When I had read the pamphlet,
published by my esteemed friend Mr. Geary, in reply to my
“Letter,” it appeared to me that the facts, relative
to the proposed Infant School Society, were sufficiently before
the public; and, therefore, I determined to send him a few
explanatory remarks in writing, rather than to make any reply
through the medium of the press. Having been induced to
alter my determination, I respectfully submit to Mr.
Geary’s consideration, the following brief
observations.
Before the examination of the Infant Schools took place in St.
Andrew’s Hall, the public were informed, by the newspapers,
that it had been determined on, at a meeting held in the
Guildhall, to which none but members of the Establishment were
invited. William Moore, Esq. was in the chair, and the
following resolution was passed:—“Resolved, that the
system of Infant Education might be beneficially extended in this
city; and, with a view of prominently bringing forward its
advantages, that there should be an examination of the
children now receiving instruction in the Infant Schools of this
city.” The meeting which adopted that resolution,
appeared to me to originate and to authorize the examination of
the schools—and, whatever private understanding there
might be with Mr. Wilderspin, all that the public knew was what
the resolution stated; and Mr. Wilderspin appeared to us, not as
accomplishing “his own speculation,” but as the
agent, employed by the meeting, to carry its resolution into
effect. I think, therefore, that what I have stated, in the
eighth and ninth pages of my “Letter,” is fully borne
out by all the facts of the case.
I said nothing in my “Letter” to intimate that the
children of Dissenters would be excluded from the proposed
schools. My explanation of the “Advertisement”
which occasioned the “Letter” was this: “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.” If, however, I had expressed
a fear that the church catechism might be introduced, or that
some arrangement might be made which would prevent Dissenters
from sending their children to the schools, the speeches at the
public meeting, and Mr. Geary’s pamphlet, satisfactorily
negative such an apprehension. All parties have united in
declaring that the schools will be open to all classes,
and that there will be no rules nor formulas against which
Dissenters can object. At the public meeting, as reported
in the newspapers, the Dean expressly stated, that “they
had no desire to exclude the children of any persons of whatever
religion, because the children would not be instructed in any
points that any person might not learn; as they would be
taught to worship and adore God, to know the merits of our
Saviour, to fear God and honour the King, and to live in peace
and unity with one another. Their rules, said he, would be
open to persons of all denominations, who would have
the opportunity of sending their children, if they accorded with
those rules.” Mr. G. Seppings “stated that the
school would be open to the children of persons of all
denominations, who might choose to send them.” In
full accordance with these decisive statements, Mr. Geary says,
“I cannot help again recurring to a mistake into which my
reverend friend has fallen, and which is throughout implied, in
regard to the exclusion of the children of dissent. He may
rest assured, that nothing is decided with respect to the
discipline of the schools, which can possibly be held to be an
impediment with any conscientious Dissenter who desires to place
his child there:—no impeding tests or testimonials on
entering the school—no offensive rituals when
there.” And in another part of his pamphlet he
declares, “I have seen the progress of the society in
embryo, first, last, midst, and throughout all, without
witnessing any symptoms of such a spirit. Should it appear,
I am prepared to contend with it hand to hand—foot to foot;
and, should it unhappily prevail, I should feel bound to quit the
society.” The speeches at the public meeting are,
however, a sufficient guarantee that no such spirit will
“unhappily prevail;” and I “rest
assured,” that, so far as the schools are concerned, they
will be as comprehensive as those which already exist, and to
which the children of Churchmen and Dissenters are admitted on
equal terms. I deeply regret, however, that my
interpretation of the “Advertisement” has
unfortunately proved true, and that, though the children of
Dissenters are to be admitted into the schools, Dissenters
themselves are, quite unnecessarily I think, excluded from the
committee of the society, and from all its operations.
The
public meeting, at which the preceding speeches were delivered,
was distinguished by the expression of many liberal and Christian
sentiments; and those of us who were excluded from it, were in no
small degree gratified in learning, from the public papers, that
several of the speakers expressed themselves so decidedly in
favour of the liberal system advocated in my
“Letter,” and that they regretted that circumstances
constrained them to unite with the present exclusive
system. “Mr. Bignold said he had not been in
favour of any exclusive views; and if it had been thought
right to establish a general society, he should have with
pleasure supported it. That had not been agreed to, but if
the Dissenters chose to establish another society, his funds
should be at their service.” “The Rev. R.
Hankinson spoke in favour of an open society. He said he
belonged to several in the city, all of which were carried on
with the greatest unanimity. He had, however, yielded
his opinions to those of others better qualified, perhaps, to
judge.” I need not add that these are also the
sentiments of Mr. Geary, who says, in reference to my wishes for
an union of all parties, “I truly sympathize with him in
those views and feelings which, were it practicable, would
suggest such an union;” and, “my reverend friend
cannot feel more intense satisfaction than I do, in thus
witnessing the joyful and happy state of brethren dwelling
together in unity.”
