massa," says the black, "how much you have with the other people?" "Two hundred pounds," replied the priest. "Ah! massa, massa," says the black," I see why you listen to call of God to go from us-God might call you, massa, till he be tired, to leave two hundred pounds per year, to go and teach poor souls for one hundred."

This reasoning of the black's has been admired by most Christians who have read it, as too true a picture of the clergy; but should a Christian attempt to say as much of Mr. Aspland, he would be called a calumniator and uncharitable; but can two cases be more alike? yet Mr. Aspland is chosen, and continued to be, a teacher of the enlightened congregation at Hackney!

But it will not be foreign to my subject to state a few particulars of the man whom he succeeded. Mr. Belsham is a man of learning, and I believe possessed of considerable private property. He is a man whom, with or without his canonicals, nature or habit seems to have marked, in legible characters, on his face and whole deportment-priest. This man who succeeded Dr. Priestley at Hackney, followed invariably the customs of that place, as handed down by his predecessor. I do not know that he ever altered one article of the faith left by Dr. Priestley. He dressed in black, he wore no gown, he read his prayers and sermons, and did as Dr. Priestley did, with little or no deviation; and when he removed to Essex Street, he as readily put on the trammels ready prepared for him at that place, as he put off those he had practised at Hackney.

Both people being Unitarians in sentiment, it may not be amiss to state where they differ in practice. At Hackney, the preacher writes his own prayers, he wears black cloaths, but no canonicals, and the people are Presbyterians; at Essex Street, the minister is cloathed in all the nonsensical paraphernalia of a church parson, and reads every Sunday the same prayers over and over again, called the Reformed Church Litur gy, and they are reformed churchmen. To all these differences Mr. Belsham's conscience made no scruple, and he put them on as he would have put on a new suit of cloaths. It has been said that Mr. Belsham could have no pecuniary motive in removing from Hackney to Essex Street; because at the former place he received four hundred pounds per year, and at the latter only three hundred pounds; but let it be observed that this congregation is supposed to be composed of persons of greater riches and consequence than the other: nay, it is now acknowledged that the late Duke of Grafton, whose me. mory Junius has made so famous, ranked among the number, and was admitted to pay his subscription under the name of a friend. A friend to the cause indeed he must be, who was

ashamed to give it his name, and who brought up one of his sons to be a minister in the church of England; and consequently to teach a doctrine directly opposite to that to which he is allowed the title of a friend; yet to this man's memory did this supple teacher, Mr. Belsham, preach a funeral sermon. › In a congregation composed as this is, we are not to look merely at the salary, any more than of a benefit night at the theatre, we are to look at the price of the box ticket; but think of the genteel method practised by great men on such occasions. With a gentle squeeze of the hand-my dear Sir, you have contributed so much to my amusement, do honour me by accepting this small, very small acknowledgment; and it will immediately explain the cause why Mr. Belsham left four hundred pounds per year to accept three hundred, without believing him to be a follower of the example of Jesus and his apostles, or the most disinterested man in the world.

I have thought it necessary to make these remarks on these two reverend gentlemen; because I mean to make their prac- n tice, and the constitution of what they call their churches or congregations, the criterion between modern and primitive. practice. Both their churches are united upon a similar plan, a building is erected, pews allotted for the people, and a pulpit for the preacher, and public instruction is confined to the preacher; every person who pays for a ticket is a worshipper in this temple--entitled to a pew-and becomes a member of the congregation, let his character be what it may. Each of them have some little accommodation for strangers; but the pews are in general preserved for the subscribers, I believe with most strictness at Essex Street. They have no laws to govern them as a body; the priest, and a belief in the unity of Deity, are the only bond of union. At Hackney, as I have said before, a prayer is read by the priest, such as he approves; at Essex Street, the reformed church liturgy, by Dr. Clark, is a standing dish. At both places the preacher takes a text, and in a written sermon, or from copious notes, explains it to the people; (by this practice it would take one year and a half to preach upon, and explain all the verses in the 119th psalm; seventysix years to go through the New Testament, and two hundred and twenty-three years for the old; and to explain and preach upon both, two hundred and ninety-nine years, allowing for two sermons every Sunday, there being in the New Testament seven thousand nine hundred and fifty-three, and in the Old Testament, twenty-three thousand two hundred and fourteen verses!) Can we then be surprised that people need a teacher all their lives, who sanction such a practice? After this sermon, this descanting upon a verse of the bible, the priest reads. or says a prayer, the people sing a hymn, and then depart, ex

abuse

cept on sacrament Sundays, when all who please may partake, of what they call the Lord's supper, from the hands of the. priest.

I am not certain whether these men call themselves preachers of the gospel, or pastors of a church; if the latter, and their preaching is the feeding of their flock, I think what I have stated above will prove their utter inutility; if preachers of the gospel, their business must be with sinners; they may, perhaps, address themselves to such, but how are they to hear? the places being all taken by, and the parson employed for the service of, the saints, without whose pay he would never preach. But in addition to these practices, which are nearly held in common by the reverend Mr. Aspland, and the reverend Mr. Belsham, the former, since he has come into the connection, has introduced some additional methods for the promotion of Christianity. He has instituted tavern feasts, at which every thing that good cheer, a compliance with the world, fulsome flattery of the preachers and of the people can do, to make men Unitarian Christians, is done-even the assistance of John the waiter is not refused. Here book societies, academy societies, missionary societies, and gossiping societies, are all encou raged, for the laudable purpose of promoting genuine Chris tianity, alias for making Unitarian converts to supply the shops and bellies of idle and expectant priests!

spring Having thus, Sir, shewn you a fair outline of the modern furg method of propagating Christianity, and the constitution of modern congregations or churches, from two of the most énafmued lightened and rational that exist, I shall endeavour to prove from scripture, that it is altogether contrary to, and subver sive of Christianity; and that even on the ground of expedi ency and utility, the scripture method is infinitely preferable in every respect; of course, all pretence of expediency and utility for deviating from it must fall to the ground.

