Churchmen, or when shame prevents them from saying all they think, for on other occasions and privately amongst themselves, I have repeatedly heard such re-, marks as these, on the name of one of those of the Clergy, of whom they think the best, being introduced; “Yes, he is a very nice man, and a very well-meaning man, he seems to aim at preaching the truth, but he is groping in the dark, it would be a good thing if the Lord would open his eyes to see the truth clearly, he would then soon come out of the Church, and unite himself to the Lord's people, &c." I know that some few Dissenters entertain sentiments more expanded and generous; but such are the general views of that bigoted self-righteous faction. This, indeed, some of their more recent proceedings have more publicly manifested. It will not appear so surprising, that Dissenters should consider all Churchmen as "men of the world,” in other words, as "unbelievers,” or as no Christians, when we reflect that they do not allow even those of their own Congregations, who are not Members of their Churches, to be Christians. Mr. James says, very deliberately and distinctly, "Yes, I do consider what is usually termed the Congregation, as the world,' in distinction from the Church. They are those as the Apostle speaks of, as without.' To consider them, and treat them as otherwise, is viewing them in an erroneous light."* This will render it a matter of no surprise at all, that Dissenters should at once unchristianize all Churchmen; and will afford sufficient elucidation, as to the nature of that spirit which dictates their objections to the Burial Service. But are their " tender consciences" sufficiently glutted with consigning over to the regions of darkness all Churchmen, with all of their own Congre- . gations, who are not Members; or in other words all. the world, except those who are Members of their own little spiritual Clubs? Oh! no; for there are many, • James, p. 219. even of the Members of these Churches of Saintsthese canonized juntos-of whom it is whispered' by the rest, that they are only professors; that they have not the "root of the matter" within them; that they are not real Christians. The Church of which I was a member, contained nearly two hundred Members, and was, therefore, considered a large Church; and amongst them, there were many who were said by others to be destitute of vital godliness. And sometimes even the Ministers themselves indulge in these uncharitable "whisperings" and "backbitings." The last Dissenting funeral which I attended, was that of a lady, whose husband was a Deacon, and who had herself been a Member of the Dissenting Church several years. And her Minister and his wife told me themselves, a little short of a year before she died, that they believed she was a complete hypocrite; their words, as near as I can recollect were, "that she was a deceiver, deceiving herself and the Church of which she was a Member;" and they mentioned to me a book, some kind of a religious novel, in which they said her character was perfectly delineated. Well, and did the Minister intimate any thing of this kind in the funeral oration of which he delivered himself at the grave side? and did he caution the bystanders to beware of following the deceased in her ways of hypocrisy and deceit ? O, nothing of the sort, that would never have done; for her family and connexions occupied several pews in the Meeting-house, and he knew that had he said any thing of the kind, he might have taken the pews to himself, and have made up his salary as he best could; he, therefore, sent her to heaven, hypocrite as he said she was, and preached a funeral sermon for her, in which he said, that she had been in the road to heaven for five years previously to her death. But, moreover, although Dissenters, with Mr. James as above quoted, consider those who attend their Meeting-houses, but who are not Members of their Churches, only as men "of the world," and as "without" the pale of Christianity, do they always act consistently with such charitable views? O certainly not, it would be very strange if they did. I have myself heard funeral orations delivered over some, who have attended the Meeting-houses, but who have not been Members of the Churches, and funeral sermons preached for them, in which the Ministers have stated it as their belief, that the deceased were gone to heaven. Yes, the very persons who, Dissenting Teachers at one time tell us, are only men of the world," and "without" that is without the pale of Christianity, are, these very same consistent Teachers at another time tell us, very good and very pious and holy Christians. Now, wherefore this duplicity-this spiritual legerdemain-this deceit in dealing with immortal souls? Why-money, money, simply to get money. When a person who has been a regular hearer of a Dissenting Teacher, and who desired to be buried in the Meeting-house yard, dies, who is to perform the last offices but the Teacher himself? Were he to refuse, he knows the relatives and friends of the deceased would be at once offended, and would have nothing more to do with him. Were he to state what he believes, that the deceased was only a man of the world," an "unbeliever," and that he had consequently no hopes of him, he knows well what the result would be. Were he to speak neither one way nor the other, he knows they would not be satisfied, and that his pocket would consequently suffer. There is, therefore, no alternative left for him, but to belie his conscience and save his pocket, which is regularly done. With what conscience, therefore, and with what consistency, these men can find fault with a Clergyman for reading the burial service over those whom he buries, I cannot imagine: for let them be what they may, they cannot be more than "men of the world," or "unbelievers." I, therefore, freely leave the business for these pious and consistent men— these men of " tender consciences," to reconcile. One thing, however, is very obvious, that if a person attends 1 a Dissenting Meeting-house, hires a pew, and pays the rent, and subscribes pretty freely to any scheme which has for its object the putting money into the pocket of the Teacher, in spite of all professions, consistency, and conscience, the pious Teacher will send him to heaven die when he may, and say a rare long Dissenting mass, that is, preach a rare long funeral sermon for him into the bargain. Professions here, or professions there consistency here, or consistency there— "tender consciences" here, or "tender consciences" there,-money, money, money is the object; to get money they break their professions-abandon consistency, violate their consciences, and make heaven itself an object of traffic. In short, whatever is done by these people, be it what it may, is all perfectly right; and whatever is not coined in their mint, is as much the reverse. It is entirely in vain to endeavour to satisfy them. "Pure attachment to Dissenting principles requires to be kept up;" in order, therefore, to do this, "keen hatred and round abuse of the Church" are resorted to, and these must fix upon something or other; were the Church perfection itself, faults must be found in it, or Dissent would fall; and were the Burial Service altered to day, other objections equally as potent would be raised to-morrow. Nothing will ever satisfy the "tender consciences" of this "sect of determined dissatisfactionists" but to destroy the Church, to abolish monarchy, and to allow them once again to ride roughshod over the land. But to prevent as much as I am able such dire calamities from ever again overspreading the country, I am, Sir, Most willingly, Your obedient Servant, LETTER XI. ON THE ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE. SIR, THIS Letter will contain a few remarks in reference to Church Establishments, but more particularly with regard to the National Established Church within this country. I have heard a great many Dissenters argue upon the subject, but I never yet met with one who could tell me, in clear and intelligible language, what he meant by the Union of Church and State; and your friend, Mr. Scales, takes it for granted, that every body understands the subject, and has, therefore, given no definition of it. "By the Church of England," says the great and good Bishop Stillingfleet," I mean that society of Christian people, which in this nation are united under the same profession of faith, the same laws of Government, and rules of Divine Worship;" and this he shews is a consistent notion of our Established National Church, which is a Society of men united together for their "order and government, according to the rules of the Christian Religion;" he adds that "he could not see," nor can any one else, without a pair of Dissenting spectacles, "why a National Society agreeing together in the same faith and under the same government and discipline, may not be as truly and properly a Church as any particular Congregation;" for "the narrowness, or largeness of extent, |