I most earnestly hope and pray that these sentiments, so
honourable to the gentlemen who uttered them, may more
extensively prevail, till they have removed those
“insuperable barriers” which at present exist, and
till they have rendered that union “practicable,”
which so many feel to be desirable. Depend upon it, there
are not half the difficulties really existing, which some persons
imagine. The united system, if tried, would, I am
persuaded, work well—and I am sure that all who engaged in
it would be made better and happier by their combined exertions
in doing good. There are some things, connected with both
Church of Englandism and Dissent, in which the two parties could
not unite without a compromise of principle. As religious
men, we have, however, a common cause to promote, and a common
enemy to withstand. We ought, therefore, as Christians,
to unite in every thing that admits of an union; and, as
Infant Schools appear to me to be precisely of that character, I
deeply regret that we have not united in them. I am
somewhat comforted, however, by the persuasion, that an exclusive
system cannot last. There is an influential and increasing
party in the church much opposed to it, and who, as is stated in
my “Letter,” “would be glad to co-operate with
other Christians in educating and in evangelizing the
people.” The adoption of the exclusive system has
occasioned regret in the minds of many persons whom the church
would have done well to conciliate; and I much question whether
either party is perfectly satisfied with the proceedings that
have been adopted.
Another remark or two will bring this part of my pamphlet to a
close. Mr. Geary is mistaken in supposing that I mentioned
Leicester and Taunton as towns “where a satisfactory union
had been effected.” My extracts respecting them were
intended to shew Mr. Wilderspin’s opinion respecting the
union of various denominations in the work. I said nothing
respecting any schools at Leicester; and I quoted Mr.
Babington’s speech for the sake of shewing, not only his
sentiments, but Mr. Wilderspin’s also, because he calls it
“an admirable speech.” And as to Taunton, after
quoting what Mr. Wilderspin had said in approbation of the mixed
committee, I distinctly stated that “a school was set up on
opposite principles.”
Having stated in my “Letter” that the extracts
which I had made from Mr. Wilderspin’s book abundantly
proved that he was “decidedly opposed to the exclusive
system advertised for Norwich,” Mr. Geary replies that this
appeal to the authority of Mr. Wilderspin “requires
qualifying;” and “that the cases do not lead to this
conclusion.” If Mr. Geary will be so good as to turn
again to my quotations, I think he will be induced to agree with
me that Mr. Wilderspin could scarcely have used stronger language
than he has used in reference to this subject. He most
enthusiastically admires Joseph Lancaster’s system, because
of “its benevolent and Catholic spirit,” which
establishes “schools for all;” and he solemnly
declares that he always has laboured on “the broadest
principle,” and that he determines to act “on that,
and on that alone, through the remainder of his
life.” I think, therefore, I am authorized in
repeating my former declaration, that “he is decidedly
opposed to the exclusive system advertised for
Norwich.”
These cursory remarks are intended to rectify some mistakes
into which Mr. Geary appears to me to have fallen in his perusal
of my “Letter.” After all, I rejoice to believe
that he and I are one in sentiment and feeling on this
subject. The gentlemanly and Christian tone of his letter,
is an interesting evidence that there may be discussion and
controversy without violating any of the principles of the
gospel, or any of the courtesies of life. I thank him, for
his testimony that my “Letter” “is characterised by
a spirit of mildness and conciliation,” and I am glad to
find that he has read it in the spirit in which it was
written. I thank him also for the manner in which he has
spoken of the “courtesy” manifested by the Dissenters
connected with the Infant Schools in this city towards their
brethren in the Establishment. And I take leave of him in
the hope, and with the prayer that, though we cannot walk
together through every path on earth, we may, through “the
precious blood of Christ,” and the sanctifying grace of the
Holy Spirit, both of us be found in that heaven of light and
love, where we shall no longer “see through a glass darkly,
but face to face, and where we shall know even as also we are
known.”
I come now to the consideration of a subject on which I enter
with reluctance. Since Mr. Geary’s pamphlet appeared,
“Observations” on my “Letter” have been
published by a person who styles himself, “The Rev. J.
Perowne, Rector of St. John’s Maddermarket,
Norwich.” With some of the members of his family, I
have, for a long time, been acquainted. They have belonged
to my congregation for nearly twenty years; and one of them has
lately become a member of the church of which I am the
Pastor. With Mr. Perowne himself my acquaintance has been
but slight, and I am left to gather my opinion of his character
and ministry almost entirely from the “Observations”
which he has published. Those observations are of such a
nature that it is impossible to reply to them either
gravely or respectfully; and I am quite of opinion
that the most dignified course would be, not to reply to them at
all. I fear however that some of the statements which he has made,
relative to the Infant Schools in this city, and relative to the
principles and conduct of the Dissenters, may be believed by some
persons, if they are not contradicted; and as he has chosen to
make my “Letter” the occasion of propagating many
slanders, I think it due to the public to submit to the
humiliation of replying to such an antagonist.
I am persuaded that every man who read my
“Letter,” with an “honest heart,”
believed that my object in writing it was what I avowed; and that
I wished my fellow-christians in this city to unite in educating
Infants, because I thought that such an union would promote the
interests of true religion. From the testimony of Mr.
Geary’s pamphlet, and from several communications which
have been made to me, I am gratified with knowing that the
“Letter” has been received, by many religious and
intelligent persons, in the spirit in which it professed to be
written. With their testimony I am satisfied; and therefore
Mr. Perowne must excuse me if I do not strive to vindicate myself
from his charges of hypocrisy and falsehood. As he is the
accuser, I have no need to become the vindicator. And all
that I intend to do is to gather, from his own
“Observations,” the evidence which they afford of his
character and competency.
As Mr. Perowne is a clergyman who claims the attribute of
“reverence,” and who has solemnly declared that he
was “inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon him this
office,” and “that he will maintain and set forward
quietness, peace, and love among all Christian
people,” it was not unreasonable to expect that his
“Observations” would be in accordance with his vows
and professions. I think, however, that I do not
misrepresent his publication when I say that none of the fruits
of that Spirit, with which he professes to be “inwardly
moved,” are to be found in it—that it is abundantly
fruitful in rude personalities, in wanton attacks on motives, in
wilful distortions of the plainest language, in pompous
ignorance, and in supercilious pretensions—and that all
these qualities are left unredeemed even by the occasional
introduction of better sentiments and feelings. Sometimes a
man will use hard words, or manifest intemperate passions, under
the influence of strongly exciting circumstances. But here
a calm and dark spirit of evil reigns throughout the whole of a
pamphlet, which was written in the retirement of his study, and
which he had no occasion to write at all. This, however, is
mere description, and we must analyze the
“Observations” themselves in order to ascertain
whether it be truth.
One prominent feature of the pamphlet is its utter
dissimilarity, not only to the Christian spirit which pervades
Mr. Geary’s Defence, but also to the speeches delivered at
the Public Meeting, when the Infant School Society was
formed. In them there is nothing ferocious, or insulting to
any class of the community; but, on the other hand, an expression
of respectful regret that certain obstacles prevented, in the
opinion of the speakers, the formation of a more comprehensive
society, which some of them would certainly have preferred.
Whether, in the course of Mr. P’s. pamphlet, he alludes
personally to any of those speakers, I will not take upon myself
to determine. But he vehemently denounces all Churchmen,
who would unite with Dissenters in an Infant School, as
“traitors to the church,” and as “encouragers
of dissimulation,” “who help forward the ruin of the
church by
echoing the sentiments of liberalism.” Not being
acquainted with the gradations in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, I
am unable to decide what rank he may hold among his brethren, or
what authority he may derive from the rectory of “St.
John’s.” But he evidently speaks of himself,
and addresses himself to clergymen and others oraculously, as if
he were the Polyphemus of a party. “I tell
them,” says he, “in the name of every true son
of the church.” “I assure them that no true son
of the church would listen to them.” “We say to every churchman, profit by the
lesson here taught you.” These, however, may be
merely “great swelling words of vanity,” and I may be
perfectly right in the conjecture that his brethren disown alike
his authority and his spirit, and are disposed to “leave
him alone with his glory.”
A considerable portion of Mr. Perowne’s pamphlet,
consists of vituperations against the Dissenters. Dissent,
it is well known, is a relative term, and is applied to such
persons, in this country, as profess to derive their doctrines
and forms of church government from the Scriptures, rather than
from the liturgy and canons of the Church of England. They
believe that the Scriptures are sufficient to direct them in
these matters; and they believe that their allegiance to Jesus
Christ requires them to submit to his supreme dominion as the
only head of the church, and to reject the ecclesiastical
authority which either Protestants or Papists may claim, but
which Christ alone possesses. On this great principle they
dissent from all establishments of religion by the civil power;
and they desire to stand quite independent of state endowments,
and of state interference in their spiritual concerns, so as to
constitute a “kingdom which is not of this
world.” Dissent therefore can only be found in those countries
where some particular form of religion is established by the
civil power. There is no dissent in America, because there
is no Established Church there. The government of that
country protects all denominations of Christians in the
profession of their religion, but it does not elevate one
denomination above the rest, nor does it prescribe to any
denomination what forms of prayer they shall adopt, what
doctrines they shall believe, or what bishops or pastors they
shall choose. Viewing the term, dissent, chronologically,
there are in this country two classes of Dissenters. The
first class includes the Church of England, which some time ago
dissented from the Church of Rome, which had been, for several
centuries established in this country; and the other class is
composed of those who have gone still farther from the Church of
Rome, and have dissented from the Church of England. In
Scotland, the Established Church is not Episcopalian, as in this
country, but Presbyterian; so that when Dr. Chalmers, who belongs
to the Established Church in Scotland, comes into England, he is
a Dissenter during his stay, and is not permitted to preach in
any of the pulpits of the church; and if Mr. Perowne were to
cross the Tweed, he would instantly become a Dissenter, and might
find it necessary to defend himself against the attacks of the
“Apostolical Establishment” [15] of that country, which binds all her
sons “to root out and destroy all prelacy.”
Using the
term dissent in its general acceptation, Mr. Perowne says,
“the only doctrine in which all Dissenters agree is that of
dissenting from the church.” Now whether
“dissenting from the church” be a
“doctrine” or a practice is not of much consequence,
nor is it a very wonderful discovery, that all Dissenters should
agree to dissent. But Mr. Perowne is not aware that he has
brought the same argument against dissent, that the Roman
Catholics bring against Protestantism; and one argument is worth
just as much as the other, which is just nothing at all.
The “Rector of St. John’s Maddermarket,” when
that church belonged to the Papists, might have said to the
Protestants, “I should like to know what doctrines
Protestantism considers essential. The only doctrine
in which all Protestants agree, is that of
protesting against the church. That is
‘essential’ to their religion, and that
alone.” These, the reader will perceive, are
precisely Mr. Perowne’s words, if the term dissent be
substituted for Protestant; and though he has endeavoured to make
many of them look impressive, by printing them in italics, I
consider them too puerile to admit of any serious refutation.
But the object of Mr. Perowne, in the paragraph from which I
have quoted, is to shew that, while Dissenters agree in practical
dissent, they widely differ in doctrine. “In other
respects, says he, a man may be a Socinian, an Arian, a Quaker,
an Anabaptist, an Irvingite, a Calvanist, an Armenian, [16] or a Baxterian. He may hold
any notions he pleases. If he do but dissent, he has the
essential doctrine of their religion.” Now how blind
a man must be, not to perceive that all this language is as much
against Mr. Perowne and his church, as it is against Dissenters,
and that he himself falls into the very ditch into which he
attempts to throw dissent. Are there not doctrines
believed, and even taught in the Church of England, “wide
as the poles asunder?” Are there not some heresies
within her pale from which Dissenters are happily free? May
not millenarianism be found in some of her clergy, as well
as among the Irvingites? Does not Mr. Perowne himself
sanction persons who leave their own parish churches to attend at
“St. John’s Maddermarket,” because he preaches
a gospel which is opposed to the preaching of the other
clergy? Is not this acting on one of the leading principles
of dissent, which asserts the right of Christians to choose their
own ministers? And if these things be so—and I could
enumerate perhaps quite as many varieties of doctrine in the
church as Mr. P. can find out of it—why should he
“cast the first stone” at Dissenters, for the very
sin of which he himself is guilty? and why should he attempt to
“pull out the mote from his brother’s eye, when there
is a beam in his own?”
Mr. Perowne speaks very contemptuously of all professors of
religion who are not members of his own community; and especially
of Roman Catholics and Socinians. The doctrines, which are
held by both these denominations, appear to me to be subversive,
in different ways, of the gospel of Christ. They probably
consider me to be in equal error; and though we cannot have
communion together in religious worship, I think that I should be
acting an unchristian part, were I to refuse to unite with
them in any works of benevolence, in which we can unite without
the compromise of religious principle. Mr. P’s.
object in referring to these persons is to bring our Infant
School System into disrepute; and therefore we must examine his
statements. “If I am rightly informed,” says
he, “the school in Crook’s Place and that in St.
Miles’ have Socinians among the most regular and active
superintendents.” I am not much acquainted with the
school in Crook’s Place; but I once visited it, for the
purpose of examining the children on Scripture subjects; and,
with the exception of a little girl, who said that “the
High Priest of the church was the king of England,” they
gave very satisfactory answers to my questions relative to the
great doctrines of redemption; so that heterodoxy was not
perceptible there. With the school in St. Miles’ I am
more intimately connected; having been accustomed to visit it
monthly. There are Dissenters on the committee, but none of
them are Socinians. There are also members of the
Establishment on the committee, and in the office of treasurer
and secretary; and, though I am not acquainted with their
individual sentiments, yet I have no reason to suspect that any
of them entertain Socinian doctrine—and I fully believe
that Mr. Perowne’s charge has not the slightest foundation
in fact.
But even if Socinians were “among the most regular and
active superintendents,” with what consistency can they be
objected to on that account by Mr. Perowne? “If a man
will but leave the Church of England,” says he, “or
assist in pulling it down, he is a Christian brother, even
though he denies the Lord who bought him, or bow before an
idol.” Now, to say nothing of the grammar of this
sentence, or of the “false accusation” which it
involves, I would ask whether Mr. Perowne himself, as a minister
of the Established Church, does not acknowledge both
“Papists and Socinians” to be Christian
brethren? Does he not recognise the validity of popish
baptism, and acknowledge its regenerating qualities to be as
effectual as his own? Would he not admit a Roman Catholic
priest, who had recanted, to his pulpit without re-ordination,
and thereby acknowledge that a popish bishop is able to
communicate the Holy Ghost? But, without proceeding in
these inquiries, relative to the Catholic who “bow before
an idol,” let us notice the case of the Socinians, who
“deny the Lord that bought them.” Has Mr.
Perowne, who renounces all communion with them as a church, no
communion with them individually? Most assuredly he has;
and there is not a Socinian in the kingdom whom he would hesitate
to receive and to acknowledge, under certain circumstances, as
“a Christian brother!” He receives tithes and
church rates from them; and thereby has communion with them in
the support of the “Apostolical Establishment.”
He admits Socinians to speak and vote amidst the “peaceful
and loving scenes” which are witnessed at vestry meetings;
and Mr. Perowne himself, being in the chair, would act upon a
resolution which had been carried by a Socinian majority, and
thereby permit Socinians to bear rule in the church. Were a
Socinian to be seen kneeling at the altar of the church, Mr.
Perowne would not dare to refuse him the bread and wine, if he
were not “an open and notorious evil liver.”
And when the Socinian, who dies in the very act of “denying
the Lord that bought him,” is conveyed in a coffin to St.
John’s Maddermarket, Mr. Perowne clothes himself
in white, and solemnly declares, “I heard a voice from
heaven saying unto me, Blessed are the dead which die in the
Lord; even so saith the Spirit; for they rest from their
labours.” Mr. Perowne then calls this same Socinian
his “dear brother”—he gives God
“hearty thanks that it hath pleased him to deliver this
brother out of the miseries of this sinful
world”—he declares that “it hath pleased
Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the soul
of our dear brother here departed”—he prays that,
when he himself dies, and that when those around him “shall
depart this life, they may rest in Christ as our hope is this
our brother doth”—and then he completes and
crowns the whole by declaring, “We therefore commit his
body to the ground; earth to earth; ashes to ashes; dust to dust;
in sure and certain hope of the resurrection
to eternal life, through our Lord
Jesus Christ!” And yet this very Mr. Perowne
rails against the orthodox Dissenters for associating with
Socinians, and solemnly anathematizes all Bible Societies and
Infant Schools which permit Socinians to become members!
“Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a
camel!”
