Will they shew any controversy, that was ever raised upon the subject, in the early Church? Would they have us acknowledge, upon the belief of the infallible "Ministers and Messengers" of the Baptist Association, that all the Churches, we have enumerated, could have fallen under the government of Bishops, and regularly ordained Priests, against the will and the practice of the Apostles, and immediately after their death; and no controversy have been raised, or have survived? Could such an hierarchy, if an usurpation, have been thrust upon the Church, without violent controversies, or have overspread it universally in so short time. Could all Churches have suffered it? Was the whole Christian Community (jealous as it was of innovation, and active in disputing even the smallest points of discipline) totally silent in a matter, which so closely concerned every individual, as well as every Church? Had one universal sleep wrapped them all in oblivion, when, (as these sage "Ministers and Messengers" would have us believe) the Church, from being Baptist or Brownist, or Ranter, or Muggletonian, or Kilhamite, or something else, or some incomprehensible compound of all sects, was suddenly hocus-pocused into an Episcopal hierarchy; and continued so without question, for fifteen hundred years, no record of its transformation surviving—and, what is more, that no trace of any Baptist, or any other polity should be discovered, till the mantle of the lascivious and ferocious Munster apostle of Baptist revelation (see vol. 1. 164 and 165) descended upon his followers; and the belief of Brother this, and Brother that, and not the records of the primitive Church, was to be made the standard of historical truth? Verily, when these sages have a mind to believe, their faith and conscience are very accommodating. We remember to have read of an individual, who compared his stomach to a worsted stocking-the more he crammed into it, the more it stretched. But his stomach was nothing

to the belief of the propounders of the Baptist Circular.

But to deal with the subject more gravely. We beseech those well-meaning men (and among them such there are undoubtedly) who have, for want of knowledge or consideration, been made the dupes of such absurd statements as we have exposed, and the instruments of an unhallowed crusade against the Church; we beseech them to pause, and consider. For sure, as God's word is sure, schism and division are forbidden-and to do that which is forbidden in God's word is sin. Can they disbelieve the authority of that Church, to which the Lord "added daily such as should be saved." (Acts 11. 47.) Can they disbelieve the evils and madness of dissent, when they stare us in the face on every side; in changes of doctrine, in splitting of congregations, in new forms of fanaticism and blasphemy, and lastly, though not least, in merging faith into faction-yea into infidelity. We beseech these men not to shut their eyes against the truth, but to come out from schism, and to seek salvation and unity in the holy Catholic Church, visible here in our pure and apostolical Branch of it. We have in Rochdale recently the example of one, who having discovered his error, had the moral courage to denounce it; to embrace the truth, disregardless of worldly interest and worldly favor or of worldly censure. Many dissenters, if they will but reflect, must, as he did, see where the truth lies. May they as he has done, not fear to act up to their convictions, and to seek, as he did, when under doubts, the cousels of an authorized minister of Christ's holy Church, and not of the self-constituted, or humanly commissioned teacher of dissent; which is division-the very sin forbidden in Scripture, and of which St. Paul commands us not to keep company with the abettors.

In order to awaken such men to a sense of their danger, and of the great sin of which they are guilty

in separating themselves from the communion of Saints in the Church, we will lay before them a few passages of holy Writ, an authority, which they can not dispute unless they reject altogether the Christian faith.

(To be continued.)

TREACHERY OF THE LEAGUE.

The above is the title of one of a series of useful and very cheap tracts published by Kennet, 14, York-street, Covent Garden, London. It represents one of those deluded men who were goaded into outrage by the seditious language of the League, and thus betrayed to punishment, as reproaching the incendiary spouters with being the causes of his suffering, sacrificing him to their avarice or ambition. He quotes their own words, of the tendency of those words none can doubt. We are sorry that we cannot find room for the tract itself. But we recommend it for perusal and distribution.

of reason.

The Editors of "Common Sense" (especially the Vicar of Rochdale) are closely and personally interested in the prosperity of the Manufacturers. The success of the latter has an immediate connection with the income of the former. Therefore we cannot be suspected of prejudice against any thing which may tend to the real prosperity of those Manufacturers; our observations can be directed only to what we conceive to be error, or sin, on their part. We deal not, as we have said, with the abstract policy of the corn-laws, but rather with the means used by the League, to carry a debated question by terror and guilt instead However sincere their views, nothing can justify their turbulent, seditious, and strife-begetting-means-their setting one class against another, and goading the deluded operatives into deeds of lawlessness, which plunge them and their families into crime and ruin. Then their purseproud and upstart vauntings of the power of their money force people to ask, how most of them so suddenly, and from so small capitals, acquired the thousands, by which they threaten to overbear the legitimate course of reasoning, and legislation. And what is the answer to this question? Why that many of them have sprung, like mushrooms from a Dunghill, by a profit disproportioned, beyond parallel, to that which has been returned from any other employment of capital; and that this enormous and disproportioned profit has been and always must be dependant upon lowering the rate of wages, upon diminishing (by improved machinery) the employment of human labour, and upon transferring the work of men to women and children. We do not condemn the Manufacturer