As the words preach and teach will frequently occur in the course of my quotations, and as they apply to distinct and se parate actions, it may be necessary to give some explanation of their true and original meaning, as they are never put for each other in the whole of the New Testament. The word preach signifies to proclaim, and preacher, a herald or proclaimer. (See Wilson's Christian Dictionary). It originated from the Olympic Games, in which the herald proclaimed the combat, the prize, or the laws of the game. In the New Testament, it is used for proclamation, or crying out, to give warning. A proclamation may be one short sentence only; and every one would see the absurdity of a monarch who should issue a proclamation that was so ambiguous as to require an order of men for ever to explain it. The proclamation that Jesus bad, as a

herald, to make was, "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand;" and the apostles' proclamation was the resurrection and exaltation of the Messiah. All this we have in the New Testament, and therefore need no herald to proclaim it; and though announcing publicly the reign of the Messiah comes always under the term to preach or proclaim, no moral instructions given by Jesus or his apostles are ever in the gospels or acts of the apostles so denominated. The sermon of Jesus on the mount, as it is called, his conversations, his parables, his private discourses with his disciples, are always called teaching, but never once preaching, proclaiming, or heraldising; of course, the modern practice of preaching has no authority from the New Testament; as uttering a discourse is not a proclamation, and these men have no commission as heralds, 1 or any thing new to proclaim. The word teaching is equally inapplicable; for, in all those places where it occurs, it will be found that it was that familar kind of conversation that admitted of question and answer, with which pulpit teaching is totally incompatible; and I would ask which is the most useful and expedient method of instruction, that where the teacher utters all he has to say without giving an opportunity to the hearer to make his objections, or to ask a solution of any diffi culty-and that adopted by Jesus and his apostles, which admitted of both ?

Now I shall proceed to shew the plan adopted by Jesus and his apostles for the propagation of the Christian religion in their time; next, the means they took to perpetuate it; and, lastly, the constitution, discipline, and practice of the Christian church during the lives of the apostles: and first, as to the method pursued by Jesus! He was, is allowed by all Christians, a man commissioned by God to establish a new dispensation, in which he was to be both king and lawgiver; he was properly qualified for his office, knew perfectly the mind and will of God respecting it, and of course was well acquainted with the best means of accomplishing this divine mission. He did not erect a pulpit, and deliver stated discourses to a select audience; he did not require pay for his services; he did not distinguish himself by any peculiar garb or title from his disciples-he always acted upon one simple plan, and directed his disciples to do the same. When he performed the office of an herald he proclaimed, "repent, and be converted, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"-when he sent out his twelve disciples (Luke ix. 1 to 6) he commanded them to do the same, and we find (verse 6) "they departed, and went through the town, preaching (proclaiming) the gospel (or good news.)" And again, when he sent seventy others (Luke x. 1 to 16) be gave them like orders, (verse 9) "and say unto them, the

kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." Thus he commis sioned them as heralds to proclaim only that which could not be known by any other means. Jesus did not confine himself to one congregation, or one place; but he went into the temple, the synagogues, cities, towns, villages, and market places, where he either proclaimed or taught as occasion offered; and it will be found that most of his teaching among the people was by disputation, as occasion offered, and to his disciples in familiar conversation (see Matt. iv. 23; ix. 35; xv. 10; Mark i. 38, 39; ii. 1, 2; iii. 1-5; vi. 2-5; Luke iv. 42; viii. 1-20; xi. 29; xiii. 10-30; xxi. I to end); " and when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, by what authority dost thou these things?" In consequence of which question, a dispute or conversation takes place, on which he founds the whole of his instruction or teaching. See also Mark x. I to end: "and the people resort to him again, and as he was wont, he taught them again; and the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him; and he answered, no." And it will be seen that the whole of this teaching consisted in hearing and answering questions, and commenting on them. Again (xii. 35 to end), "and Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the témple, how say the scribes that Christ is the son of David?"

Here again we see that his mode of teaching was not a fixed subject to a particular congregation, but took its rise from circumstances, and by asking or answering questions, removing the prejudices of the people, and enlightening their understandings; but particularly he aimed at exposing the hypocrite, and bringing the teachers of the people into contempt, as he well knew the hindrance their influence was to the reception of truth. To the scribes and Pharisees (characters in that day similar to dissenting ministers in ours), his language is markedly severe in the temple, in the synagogue, in the market place, and particularly where the people were present, he seems to labour for language sufficiently severe for these "wolves in sheeps clothing." See Matt. xv. 1, to 13; xxiii. 1, to end, but particularly verses 13, 14. 15, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows houses, and for a pretence make long prayers; therefore ye shall receive the greater condemnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you, blind