Were the Dissenters of this country to abstain from all
interference in “contested elections,” and to leave
both church and state to the care of others, such a course of
proceeding might be very agreeable to Mr. Perowne, but I question
whether it would be serviceable to civil and religious
liberty. If, however, there be any guilt in this matter, it
does not lie exclusively at the door of nonconformist
“teachers and members,” and when Mr. P. offers to
feel their pulse, and to write out prescriptions for them, he
ought to remember the proverb, “Physician heal thyself.”
Party politics have, I confess, no charms for me; and I very
earnestly desire that all religious men who come in contact with
them, whether Church-people or Dissenters, may so conduct
themselves as to give no “occasion to the enemies of God to
blaspheme.”
Utterly forgetful of the strife which is often manifested at
the “vestry meetings” of his own church, he ventures
to attack our “church meetings,” at which, he says,
“peaceful and loving scenes sometimes take
place.” I dare say that if Mr. Perowne knew much of
the history of “church meetings,” from those which
were held in Corinth, during the apostolic times, down to our own
days, he might tell of some in which peace and love were not very
apparent. A thinking mind will perceive, however, that an
ecclesiastical system may be good in itself, and even divine in
its origin, as that at Corinth was, and yet it may be very
imperfectly and improperly exhibited and administered by human
beings. In such a case the fault is not in the system, but
in the men. But whatever exceptions to peace and love may
have occasionally appeared in our church meetings, I deny that
Mr. Perowne’s description is applicable to their general
character. Our churches are formed on the principle that
none but those who profess and practise the gospel of Christ are
eligible for membership; and when any person of contrary
character is discovered among us, he is excluded from the
society, and, as a matter of course, falls into the
Establishment. Taking them with all their imperfections, I
believe not only that they are formed according to the apostolic
model, but that they are among the best societies of men to be
found in this sinful world—“and no man shall stop me
of this
boasting” on their behalf. The church of which I am
the pastor, was formed about sixteen years ago. It then
contained thirteen members, and since then between three and four
hundred have been added. Our church meetings are held
monthly, for the purposes of devotion, of receiving additional
members, and, occasionally, for the transaction of business,
necessary to preserve the order and purity of the church. I
do not, of course, expect that Mr. Perowne will believe my
testimony on this subject, but I confidently appeal to the
members of my church for evidence respecting the character of our
meetings. Those “hallowed influences,” to which
Mr. Perowne so contemptuously refers, have abundantly blessed
them, nor do I expect to witness any scenes more truly
“peaceful and loving,” till “the general
assembly and church of the first born” appears in
heaven.
Another charge, which Mr. Perowne vehemently urges against
Dissenters, is that they are aiming to destroy the church to
which he belongs. “The leading organs of
dissent,” says he, “openly avow that nothing but the
destruction of our church will satisfy them.” I
should think my own church destroyed, if it were to be overrun
with infidelity or heresy, or if it were to be broken up and
dispersed as a society of Christians. But, as Mr. Perowne
is acquainted with “the leading organs of dissent,”
he knows very well that Dissenters have no desire to see the
Church of England brought into such a condition; and that all
they wish is that the Established Church would support its own
ministers, and pay its own expenses, without taxing other
churches. And this, if I understand him rightly, he would
call “the destruction of the church.” If so,
all the dissenting churches are destroyed already. They have no connection with the state,
as a controlling power—they choose their own
ministers—and they pay their own expenses. They are
therefore, according to Mr. Perowne, in a state of
“destruction”—they are “things which are
not,” and he may perhaps be aware that such things are
sometimes employed “to bring to nought things which
are.”
But the wholesale charge which he brings against the
Nonconformists is, that their system “leads men to tear in
pieces the body of Christ—to set at nought the powers that
be—to speak evil of dignities—to imbibe and inculcate
a disloyal, republican, revolutionary spirit.” And he
might have added, with equal truth, that it is productive of
hydrophobia, that it brought the cholera into the country a short
time ago, and that it turned all the members of our churches into
cannibals. Charges such as he has brought, false and
ridiculous as they are, have been incessantly repeated since the
day when the Head of our churches was himself reviled by the
priests, as “a fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding
to give tribute to Cæsar.” And they will no
doubt continue to be repeated, till “the accuser of the
brethren is cast out.” They are always freely used by
those who find it more convenient to revile than to argue; and
they are as useful to such persons, as the broken lantern was to
the watchman, who always kept it by him to exhibit as a proof
that his victims had been guilty of a riot.
I now proceed to select some specimens of the manner in which
he has perverted the language of my letter, and also some
specimens of the literature and logic with which his
“Observations” are interspersed.
Alluding to the title of my letter he asks, “What right a
Dissenter has to remonstrate with the members of the church, on
any steps they think proper to take with regard to the
education of the children belonging to their own
communion?” The proper answer to this question
is, that I had no right at all to remonstrate on such a
subject. But what will the reader think, when I tell him
that I never did remonstrate on such a subject, and that
Mr. Perowne’s apparent object in giving such a form to his
question is to excite a prejudice against my Letter at the very
beginning of his “Observations.” He knows that
the Infant Schools, which the members of the Establishment
projected, were not for “the education of children
belonging to their own communion,” but for “the
children of persons of all denominations.” And he
knows that my remonstrance was directed against those who wished
to make the members of one church the Instructors of Infants, to
the exclusion of the members of all other churches. The
artifice which he has adopted may have answered the purpose which
he had in view, but it is not the result of an upright and
honourable mind, and it manifests much more of the subtilty of
the serpent than of the harmlessness of the dove.
