as" Lord-Deacons" and "Leading-Members,"-"Committees" and "Chairmen," "Presidents" and " PrivyCouncillors,"--" Trustees" and "Treasurers ;"* where is the Scripture for them? Mr. James very loyally, and very piously says, that "a Christian may piously lift his hand against the Government of his country; where is there a passage in the Word of God to sanction such a loyal and pious practice? St. Paul commands Christians to pray "for Kings and all that are in authority," and "to be SUBJECT to principalities and powers, to OBEY Magistrates;" reconcile these positive and unconditional commands of God with Mr. James's loyal assertion? You say that National Religious Establishments are wrong and contrary to Scripture; is such an opinion Scriptural? Produce a passage proving it to be so? O, say you, Christ says, "My kingdom is not of this world." Granted; but did Christ make use of those words in opposition to the union of Church and State as were then existing in Judea, where he then was? And if he did not, what right have you to use them in such a sense? Or ra

ther, what right have you to pervert them to such a purpose-a purpose for which you dare not say that Christ ever intended them? Was the National Religious Establishment of the Jews wrong? If not, why may it not be taken for a precedent? Was there anything in it typical or ceremonial? If there was, of what was it typical? If there was not, why is not its principle still binding as a precedent? Where is the Scripture to the contrary? You say that Kings and Governors have no right to interfere in religious matters; where is the Scripture for such an impious notion? If they are only to interfere in civil matters, DRAW THE

LINE OF DEMARCATION AND DISTINCTION BETWEEN

WHAT IS RELIGIOUS AND WHAT IS CIVIL, that Kings and Governors, and others, may know what is civil and

See James, p.p. 147, 250, 185, 186, 152, 214, 220, 150.

what is religious, and what they may interfere in and what they may not? Would God have established religion amongst the Jews if such an establishment had not been best adapted for the spiritual welfare of that people? And if it was best for such a purpose, can a better be adopted?-and Scripturally adopted? Is a National Religious Establishment in and of itself sinful ? If it be, how do you exculpate the Almighty? Of what kingdom was the pious Mr. Scales, when hurrying up and down the county of York on electioneering business, and where is the Scripture for such practice? When the Dissenting, and, of course, pious Messrs. Scales and Hamilton, of Leeds, meet at political dinners and at other times, and sit to hear songs, glees, catches, &c. of what kingdom are they? and what part of Scripture sanction their lending their pious ears to such profane rubbish? (Do they join in concert on such pious occasions?) Dissent and the State are united in the South Sea Islands, where is the Scripture for such a union? Mr. Scales says, "THE GREAT GOD HIMSELF DOES NOT FORCE OUR FAITH AND OBEDIENCE;" is this true? is it Scriptural? is it even MORAL, good Sir? The Eclectic Review, a Dissenting periodical, says, that "PURE attachment to Dissenting principles, REQUIRES to be kept up in minds of a certain class by a KEEN HATRED, and now and then a little ROUND ABUSE OF THE CHURCH." Where is there, good Sir, a single passage of God's Holy Word sanctioning the exercise of KEEN HATREĎ and ROUND ABUSE?.

Now, if the Word of God really be as you affirm it is, the only rule of your faith and practice, you will be able to answer all these questions very readily. I could have considerably augmented their number, but I fancy you will find those which I have stated to be quite as numerous as you will be disposed to reply to. I may, however, just ask one more, and that is, do you think that you can by any possibility answer them at all?

I really think it will, at least, admit of a doubt, and that you will find it to be no easy task, if not an "EVERLASTING TASK." As, however, your principles-your boasted Dissenting principles-are at stake, answer them you must, or as an honest man for ever abandon your pretended "principles of Dissent."

I will add no more, but simply state, in concluding this correspondence, that at its commencement I had no idea of its reaching to such an extent; but in prosecuting my enquiries in reference to the subjects treated of, and applying my thoughts to them, I felt that I could not otherwise do them justice. And I cannot but again say, that I feel inexpressibly thankful that I ever took them into consideration at all. Instead of being more firmly established in the principles of Dissent, as I fully expected when I began my examination, I am grateful that I have been led to abandon them altogether, and to embrace a system which I am now, as the preceding pages will evince, fully convinced has God for its author, and his Word for its defence. And I only wish and pray that every Dissenter would lay aside his prejudices, and with an upright heart and impartial mind, take the whole subject into his serious consideration; for I am perfectly satisfied that, with the blessing of God, without which nothing is available, similar consequences would inevitably succeed, and he would daily and hourly feel thankful that he ever adapted such a course, and for the results that had so happily followed.

