaching meeting be in
opposition to this delightful union, and should the ministers and
members of the Established Church determine to prevent the
Dissenters from cooperating with them in this interesting work,
the parties thus excluded will not, I trust, be instigated to
pursue a similar course, and to form a society for themselves
alone, to the exclusion of Churchmen. No.—Let them
proceed on other and better principles. Let them call a
public meeting of all denominations of Christians who can
conscientiously unite in pursuing the same system of Infant
education, which has been hitherto adopted in this city.
Let them cordially and earnestly invite the cooperation of
liberal and religious Churchmen. And let them determine
that neither conformity nor nonconformity shall be taught to
babes in an Infant school, but that they shall receive only
“the sincere milk of the word, that they may grow
thereby.” “For in Christ
Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but
a new creature. And as many as
walk according to this rule, peace be
on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. Brethren, the grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.”
Norwich:
PRINTED BY JOSIAH FLETCHER.