Mr. Perowne, having remarked that I had advised the
Establishment to act on “the principles on which the Infant
Schools in Norwich have hitherto been conducted,” asks,
“What are those principles?” And professing to
gather his reply from my Letter, he answers, “That the
Dissenters should have the chief management of
them,” while “the members of the Established
Church, afford help in directing the concerns, and in defraying
the expenses.” Such “counsel,” I admit,
is as impertinent as to deny to Churchmen the right “to educate
the children belonging to their own communion.” But
I never gave such counsel; and Mr. Perowne’s
interpretation of my language is both unjust and absurd.
The statement in my letter is this. The committees of the
Infant Schools “are composed of members of the
Establishment and of other Christian churches”—and,
as it respects the school in St. Miles’, “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.” Now mark the injustice
of my commentator. In professing to quote my language, he
leaves out the word “greater,” which is an important
word in the sentence, and then he tells his readers that my
counsel is “that the Dissenters should have the
chief management of the schools” about to be
instituted. And now mark his reasoning. The
Dissenters have made repeated efforts to induce Churchmen
“to afford greater help in directing the
schools;” therefore Dissenters desire to have
“the chief management of them!”
Admirable logic! If “a supposed second Solomon”
be needed in the schools of Dissent, no such prodigy is required
in the Establishment. Her “mountains have
laboured,” and her Solomon is born!
The next specimen is of a similar character. I had said,
in my Letter, that as the promoters of the public examination in
St. Andrew’s Hall had, in order to effect it,
“received assistance from their dissenting fellow citizens,
as well as from others,” our “friendly
proceedings” would be “used against ourselves,”
if they “were to be rewarded by our utter exclusion from
all future participation with Churchmen in the system of Infant
Education.” “Brethren!” exclaims Mr. Perowne,
“Brethren! here you have a truth of the utmost importance,
plainly told you from the pen of a Dissenter.” And
what is the truth that my dissenting pen has told? Why,
that the conduct of the church, in excluding Dissenters, would be
“against” those “friendly proceedings”
which we had shewn towards the church. But because it would
be against our courtesy, Mr. Perowne, in the might and
majesty of his logic, jumps to the conclusion that it would be
against our nonconformity! And then, having made
this notable discovery, for which he certainly deserves a patent,
he blows his “penny trumpet,” and summons the whole
hierarchy to listen to his proclamation, that if the church will
uniformly treat Dissenters as they have been treated in this
business, the “venerable Establishment” is
secure. “Brethren! here you have a truth of the
utmost importance!”
Mr. Perowne complains of the pain which I have produced in
him, by what I have said “about love and
union.” “Such things,” says he
“painfully remind us of the days of Charles the
first.” This Charles, it will be remembered, as the
“head of the church,” in his days, and “out of
a like pious care for the service of God, as had his
blessed father,” published the “Book of
Sports,” which authorized the people to amuse themselves
with all sorts of games, &c. on the Lord’s day, and
which the clergy read to their congregations after divine
service. I have no wish, however, to mention “Charles
the first” to any man of acute sensibility, and I was not
aware that my recommendation of “love and union”
would remind any one of that ill-fated monarch. Mr.
Perowne’s peculiar sensibility on this subject, and the
remarkable fact that, in writing a pamphlet on Infant Schools, he
should
twice refer to “Charles the first,” and “our
martyred Charles,” is calculated to excite strange
suspicions in the mind of a believer in the doctrine of
metempsychosis. Why should Mr. Perowne feel pain
when he is reminded of “Charles the first?” or why
should “love and union” remind him of “our
martyred Charles” at all, except on the principle of the
Bramins, that “we should never kill a flea, lest we inflict
pain on the soul of some of our ancestors.” It
is true that Charles frequently boasted that he was “a true
son of the church.” It is true that Charles
entertained the very same feelings against Puritans, as Mr.
Perowne does against Dissenters. It is true that some of
the sentiments in Mr. P’s. pamphlet are as precisely
Icôn Basilikè as if they had been dictated by
the soul of the headless monarch. It is true, as Bishop
Burnet says, that Charles the first “loved high and rough
measures, but had neither skill to conduct them, nor height of
genius to manage them. He hated all that offered prudent
and moderate counsels; and, even when it was necessary to
follow such advices, he hated those that gave them.”
It is true—but, to use Mr. Perowne’s language,
“I forbear to finish a picture so painful to
contemplate,” and shall only add, that David Hume, in his
history of England, states that the last word the king said, was,
“Remember”—and that
“great mysteries were supposed to be concealed under
that expression.”
Mr. P. appeals to the Collect which I quoted, and which he
says I have “mutilated,” as affording evidence that
“exclusive Churchmen, are consistent Churchmen;”
thereby leading us to infer that the church teaches her members
to shew their consistency by their exclusiveness, even in the
exercise of prayer, and in the presence of Deity!
Supposing, however, that the Collect afforded evidence of the
charity of the church, rather than of her bigotry, I advised her
members to act in accordance with its spirit, and thereby to
“add practice to profession and to prayer.”
This advice, Mr. P. intimates, is, on my part, an assumption of
infallibility—as if none but a Papist could
consistently enjoin practical piety, or admonish his hearers to
shew their faith by their works. “Is Mr. A.
infallible?” my inquisitor asks, and immediately adds,
“The Pope of Rome could not have gone further!”
