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 p. 26mr. 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 p. 27should 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 p. 28in 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 p. 29give 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 p. 30mr. 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 p. 31a 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.