I am, Sir,

Your most humble Servant,

And sincere Well-wisher,

L. S. E.

APPENDIX.

No. I.

Dr. Cox had the extreme modesty to assert at the Second Annual Meeting of that true mirror of Dissenting excellencies and purity, the "Society for Promoting Ecclesiastical Knowledge," that Dissenters were "ALREADY PURIFIED." The Doctor, by the way, is a rank Pluralist, he is the Teacher of a Dissenting Congregation at Hackney-Librarian of the Infidel London University, and one of the Secretaries to the above Society. He is frequently called "the Five Pound Doctor," from the circumstance, I presume, of his Diploma having been purchased for that sum. Whether the learned L.L.D. purchased his title himself, or whether some friend did him the high honour or not, I cannot exactly say. However, this may be, he said at the above Meeting, "let all fall that is not supported there,"-pointing to the New Testament. Now his Doctorship, his Infidel Librarianship, and his Secretaryship, pray are they supported by the New Testament? Is there any thing of the kind there mentioned; perhaps, the Learned Doctor will condescend to point out to us where ?

No. II.

As we are continually hearing so much about Dissenting purity, and about Dissenting Churches, being Churches of Saints, and their Ministers, holy and pious men, I think it proper to state, at length, the fact here alluded to, as well as those which follow in the Appendix, that it may not be thought that I have alluded to facts which never existed; and, also, that the public may be enabled to judge of the foundation of the boast about the present purity of the sect of Congregational Independents. The fact alluded to is this, the people had just struck a bargain with the "beardless youth," who was then their Teacher, and who had just arrived from one of the Dissenting Academies. He had agreed to be their hired servant, and to let them have the full use and benefit of his services for the sum

which they had agreed to pay. Proud of his new situation, this "beardless youth" became a most important personage, talked about "my pulpit," and "my people," assuming vast consequence, and was, alas, as ignorant as he was high. One of the Members, who appeared to be a pious and upright man, digusted at the pride and foppery of the Teacher, spoke of him in terms not the most respectful. This came to the Teacher's ears, and so rankled in his breast, that he determined to excommunicate the man, and thus satisfy his revenge. But how was this to be done? The simple fact of his having given such a slight cause of offence to the Minister, would by no means accomplish the object, and was scarcely worth mentioning, even to the Minister's most fawning sycophants. No flaw could be discovered in the man's conduct, all was upright and honest. What then could be done? Why the man is a shoemaker, does he ever sell shoes on a Sunday? We will try him. This was the plot—a man was employed, and went on a Sunday morning to the obnoxious Member's house, told him a pitiful tale, saying that he wanted a pair of shoes for one of his children who was entirely without, and could, therefore, neither go to the Sunday School nor to the Meeting-house. He succeeded, the shoemaker was prevailed upon, and sold the shoes, and for so doing was excommunicated in due form! This bright specimen of Dissenting purity needs no comment. I was so disgusted at the transaction, that I immediately determined to leave both this set and their purity to themselves.

No. III.

I had not attended this Meeting-house a great many weeks, before one of the more respectable Members, immediately after he had received what you call the Lord's Supper,'.went home, quarrelled with his wife, because she had not waited for him to tea, swore at her, and in his rage spurned over the tea-table, and broke the tea-things. And all this was without the Saint's receiving the slightest reprehension. The fact was, the delinquent was a respectable man, and the "Cause" was in any thing but a prosperous state, and consequently neither the dependent Minister, nor any of the Members, durst take any notice of the matter. I shortly after had undeniable evidence of the drunkenness of two other Members of the same Society; and the constable of the place told me, that on going his rounds on a Saturday night, he invariably found another of them at one of the public-houses always drinking, and frequently drunk, and yet, being a first-rate professor, he was thought by some to be one of the most pious Members of the fraternity; and, indeed,