as their temporal head, in his high Court of Chancery, or in his Court of King's Bench? Is not dissent protected by government? Is not dissent allied with the state? not the king the temporal and legal head of dissent? In fine, Is not dissent an established religion?

Is

"I have used the phrase Endowed Church,'" says Mr. Lowell, (Reasons, p. 12) "instead of Established Church;' because the DISSENTING CHURCHES ARE ESTABLISHED; for which we have the opinion of Lord Mansfield, who, in a speech in the House of Lords, observed that The dissenters' way of worship is not only exempted from punishment, but rendered innocent and lawful: IT IS ESTABLISHED.'" 1 If, therefore, Mr. Lowell be a competent witness, and Lord Mansfield a competent Judge, dissent is an ESTABLISHED religion, and Mr. James must, on his own principles, “ separate" from dissent; for he solemnly declares that " a non-conformist should SEPARATE from all national establishments of religion WHATEVER!" (Guide, p. 15).

Mr. James is hostile to an established, but friendly to an endowed Church: Mr. Lowell is friendly to an established Church, but hostile to an endowed one. Mr. Lowell seems to have forgotten, or not to have known, that many dissenting Churches, are endowed, of which "the patronage," Mr. James tells us, " is vested in the hands of trustees." (p. 214). Mr. Lowell views endowed Churches with horror; Mr. James wishes that more

1

1 Lord Mansfield delivered the same sentiments on the same case from the bench in Westminster-hall :-"The Toleration Act has rendered the Dissenters' way of worship, not only innocent but lawful; has put it not merely under the connivance, but under the protection of the law; HAS ESTABLISHED IT."-Furneaux's Letters to Blackstone. Mr. Onslow, the once incomparable Speaker of the House of Commons, asserted, "That as far as the authority of law could go in point of protection, THE DISSENTERS WERE AS TRULY ESTABLISHED AS THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.' Furneaux, 23, 24.

1 The case of Allan Evans, Esq.

"Ye rich Church

dissenting Churches were endowed. es," he exclaims, "in the metropolis, I appeal to your liberality in behalf of those many Churches, which are withering"-not for want of grace, but-" for want of a little of that wealth, which you could spare." (p. 135). Again, he inquires, "Where is the favoured individual, into whose lap the bounty of providence has poured the abundance of riches? Let him become the nursing father of our poor Churches! If he should spend £2000. a year in this way, he may give £40. a year to fifty ministers! In how many church books would his name be enrolled amidst the prayers and benedictions of the saints!” (p. 135.) We hardly know the sense of this passage; but it sounds very much like popery. Further :-" Let men of increasing wealth consider it as an incumbent duty to consecrate no small part of their affluence in upholding THE CAUSE"-the cause of what? not of Christianity, but-" OF DISSENT AT HOME! The erection of chapels, the support of seminaries, the maintenance of poor ministers, the establishment of churches, should be with them an object of deep anxiety.” (p. 169.) Nay: :—“ The benevolence of some neighbouring friends of religion may erect new places of worship, and even elect the ministers BEFORE A CHURCH IS FORMED!!" (p. 215 note.) "ELECT THE MINISTERS BEFORE A CHURCH IS FORMED?" AND ROB 66 THE PEOPLE OF THEIR JUST RIGHT TO ELECT THEIR OWN MINISTERS?" (p. 16.)-How utterly inconsistent is all this with the boasted principles of non-conformity! How grievous is the inconsistency of professing Christians to every unprejudiced mind! But it seems to some persons, that what is altogether to be condemned in the support of the Established Church, is highly to be commended in the propagation of Dissent!! May we notice another inconsistency! Mr. James honestly laments the increase of "Arianism and Socinianism in dissenting churches;" (pp. 247, 257, 217) yet he strongly recommends to his dissenting readers (p. 6) “Thomas Johnson's reasons,

(price 2d.) for dissenting from the Church of England ;" "The Dissenter's Catechism, by Palmer;" and "TooGOOD'S LETTERS ON DISSENT." Can any dissenter, who has ever read "Ecclesiastical Polity, in eight books, by Richard Hooker," recommend "Thomas Johnson's twopenny reasons for dissenting?" Can any candid dissenter recommend that most mendacious Manual, "The Dissenter's Catechism?" Can any orthodox dissenter recommend "The Letters of Micaiah Toogood,”—an open blasphemer of the Son of God?1 We put it solemnly to Mr. James's own conscience, whether he can recommend to the young persons of his congregation, who are inquiring for the Way of Salvation,'" the Letters" of a man, WHO DENIES THE ETERNAL DIVINITY OF THE ONLY SAVIOUR?

