diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/63325-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63325-0.txt | 1315 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 1315 deletions
diff --git a/old/63325-0.txt b/old/63325-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 38266e3..0000000 --- a/old/63325-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1315 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook, Infant Schools and Dissenters, by John -Alexander - - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - - -Title: Infant Schools and Dissenters - A Vindication of "a letter of affectionate remonstrance," &c. - - -Author: John Alexander - - - -Release Date: September 27, 2020 [eBook #63325] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - - -***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK INFANT SCHOOLS AND DISSENTERS*** - - -Transcribed from the 1836 J. Fletcher edition by David Price. - - - - - - INFANT SCHOOLS AND DISSENTERS. - - - * * * * * - - A VINDICATION - - OF - - “A LETTER OF AFFECTIONATE REMONSTRANCE,” &c. - - * * * * * - - FROM - - THE MISTAKES RESPECTING IT MADE BY WILLIAM GEARY, ESQ. - AND FROM THE MISREPRESENTATIONS OF IT MADE BY THE REV. JOHN PEROWNE, - RECTOR OF ST. JOHN’S MADDERMARKET, IN THEIR - RESPECTIVE PAMPHLETS. - - * * * * * - - BY JOHN ALEXANDER, - MINISTER OF PRINCE’S STREET CHAPEL, NORWICH. - - * * * * * - - NORWICH: - SOLD BY J. FLETCHER; JARROLD & SONS; - AND THE OTHER BOOKSELLERS. - JACKSON & WALFORD, LONDON. - - 1836. - - - - -PREFACE. - - -THE following Vindication was written during the week in which the Rev. -John Perowne’s “Observations” appeared; and the publication of it has -been hitherto delayed, partly from an unwillingness to pursue the subject -of my “Letter” any farther, and partly from a determination not to -publish till a fair opportunity had been given to obtain subscribers to -the New Infant School Society. In replying to Mr. Geary it was -impossible to write with any other impression than that I was answering a -gentleman and a Christian; and I hope that such an impression is -manifested in my pages. And though Mr. Perowne has chosen to make my -“Letter” on Infant Schools the pretext for a rude and personal attack, as -well as for insulting the whole body of Dissenters, I have nevertheless -endeavoured to treat him with some degree of forbearance, and have in -many instances chastised him with whips only, when scorpions were at -hand. The great questions at issue between Churchmen and Dissenters -never can be settled by slander and abuse. Mr. Perowne’s pamphlet -therefore must be an utter failure; and I hope that all who have read it, -or who may read this, will retire from them both, diligently and devoutly -to study the New Testament, as the only standard of Christian faith, and -of Ecclesiastical government. - -_Norwich_, _June_ 6_th_, 1836. - - - - -A VINDICATION, &c. - - -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. - - - - -FOOTNOTES. - - -{15} Mr. Perowne uses the expression, “our _apostolical_ establishment,” -as if there had been an _Established_ Church in the days of the apostles. -The establishment of religion by the state, did not take place till the -reign of Constantine, which was three hundred years after Christ, and -when the church had become grossly corrupted by “the mystery of -iniquity.” It is still more erroneous to speak of “_our_ apostolical -establishment,” for the Protestant Church of England was not established -till the time of Henry the Eighth. - -{16} A man who writes himself “reverend,” and who intermeddles with -latin and logic, ought to be able to spell correctly. “Calvanist” and -“Armenian,” are wrong. The former should be Calvinist, and the latter -should be Arminian. I hope that the Infant School system, which Mr. -Perowne patronises, will not be so “exclusive” as to exclude spelling -from its literature. Let Mr. P. take advantage of this hint—for he -learnedly remarks, “_Licet vel_ ab hoste doceri.” - -{28} Mr. Warner, a clergyman of the Church of England, in his -“_Conformist’s Plea for the Nonconformists_,” observes “It is _absurd to -call him a martyr_, for there was too great a complication of causes -which led to his execution, to ascribe it wholly or principally to -religion. The vice which ruined him was insincerity; so that his enemies -saw that they could not trust him to perform his insincere though liberal -promises.” - - - - -***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK INFANT SCHOOLS AND DISSENTERS*** - - -******* This file should be named 63325-0.txt or 63325-0.zip ******* - - -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/3/3/2/63325 - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |