Had the system of Infant schools been the offspring of the Church of England—could it be shewn that no infants, but such as have been baptized at its font, had the capacity to receive instruction—or if the Dissenters of this city had set an example of exclusiveness in infant education, then indeed some apology or even justification might be offered for the course which is advertised for adoption. But it is well known that the system of infant education is quite independent of any form of ecclesiastical polity. It is as much the property of the nonconformist as of the conformist. It has nothing to do with the peculiarities of either; but it asks, and has hitherto cordially received the cooperation of both. And the attempt to make it the appendage of a particular church, and “a great gulph” of separation between Christians—to enlist infants, just “weaned from the breast,” as parties in ecclesiastical strife, must be productive of a lamentable influence on the minds both of infants and adults, and must be highly offensive to Him who rebuked his disciples and said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” The Church of England—established by the authority of parliament—having dissented from the pale of popery, whose intolerance and exclusiveness she professes to abhor—declaring that she is emphatically and eminently the church of Christ—and praying, as she does, not only for “all sorts and conditions of men,” but “more especially for the good estate of the catholic church, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may hold the faith in unity of spirit, and in the bond of peace”—ought, most assuredly, of all churches, to be the most comprehensive in her charity, and to set “all sorts and conditions of men,” and the whole “catholic church,” an example of meekness and conciliation. But when an opportunity presents itself, the most favourable for exhibiting these graces, without the slightest compromise of principle, are all these professions and all these prayers to be forgotten; and must the unestablished and self-supported churches of our land be the only sanctuaries where charity can take refuge, and the only societies whose members add practice to profession and to prayer? I hope not, my brethren; and devoutly as I am attached to the great principles of nonconformity, because I consider them to be in harmony with Christianity, yet I should strongly suspect their character if I found that they prevented me from cooperating with my fellow Christians in any “work of faith or labour of love.”