for this state of things; because, even though he were not tempted so to act by the all-absorbing thirst of gain, he is compelled to it, by the eagerness of competition. But we do advise the operatives to use their "Common Sense," and not suppose that these men can be more anxious, that they should have increased wages, than other parties, who have no interest or profit in those wages being kept at the lowest point. We think we are doing the operative good service in telling him that the cry of "cheap bread" from the League is in plain English "lower wages and less demand for labour;" that the profit (if any) to the Master would be only temporary, and gained at the cost of permanent injury to the workman, and to the Nation.

Since writing the above, we have read the debate on the mischievous (to say no worse) language of Mr. COBDEN, respecting Sir R. PEEL's individual responsibility. We shall not discuss what he meant by that; but no man can doubt to what it tended. So of his attempt to intimidate Mr. ROEBUCK there can be no doubt. It matters not whether it were Mr. COBDEN, or the League; but it is clear, upon his own explanation, that, if Mr. R. dared to think for himself, he was to have the League and the Dissenters for his persecutors. The plain meaning of all this is, that a tyrannical convention is to injure every man, whether liberal, radical, or conservative, who will not bow to their decrees. Will this free nation endure this insolent, domineering, and self-constituted cabal, attempting to crush talent, intelligence, and legislature, by the weight and arrogance of money?

Whatsoever difference of opinion there may be on the cornlaws, there can be none on the upstart and intolerant dictatorship of the League. Every friend to liberty of thought and speech will unite in scouting them to their proper level, and teaching them that neither they, nor their Mammon, can control a free and thinking people.

DR. MOLESWORTH'S REPLY TO "PRO ECCLESIA DEI'S" STRICTURES UPON "COMMON SENSE, OR EVERY-BODY'S MAGAZINE."

(We insert Dr. MOLESWORTH'S reply to his anonymous censor in the British Magazine. Dr. M. wishes it to be observed that the reply was given only in consideration of the high character of that Magazine, and contrary to his general rule; which is to treat the attacks, of those, who withhold their own names while his is published, as contemptible, and bearing, on the face of them, self-condemnation either of the cause or the assailant. He so far rejoices in the attack as it gives him an opportunity, to state and defend his principles; and to declare that, though he

feels it his duty to denounce the sin of dissent, and to expose the fruits of it in the acts not only of dissenting bodies, but also of individual dissenters, yet he does not thereby lose sight of either justice or charity. He readily admits their better qualities, makes allowance for their prejudices, and, even when condemning and holding up to public reprobation their offences, he is actuated only by a desire of warning both them, and others, of the unhallowed and dangerous tendency of the delusion, or the hypocrisy, as the case may be, which leads them into such outrages. In adducing individual cases he shews, that he has neither personal hostility, nor wishes to mistate. His object is to expose the vice not of the men, but of the false principle and system, which blinds them to the nature of their doings. He assails not, he knows not, the private character of the men, but only the public acts and speeches, which they perpetrate under the pretence, or the delusion, of Religious duty. He gives dates, places, names and authorities, and is always ready to do justice, if he can be shewn to be wrong. He has challenged, and still challenges, a comparison of his open and straightforward appeals with the stale falsehoods, and sneaking slanderers, employed to defend dissent. He puts it to "Common Sense" and candour to say-Whose is the language and conduct of truth and integrity, his or theirs?)

SIR,-I am confident you will not refuse me, in my own name, the privilege of replying to an anonymous correspondent, whom you have permitted to arraign me in your pages, and in no measured terms. That the periodical entitled "Common Sense" has drawn upon me the accusation of severity towards dissent occasions no surprise; but I cannot say the same with respect to the charge of excessive liberality. Your correspondent accuses me of a want of "catholic principle," of lauding the "sin of schism," of making no other distinction than between those who are guilty of acts of turbulence, and those who are quiet, and of want of judgment in allowing that any, either modern dissenters or old nonconformists, may be called pious or respectable. Let us see by what arguments he persuaded himself, and would persuade others, that there is ground for these accusations in the periodical which has incurred his displeasure. I shall endeavour to shew