there is no want of charity in supposing that a gentleman or lady, with an income of two or three thousand per annum, and subscribing ten or twenty guineas a year, is likely to have rather more influence than " the poorest member;" and it is undoubtedly a merciful disposition of Providence that it must be so. "They were unanimous in commending my gifts and graces," says the Autobiographer, in a story so good and well told, that it is a pity to spoil it by garbling,-" and they one and all declared that I should be the very man to suit them -provided that Mrs. was agreeable; but nothing could be done without her consent, for she was a most valuable prop to the Interest, inasmuch as she subscribed not less than ten guineas a year, which could be very ill spared from their funds; and whenever any thing was proposed contrary to her opinions or her wishes, she always threatened to withdraw her subscription, and that threat always brought the party to reason." (p. 59.) He adds, on the next page," Among us Dissenters there is often a good deal of quizzing and laughing about Queen Elizabeth being the head of the church, and we think that our banter on this topic is totally unanswerable by the united wisdom of the whole bench of bishops; but here, in the instance of this little suburban dissenting chapel, is a specimen of a female head of a church, exercising a most despotic and unbounded sway: her will is law in every thing, because she subscribes ten guineas a year." I do not know whether I ever had the pleasure of seeing this lady; but I could not read the story without being reminded,

I was a

that, some years ago, I accompanied a friend to what might perhaps be called a “suburban dissenting chapel," for it was within a very few miles of London. stranger; but my friend, though residing at a distance, was acquainted with the minister; and so we went into the vestry, where we staid some time before the service began. It was a winter's afternoon; and, while waiting there, I was amused by the fidget of a gentleman of the congregation, who was waiting there also; and who, after repeatedly peeping into the chapel, and returning with disappointment from the door, addressed himself to another gentleman in the vestry, who took matters more quietly, and said in a tone of pathos almost rising into reproach, "I wonder Mrs. does not make a point of

;"

being more punctual; it makes it so late for Mr. that is, for the minister, who had a mile or two to go after the service. As to the minister's beginning the service before Mrs. arrived, be that when it might, it did not seem to have occurred to this gentleman's imagination, or that of any one else; and to be sure, this lady, with her children, and grandchildren, and servants, did, even numerically considered, form a very considerable part of the congregation; and their subscriptions provided, I dare say, nine-tenths of the salary.

Still, I confess, that I never saw these parties in a church meeting, where perhaps they were all equal -and perhaps they had all equal power and influence in choosing a minister-but we were led into this discussion by inquiring "who chooses the church?" I replied that, according to theory they choose one another;

and I entered into these detals in order that you may judge how far theory and practice agree. That some influence exists, however, which is not unfrequently, and very naturally, exercised in ways most injurious to religion, I hope to show in speaking of the relation of church members among themselves; but we are now discussing the connexion of the minister and the people, and having shown that the church chooses the minister, it may be shown with equal truth and clearness, though it is not perhaps equally obvious or avowed, that the minister chooses the church; and this I hope to do in another letter.

I am, Sir, &c.

LETTER XXXIV.

REPLY TO THE FIRST SIX LETTERS, WITH SOME REMARKS ON IT.

SIR,-It may be a digression from exact order, but it is none from our general subject; and at any rate I hope you and your readers will not object to my printing two short replies to some of my former letters, by a gentleman personally unknown to me, which have been forwarded to me. Trusting to this, I will proceed to them at once, only premising an assurance (and to you I am not anonymous) that they are genuine, and that (except only name and date) I give them entire,

and verbatim; and adding that some remarks which I may feel it right to make, shall be thrown into the form of a running commentary and included in brackets'. The first is entitled, "A Letter to a Clergyman of the Church of England, who left for perusal the six letters of A Churchman' with one of his parishioners ;" and it begins,

"Rev. Sir, I have attentively read the six letters by A Churchman,' who, in my opinion, is any thing but a humble Christian in the true sense of the word. What then? why I should imagine a well beneficed clergyman of the Church of England-one who makes broad his phylactery-this I deduce from page 41 2, where it would not have read amiss, nay, but be quite in keeping, to have added to the concluding words of Letter IV., the whole of the prayer (if you can so misuse the word) of the Pharisee in the Temple, changing the term Publican into Burder."

This gentleman seems to have been quite misled by my expression of thankfulness, which was sincere ; and, I should have hoped, not inconsistent with Christian humility. I said I was thankful that I was a Churchman; and, therefore, he takes it for granted, that I must be not only a clergyman, but well beneficed; for why else should I be thankful? What was there in an account of the proceedings at the tabernacle, which I had just given, that could have led a layman, or even a poor curate, to be thankful that he belonged to a church, which is not liable to exhibit such dis

1 The form in which these letters were originally published, rendered this necessary. In the present edition, the difference of type forms a sufficient and more convenient distinction for the longer remarks; and the shorter ones which are still intermixed with the replies, retain their brackets.

2 Now p. 39.

gusting scenes; in short, what should a man, or could a man be thankful for, except money? Surely he must be a most devout worshipper of pounds, shillings, and pence; and probably understands them much better than he does the controversy in which he seems desirous to engage. This, at least, (he will imagine with what grief say it) was a most unlucky guess; and a person of equal latitude, and more wit, would have had the precaution to suggest, that the Churchman was either a rich parson, who was thankful because he had got a good living, or a poor parson, who pretended to be so that he might get one. If with these two strings to his bow he had failed (as I need not tell you that he would), he might have deserved some pity; for every body knows that it is to one or the other of those classes that the Dissenters very complacently refer every thing that is written against them. Having stated that I am not a beneficed clergyman, it is perhaps unnecessary to add that I do not wear phylacteries.

"In the judgment of a Churchman,' the manner in which clergymen are appointed in the Church of England is most excellent, the reason he assigns, because the Dissenters' plan is not so good; surely this is very poor reasoning; nevertheless, were it the absolute law that the appointed shepherd who seeks the advantages by the shearing of the flock, should reside constantly among and attend to the sheep, then I acknowledge his other arguments would have greater force; but as that is too often not the case, and that the sinecurist and non-resident parson is too often overpaid—that the labourer in the vineyard is not considered by him worthy of his hire are facts which are too manifest all around us, and here I may be allowed to thank my God that this corrupt state of things is soon likely to have an end. Thanks to the Dissenters for this!"