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 p. 32“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 p. 33ought 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 p. 34his “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. p. 35he 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.
