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 p. 21the 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 p. 22this 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 p. 23already. 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 p. 24right 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 p. 25churchmen 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!
