on the other hand, the word be ever used in the New Testament in more, or different senses than those two, which Mr. James and Dissenters assign to it, as I have clearly proved in the instances of the Church at Jerusalem, and the Church of Ephesus, and could have proved in several other instances-then it follows that Dissent, and Dissenters, are wrong, and the Church, and Churchmen, right and Scriptural. The reason, therefore, why Mr. James did not make the one alteration, as well as the other, is abundantly obvious.

"*

To notice another of the instances in which Mr. James has humblingly bowed to the Reviewer of his book, we read in the second edition: "The Church of England retains MANY of the corruptions of her RELATION at Rome." Having altered this sentence thus : "The Church of England retains SOME of the corruptions of the CHURCH of Rome," Mr. James stands self-convicted of having borne false witness against his neighbour. For if he spoke the truth in this instance, in the second edition of his book, why did he afterwards alter it? The fact speaks for itself.

After the Reviewer has noticed the above reproaches of Mr. James, he thus proceeds :-" Not satisfied with this lighter mode of sarcastic warfare, our author deliberately advances the most unjust charges against the Established Church. The Church of England,' says he, teaches that all who die, go to heaven, whatever was their previous character? To say nothing of the martyrs and reformers of our Church-to say nothing of the generations of holy Churchmen, who, since the reformation have entered into rest, our author not only openly insults every Member of the Establishment, but wantonly charges twelve thousand living Episcopal Clergymen with utter incompetency of understanding, and searedness of conscience. For their understanding must be blunted into perfect dullness, if they do not perceive the palpable inconsis

* James, p. 146, 2nd Edition, and p. 120, 5th Edition.

tency, and their conscience must be seared into insensibility itself, if they do not feel the tremendous guilt of continuing in a Church which teaches such a horrible doctrine! We wonder how any Christian man could publish any thing so untrue, and so unchristian, as that 'the Church of England teaches that ALL WHO. DIE GO TO HEAVEN, WHATEVER WAS THEIR PREVIOUS CHARACTER.' This passage thus quoted by. the Reviewer, from the second edition of Mr. James's book, is the very passage which led me to think the Reviewer had dealt unfairly and dishonestly by Mr. James; for by comparing it with a later edition, I find nothing like it. But, behold! in turning some time afterwards to the page referred to by the Reviewer in the second edition, I there found the very words. I confess that I felt at once both grieved that I had indulged in hard thoughts of the Reviewer, and indignant at the contemptible trick of Mr. James. Mr. James, however, gains nothing by such conduct, for he thus places himself in the unenviable situation of a self-convicted SLANDERER of the Church of England. What are we to think of a man who can deliberately write, print, and publish to the world, that "the Church of England TEACHES, that all who die go to heaven, whatever was their previous character"!! What sort of a conscience must that man possess, who can deliberately affirm that the "Church of England TEACHES that she actually TEACHES-people to believe, that their characters are of no consequencé, whatever; for, all who die go to heaven, whatever was their previous character!!" How can such a man, after uttering such a malignant and glaring falsehood

*Church of England and Dissent, 8vo. p. 5.

+ It is much to be regretted, that when the review of Mr. James's book was published in the form of a Pamphlet, the author did not, in his Preface, give his numerous readers an intimation of Mr. James's conduct. I cannot but think that he ought to have mentioned it, in justice to himself; for when persons reading his Review, and comparing his quotations with the latter editions of Mr. James's book, find that they do not tally, they will be ready to imagine that he has injured Mr. James, whereas, were the truth known, the very reverse would at once be manifest.

against the Church, ever look at a Churchman, or even at a Church, without blushing with shame!! And, who would not be disgusted, even to nausea, at hearing such a man canting about his "weak conscience," his "tender conscience!" And who would envy the humiliating situation of such a man, when, for want of proof to substantiate his false assertions, he is obliged to eat his own words, and thus condemn his own shameful conduct.

Mr. James says, in the first and second editions of his book,-"The Church of England teaches that all who die go to heaven, whatever was their previous character." In the subsequent editions, he says, instead of it," her Burial Service, in manifest opposition to some parts of itself, and other parts of the Liturgy, leads us to conclude that all who are interred with the prescribed rites of sepulture, certainly go to heaven, whatever were their previous characters." If Mr. James had said no more than what was perfectly true, in the first and second editions of his book, why did he alter the subsequent editions? The reason is so obvious, that an answer is quite unnecessary.

I might add other instances in which Mr. James has altered his book, in consequence of the remarks of his talented Reviewer, for even the very preface itself has been curtailed; but enough has been said to show up some of the conduct manifested by Dissenters towards the Established Church. I would indeed by no means have made the above remarks, had Mr. James acted either like a Christian or an honest man, and frankly said in his preface to the third edition of his work, or in some other place, that he had altered, or, "revised and corrected" it. But no, Mr. James has adopted no such a manly, straightforward, and upright course. That would not have suited his pious purpose. He has altered his book, and very materially so too, and yet has most dishonestly sent it into the world as a pure transcript of the former editions. And by acting thus jesuitically, and deceitfully, he has left

people to conclude, as I did myself, that the Reviewer has misquoted his words, and misrepresented his meaning. Conduct like this, on the part of Mr. James, is as mean and despicable as some of his assertions are wicked and false. It is craft, indeed, strikingly characteristic of those who use it, and well worthy of the unscriptural and iniquitous system which requires it.

To detect and expose the guile, hypocrisy, and falsehood of such pious men-men of such "weak and tender consciences."

I am, and ever hope to be,

Sir,

Most willingly your obedient Servant,

L. S. E.

LETTER III.

ON THE ELECTION OF MINISTERS BY THE PEOPLE.

SIR,

As one falsehood requires many more to bear it out, so one error also requires many more to support it. Apply this to the subject before us. Congregational Independency may be considered as the fundamental error of your system of Dissent, and the source of all the errors of which that system is composed. For when you have embraced this error as a truth, that every separate and distinct Congregation forms a complete Church of itself, entirely independent of every other, neither recognising, allowing, nor admitting of any foreign control or right of interference whatever, consistency requires you to believe all the errors which flow from, or are consequent upon, that one error. Hence you believe, as a matter of course, that such a Society has an undoubted right to manage all its own affairs, of every description whatever-to make, interpret, and execute its own laws-to admit or reject its own members; and this, according to what mode, and upon what conditions it may itself prescribe for and upon the occasion; and also, to hire, pay, superintend the conduct of, and dismiss its own Ministers, just according to its own will and pleasure. Each one

of these errors is essential to the scheme of which it