ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the New Zealander.

New Zealander, Volume 7, Issue 570, 1 October 1851, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the New Zealander.

- Sir, — The aspect of improvement which our town has lately worn, with reference to public works, induces me to solicit a small space in your journal, not so much to point out— -for the evil is as manifest as it is insoluble to all classes, all ages, amongst us — but to earnestly implore that a remedy may not be much longer withheld. I allude to the Post Office, which, with all the diligence, all the attention, ull the courtesy of those conducting' the business of v, is literally a disgrace as a public building. I do not know what space theie may be in the interior for the soiting and airanging of letteis and newspapers ; but outside, which more immediately interests the public, I need not say how miserably inadequate, how unfit it is for its puipose. Shall I put in so many words that, upon the aiuval of a mail, from eighty to one hundred people are there waiting, wedged into the space of a lew square ft et ; one apertuie only (and that at an angle of the building) for delivery of the lettprs. This is known — the loss of time is known, — and when tlio unfoitunate recipient has obtained his wished for picket, aie his sufferings orer"! Oh no! lie may possibly extricate from his enviable coiner, but to a looker-on the chances are against him; probably the &kirt of his coat is rent away, or such a trifle as a few of his letters are scattered among the crowd. The remedy for all this appears easy — remove the Customs, they have a leserve apptopnated for a building independently of their premises in ShortlandStieet, leaving tbp prebent building in High Street for the sole occupancy of the Post Office ; its situation ia central and commodious, and certainly not too large for the mci eased business now being transacted there. I am, Sir, &c, Cms.

To the Editor of the Ni-w Zualamdir. Sin,— Your correspondent's acknowledgment that "sect" is often used, according to Dr. Johnson, in a bad sense, constitutes, I should think*, n sufficient reason against its general application to the Church of England. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the Church of England was a •' sect" in the loth century, I see no justice in the deduction that it is so now, when it is no longer '"separated from the established religion of the countiy." Such patch-work as this but ill serves the rents which it is wished to conceal. I am, Sir, &c, A Member or the Cnimcti of England, 29th Sept., 1851.

To the Editor of the New ZrALANDER. Sir, — I again appear in your columns most unwillingly, as I consider the subject does not require any advocate to aigue it; but the Church of England Sectarian has displayed such ignorance of history in his last letter, th at I cannot permit it to pass unanswered. Had lie studied the Ecclesiastical History of his country he would have known that the Church of England never separated from the Catholic Church, but the followers of the Pope separated from her in the 14th year of Elizabeth's reign, forming themselves into a distinct body, under the title of " Roman Catholics," or, as they were called by the reformers, "Papists;" before that period they had always joined in the national communion, although disapproving of the change : to them the title of " Sect" properly belongs. Your correspondent is unwilling 1 to allow 1 the authority of Dr. Ogilvie, whose work I referred to as being the latest publication of the kind ; let bun, then, turn to Webster, whose dictiouaiy has foi some years held the highest place m that class of liceiature, and he will find his definition to be the same almost to a letter. But perhaps your correspondent is not aware that the original Greek word htwebia, which the translators of the Bible have rendered " Sect," properly means " hoiosy ;" and although they have employed the milder term m Acts, c. 5 v. 17, c. 1"> v. 5, o. 21 v. 5, and c. 26 v. 5, yet the identical same wil /circMs, m Acts, c. 21. v. l<i, and 1 Cor., c. 11 v. 1", is. tiansiated " heies}'," which pi ores that, in the opinions of those " learned and \eneiahle men," thpre was not much diffeiencD between the two levins. Josephus also employs the same woid with leierence to the l'iiansees, Sadducees, and Kssenes, tlio second oi whom 1 am sure even the " Sectarian" will Allow to have held heretical doctrines. liut, whether with n member of a "Sect" or with a "hi-ietic," I have dono with the conttoversy, the truth of which most schoolboys would be able to demonstrate. A Mjjmdcr or hie Cnurcn oi England urn \oi oi a Seci,