extent _unparalleled in modern times_.” Whatever his ambiguity may mean, he certainly endeavours to represent the church as greatly increasing in “meekness and conciliation;” for now, when she sees the wicked Dissenters attempting to assassinate her, she does not even “lift her hand” as she did formerly; but, like a true member of “the Peace Society,” she merely “withdraws from such” persons; and she thus withdraws, says her historian, “not in a spirit of revenge and bitterness, but in the spirit of Him who prayed for his enemies!” I shall refrain from commenting on this concluding declaration, any farther than to ask, whether the remotest comparison between the spirit breathed throughout Mr. Perowne’s pamphlet, and the dying prayer of the Redeemer, is not an insult to the “meek and lowly” Jesus. We now proceed to what may be appropriately called “the patronage paragraph.” It was occasioned by the following sentences in my Letter, “addressed to the members of the Established Church.” “I know well that such an exclusive system is not the desire of you all. There are some among you who wish to see the Church of England ‘national’ in her feelings and in her philanthropy, as well as in her name, and who would be glad to co-operate with other Christians in educating and in evangelizing the people; but who at the same time deem it desirable, on the whole, to submit to other parties in the church, whose patronage and support are valued.” “This passage,” says Mr. Perowne, “I consider in itself _a sufficient reason_ for my publishing _to the world_ my own views and feelings on the subject in question. The parties alluded to _must be clergymen_.” Why must they be clergymen? Merely because I had used the words “patronage and support.” I used the words in their general acceptation, just as any person, in “pretended holy orders” would use them, little thinking of the ecclesiastical meaning which “a real reverend” might put upon them. I knew that if Dissenters were excluded from the committee of Infant Schools, such a proceeding would obtain for the schools the “patronage and support” of such persons in the church as would unite only with Episcopalians; and as some of those persons have influence and property wherewith to help the schools, I supposed that such “patronage and support” would be “valued.” But my words happened to be read by a man who understands by “patronage and support” the means of obtaining a better _living_ than “Saint John’s Maddermarket.” And, with this idea in his mind, he begins to reason on the subject with a sagacity all his own. “The parties alluded to,” says he, “must be clergymen.” And his argument in proof is this—“Patronage” is no temptation to laymen. They therefore never act dishonestly to gain it. It never deters them “from following out the convictions of their own minds.” None but clergymen can be guilty of this. Now I, “the Rev. John Perowne,” am a