We now proceed to examine

2. The principle of Dissenters respecting a Christian Church.

"What is a Christian Church?" (inquires our author,) "It has," (he replies,)" an enlarged, and also a more confined signification, in the word of God.-In some places it is employed to comprehend the aggregate of believers of every age and nation; hence we read of the general assembly and Church of the first-born,' and of the Church which Christ loved and purchased with His own blood.' In its more confined acceptation, it means a congregation of professing Christians meeting for worship in one place; hence we read of the Church at Rome, Colosse, Philippi, &c. These are the only two senses in which the word is ever employed by the sacred writers; consequently all provincial and national Churches; or in other words, to call the people of a province or nation a Church of Christ, is a most gross perversion of the term, and rendering the kingdom of Jesus more a matter of geography than of religion. The sacred writers, when speaking of the Christians of a

1 See Manning's Life of Toogood, p. 133.

whole province, never employ the term in the singular number, but with great precision of language speak of the Churches of Galatia, Syria, Macedonia, Asia, &c." (pp. 6, 7.)

Again :

"When a Church becomes too large to communicate at one table, and divides to eat the Lord's Supper in two distinct places of worship, there are two Churches, and no longer one only.” (p. 9.)

6

This language is as offensive in its tone, as it is positive in its assertions: but overlooking its offensiveness, and noticing only its assertions, we will shew, 1st, That the word Church in scripture has more than two significations :-2ndly, That Mr. James, in ignorance or in haste, has misquoted or misrepresented the scriptures :-and 3rdly, That in what is called in scripture a Church,' there may be several congregations. On this definition of a Christian Church, as containing only one congregation, the peculiar scheme of Independency is founded. If it can, then, be shewn that this scheme is unsupported by scripture, Independency will be utterly without a foundation.

Now on this point we must observe,

First, that the word Church in scripture has more than two significations.

It signifies, (1.) All the people of God, of all climes and ages, from the beginning to the end of the world: Christ is the head of the body, the Church,' Col. i. 18. See also Heb. xii. 23. Acts xxii. 28. It signifies, (2.) The faithful Christians of some one district or province: 'Paul and Sylvanus unto the Church of the Thessalonians,' 2 Thess. i. 1. Now, ye Philippians, know also that no Church communicated with me--but ye only, Phil. iv. 15. It signifies, (3.) A number of believers, called by divine grace out of the world, and worshipping God in one place: 'The Church at Jerusalem,' Acts viii. 1. It signifies, (4.) The Christians of one family, who were wont to meet for divine worship in a house: The Church in

his house,' Rom. xvi. 5. It signifies, (5.) The governors of the Church: 'Tell it to the Church,' Matt. xviii. 17. It signifies, (6.) The Edifice in which the Lord's Supper is celebrated: 'What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in; but despise ye the Church of God?' 1 Cor. xi. 22. Our readers may now decide whether, as our author rashly asserts, the word Church, in the Scriptures,

HAS NEVER MORE THAN TWO SIGNIFICATIONS.

Secondly: Our author misquotes, or misrepresents Scripture.

"Hence," says he, 66 we read of the Church at Rome, Colosse, Phillippi," &c. (Philippi.) We do not read in the New Testament of the Church at Rome; nor of the Church at Colosse; nor of the Church at Philippi! The Epistle to the Romans is addressed, "To all that be at Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:" the Epistle to the Philippians, "To all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi:" and the Epistle to the Colossians, "To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ, which are at Colosse." So much, in quoting Scripture, for "great precision of language." (James, p. 7.)

Thirdly: What in Scripture is called a Church, contains more than one congregation.

Was there only one congregation of Christians in the Church at Jerusalem? When we read so often of the breaking of bread, or the receiving of the Lord's Supper in that Church, was this bread always broken,-this Supper always received, in one place? Five hundred brethren at once beheld our Lord after his resurrection, 1 Cor. xv. 6. After St. Peter's sermon, three thousand souls were added to the Church,' Acts ii. 41. Soon afterwards, the number of the men who believed was about five thousand,' Acts iv. 4. 'The number of the disciples still multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests was obedient to the faith,' Acts vi. 7. And 'seest thou how many tens of thousands [ñócai pvpiádes]’ perhaps forty or fifty thousands, of Jews there are which believe?' Acts xxi. 20.-Making every fair al