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, p. 6whatever 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.

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, p. 6whatever 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, p. 7who 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.

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, p. 6whatever 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, p. 7who 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 p. 9upon 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.

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, p. 6whatever 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, p. 7who 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 p. 9upon 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 p. 10his 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 p. 11that 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.”

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 p. 14church 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.” p. 15dissent 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 p. 16the 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. p. 17he 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 p. 18part, 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 p. 19say 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. p. 20john’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!”