I have not heard much of the Pope lately, but in former times he
was a tolerably far traveller, especially when he was in the
pursuit of Dissenting heretics. But as Mr. P. may perhaps
claim an acquaintance, as well as a relationship with his
Holiness, I shall not dispute the matter, but humbly submit to
the decision, that the Pope of Rome never went further than I
have gone in my “Letter.”
The next paragraph, in Mr. P’s.
“Observations,” is chiefly historical, and he has
contrived to give us “a bird’s eye view” of the
state of religion in this country, from the days of “our
martyred [28] Charles” downwards. It thus
begins. “It is said that our church ought to set an
example of meekness and conciliation. I SAY she has done so to an extent
unparalleled in modern times.” In proof of this
oracular declaration, he shews in the first place, what the
church has done. “And what has been her
conduct while attacked by the army of the aliens?” To
this question, I will first give my own answer, and then Mr.
Perowne’s. My own answer is this. She
“excommunicated, ipso facto,” whosoever affirmed
“that the Church of England, by law established under the
King’s Majesty, is not a true and an apostolical
church.” She erected a spiritual court, in which her
ministers sat in judgment on men’s consciences. She
maintained a star chamber, where she slit men’s noses, and
cut off their ears. She passed corporation and test acts;
and an act of uniformity, by which two thousand godly ministers
were driven from her pulpits, and in some cases persecuted unto
death by her virulence. Mr. Perowne’s account of her
conduct amidst all these transactions is this.
“Confiding in her God, she has continued her
labour of love, scarcely raising her hand to ward off the
blows that have been aimed at her!” But her
historian goes on to inform us that her acts of “meekness
and conciliation,” in former days, are far surpassed by her
present conduct; for this is what I suppose Mr. P. intended to
mean when he said, “She has done so to an extent
unparalleled in modern times.” Whatever his
ambiguity may mean, he certainly endeavours to represent the
church as greatly increasing in “meekness and
conciliation;” for now, when she sees the wicked Dissenters
attempting to assassinate her, she does not even “lift her
hand” as she did formerly; but, like a true member of
“the Peace Society,” she merely “withdraws from
such” persons; and she thus withdraws, says her historian,
“not in a spirit of revenge and bitterness, but in the
spirit of Him who prayed for his enemies!” I shall
refrain from commenting on this concluding declaration, any
farther than to ask, whether the remotest comparison between the
spirit breathed throughout Mr. Perowne’s pamphlet, and the
dying prayer of the Redeemer, is not an insult to the “meek
and lowly” Jesus.
We now proceed to what may be appropriately called “the
patronage paragraph.” It was occasioned by the
following sentences in my Letter, “addressed to the members
of the Established Church.” “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 co-operate 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.” “This passage,” says Mr.
Perowne, “I consider in itself a sufficient reason
for my publishing to the world my own views and feelings
on the subject in question. The parties alluded to must
be clergymen.” Why must they be clergymen?
Merely because I had used the words “patronage and
support.” I used the words in their general
acceptation, just as any person, in “pretended holy
orders” would use them, little thinking of the
ecclesiastical meaning which “a real reverend” might
put upon them. I knew that if Dissenters were excluded from
the committee of Infant Schools, such a proceeding would obtain
for the schools the “patronage and support” of such
persons in the church as would unite only with Episcopalians; and
as some of those persons have influence and property wherewith to
help the schools, I supposed that such “patronage and
support” would be “valued.” But my words
happened to be read by a man who understands by
“patronage and support” the means of obtaining a
better living than “Saint John’s
Maddermarket.” And, with this idea in his mind, he
begins to reason on the subject with a sagacity all his
own. “The parties alluded to,” says he,
“must be clergymen.” And his argument in proof
is this—“Patronage” is no temptation to
laymen. They therefore never act dishonestly to gain
it. It never deters them “from following out the
convictions of their own minds.” None but clergymen
can be guilty of this. Now I, “the Rev. John
Perowne,” am a clergyman—and, referring perhaps to
the principle that “blessings brighten as they take their
flight,” he adds, “my character is of some value to
me”—and then, wishing to be thought as pure as
Cæsar’s wife, he declares, “I cannot allow
myself to be even suspected.” No, indeed. Were
a patron to become suspicious, it might prevent the desired
“patronage” from being bestowed. And should any
“exclusive Churchman” ever offer this “senior
wrangler” a better living than he now possesses, we shall
all see the triumph of principle, and the “value” of
“character,” displayed, by his declining it. He
will say, “Nolo Episcopari” in the presence of a
mitre—whenever it is offered to him.
But to proceed with this “patronage
paragraph.” I had said, in my Letter, “I know
well, that such an exclusive system is not the desire of you
all.” Now this “exclusive system”
is the desire of Mr. Perowne, and he has put himself
forward as its great champion. He therefore concludes that,
as I have described a class of persons whose views are directly
opposed to his, I must have meant himself! His argument
is—Mr. A. says that some persons do not approve of this “exclusive system.” I do approve of
it. Therefore he refers to me! Q.E.D. Whether
such syllogisms come from Oxford or from Cambridge, I am unable
to determine, as I know not at which of the Universities Mr.
Perowne was educated, and as Dissenters are
“excluded” from them both.
In the course of this immortal paragraph, two things yet
remain to be briefly noticed. First, he charges me with
uttering a direct falsehood, and says that he will not believe my
statements unless they are “authenticated by at least two
witnesses.” I have already intimated that I shall not
trouble myself to gain his assent to any statements I have
made. He had before him the speeches made at the public
meeting; he had before him Mr. Geary’s pamphlet; in both of
which the statements I have made are reiterated; and yet, though
he had before him the testimony of these three or four witnesses,
he says he will not believe, till he has “at least two
witnesses.” Let him disbelieve it then. And,
secondly, in his note to the paragraph, he charges some of the
clergy with consenting to “unite with Dissenters in the
Bible Society,” “on condition” that a
Dissenter should pay their subscriptions. I hope it is
distinctly understood that, in these pages, I make no attack upon
the clergy, and that I have to do with Mr. Perowne only;
yet, though the clergy do not need me as their defender, I am
bound to declare that, having associated with several of them in
the Bible Society for nearly twenty years, I believe that they
joined it from true conviction, and not from such a base and
paltry “condition” as that which Mr. Perowne
alleges. He has, however, carefully abstained from
mentioning names, and from advancing proofs, both of which ought to have
accompanied such a disreputable accusation of his brethren.
The bishops, of whom he speaks in the next paragraph, were
“immured in a prison” on a charge of high treason;
and a bill, to exclude them from the House of Lords, passed both
houses of parliament, and received the signature of “our
martyred Charles.” And, if it was ever “made
unlawful for an Episcopalian to worship God according to the
dictates of his own conscience,” Mr. Perowne ought to know
that this was done by parliamentary authority, and that the
church might even now visit every Dissenter with pains and
penalties, for not worshipping within her walls, were she not
mercifully prevented by the Act of Toleration.
One more paragraph yet remains. I had said in my Letter,
that “the essential doctrines and hallowed
influences” of religion “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.” This, he
intimates, is equivalent to saying that “forms of
ecclesiastical government” are “matters of little
moment.” I did not say so. I said that
doctrines and influences ought to be “far dearer” to
us than such forms. Having, however, made me say that they
are “matters of little moment,” he asks, why then do
we separate from the church? I ask in reply, why does the
church impose them? and why does he write a pamphlet
against those who conscientiously refuse to comply with
them? Let Mr. Perowne regenerate a child by baptism, and
cross its forehead, if he pleases. Let him kneel at the
table, around which Christ and his disciples sat, if he
pleases. Let him call a Socinian his “dear brother,” and
bury him “in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to
eternal life,” if he pleases. But let him not attempt
to compel me to adopt such practices; let him not anathematize me
for not conforming to a church which declares that it “hath
power to decree rites and ceremonies,” when I believe that
such “power” is possessed by Christ alone. I am
not the separatist. I “stand fast in the liberty with
which Christ hath made me free.” He is the schismatic
who insists upon the practice of unscriptural and popish
ceremonies, as the terms of communion with the church of
Christ. “The schism,” says Archbishop Laud, in
addressing Papists, and in justifying the church of England in
her dissent from the church of Rome, “The schism is theirs
whose the cause of it is; and he makes the separation who gives
the first cause of it, not he that makes an actual separation
upon a just cause preceding.” Let Mr. Perowne
talk no more about separation, but remember that “those who
live in a house of glass should never throw stones.”
Mr. Perowne denounces the application which I have made of the
passage of Scripture, which I quoted for the purpose of
illustration. “I did not before know,” says he,
“that ‘forms of ecclesiastical government,’ and
‘meat and drink’ were synonimous terms.”
And what of that? There are many things which Mr. Perowne
does not know. He does not know, for instance, how to spell
synonymous, and until he has learned that, I shall not
undertake to instruct him in higher matters.
Several of the extracts which I have made, from the
observations in this wretched pamphlet, place the writer of them
in a most unfortunate predicament. He either
believes that his interpretations of my language are the true
meaning, or he does not so believe. In the former case, his
“Observations” manifest a want of sense; in the
latter case, a want of honesty. It is impossible to go
through his pamphlet without lamenting over the condition of a
church which is compelled to submit to such incompetent or
unprincipled instructors. What must be the follies or
fanaticism of disciples who are taught to explain passages of
Scripture on the principles on which “this true son of the
church” has explained my Letter. This, however, is a
subject on which we are not left to mere conjecture. In the
volume which contains some of the “Sermons” with
which Mr. Perowne has edified his flock, he teaches that Jesus
Christ is shortly coming in person to reign in
Jerusalem—that the saints will be raised from the dead, at
least a thousand years before the general resurrection, for the
purpose of reigning together with Christ—that Jerusalem
will be to them “what Windsor castle is to our king and his
family”—and that they will have “various
enjoyments through the medium of the senses,” “meat
and drink” included. He also declares, “I have
said nothing of the new division of the Holy land, of the
rebuilding of the Temple, or of the re-institution of the Temple
service; THOUGH ALL THIS WILL CERTAINLY
TAKE PLACE!!” There now. Let any
Irvingite or Swedenborgian beat that if he can. And let all
Dissenters take joyfully the abuse which Mr. Perowne has heaped
upon them, so long as the law tolerates them in leaving St.
John’s Maddermarket, in order to be instructed by those who
“understand what they say, and whereof they
affirm.”
I have
now done with “The Reverend John Perowne, Rector of St.
John’s Maddermarket, Norwich.” I have examined
his reasonings. I have corrected his mistakes. I have
exposed his misrepresentations. In so doing I have
endeavoured to comply with the motto which he has inserted in his
title page, and to “MARK them
which cause divisions and offences;” and I now retire from
the study of his “Observations,” deeply impressed
with the conviction, that fallen indeed must that cause be, which
either needs, or accepts such a defender.
THE
END.
Norwich:
PRINTED BY JOSIAH FLETCHER, UPPER
HAYMARKET.