seems is to enjoy full liberty of conscience, and the privilege of choosing a religion for himself, and of supporting that religion as he pleases, but the King. Every one, forsooth, may possess a conscience scrupulously tender in regard to religion, except the King. He is neither to have a tender conscience, nor, in truth, any conscience at all; or, should he be so unfortunate as to have one, it must be of extent sufficient to allow him to swallow all the contradictory creeds of all sorts of schismatical and heretical sectaries, together with all the absurd nonsense, ridiculous fooleries, and wild reveries of every hot-headed and hair-brained! fanatic. The very idea of reducing the King, or any other individual on earth, to such a despicable situation is only worthy of the diabolical source whence it arises, and comes with excellent grace from those who are continually bawling so much about "liberty of conscience." If the King be not to choose and patronize what religion he pleases, where is his liberty of conscience?

In the Report delivered at the Second Annual Meeting of their Society for overturning the Church, Dissenters say, that "The man who is on principle a Dissenter, and does not his best to make others so, is chargeable at the bar of the Heavenly King with misprision of treason." Now, in all conscience, if such be the imperative duty of every adherent of an unscriptural and unholy system, how much more so is it the duty of a Member of the Church of Christ? And, therefore, I contend, and you cannot consistently object to it, that "The King, who is on principle a Churchman, and does not his best to make others so, is chargeable at the bar of the Heavenly King with misprision of treason." In a letter addressed by a Board of Congregational Dissenting Teachers to all the Dissenters of the same cast in the Kingdom, as well as in all Dissenting Periodicals, Dissenters are earnestly exhorted to use their utmost endeavours "to make aggressive inroads into the empire of moral dark

ness, and to induce the unenlightened and neglected of the population to enter the Sanctuary of God, that on a scale of more extended usefulness to the poor the Gospel may be preached." Now, Sir, if it be right for Dissenters "to make aggressive inroads into the empire of moral darkness, and to carry religious instruction within the reach of " the unenlightened and neglected of the population," why is it wrong for Churchmen to do the same ?-how can it be wrong for the King, or the Rulers of the Nation, " to make aggressive inroads into the empire of moral darkness," and provide for the spiritual instruction of all the people over whom God has placed them? I contend, and none but an Infidel will attempt to deny it, that it is their imperative duty—a duty for the due discharge of which they are highly and awfully responsible-to employ all the talents and influence which God has given them, in aid of the accomplishment of such a grand and glorious object. And nothing is, or can be better adapted for it than a National Religious Establishment; for by it Churches are built, and Ministers provided for thousands, who would never otherwise have known anything of Christianity-many of them too poor, and all of them much too disinclined to provide any kind of religious instruction for themselves. And, on other occasions, Dissenters themselves assert the latter position as an unquestionable and an established truth, particularly when treating on the subjects of original sin, and the total depravity of human nature. A great part of their proceedings, also, and all their Missionary exertions of every description, are manifestly carried on upon the supposed falsehood of their "voluntary" notions. So glaringly, and so absurdly inconsistent, indeed, are the practices of these people with their avowed and boasted principles, that I am often surprised that they do not abandon their present system altogether, and adopt one that would have at least the appearance of being in some degree rational and consistent. It may, however, be

X

the case that the all-wise God permits those who hold dangerous errors, to fall into all sorts of inconsistencies and self-contradictions, that they may serve as beacons to all those real spiritual pilgrims who are travelling with their faces towards the Heavenly Zion. Gladly rejoicing that I was ever made sufficiently acquainted with the unscriptural and erroneous nature of your system and sect, so as to leave them,

I remain, once more,

Sir,

Your's, &c.

L. S. E.

LETTER XII.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

SIR,

THE " voluntary system," or the notion that all people would provide religious instruction for themselves, were it not provided for them by a National Religious Establishment, or by some other means, is both unscriptural and absurd, and contradicted by the continual practice of Dissenters themselves. It presupposes that men would as naturally and as willingly provide themselves with spiritual as with bodily provision, that they are by nature anxiously desirous of spiritual food in the shape of religious instruction; whereas the very reverse is a truth clearly revealed in the Word of God, believed and acted upon by Dissenters themselves, and proved by daily observation. But the notion is also absurd, for it pre-supposes that all people are not only willing, but also sufficiently acquainted with Christianity, to be able to choose a true Minister of the Gospel to teach them; whereas, the great majority of the people are so totally ignorant of the first principles of Christianity, that they would be as likely to choose a Teacher of heresy and schism as a Minister of the Gospel of Christ; and, indeed, in too many instances more so, as is evident from the circumstance, that through the deceit and allurement of the Devil, many even of those who have an opportu

nity of being instructed by a Minister of Christ reject him, and having "itching ears," voluntarily choose for themselves Dissenting Teachers of every imaginable shade of heresy and schism.

I, at the present moment, recollect an instance which furnishes an invincible proof in favour of our National Establishment, and in opposition to that which is termed the "Voluntary Church System." It is that of a very extensive agricultural parish, having in it three Churches, but including no less than ten townships; and although some of the villages are at a considerable distance from any of the Churches, and every thing has been in other respects, which I forbear to mention, most favourable to the introduction of Dissent, and the operation of the voluntary principle, there is but one very small Dissenting Meeting-house in all the parish. This has been built nearly ten years; and though it cost but a mere trifle, not being so large as some af the cottages, it is yet unpaid for, and likely to reSin so; and it is a well-known fact, that the village in which it stands is by far the most wicked of any in the parish. Now the Clergyman of one of the Churches, although not at all obliged to give the people more than one Service every Sunday, generally gives them an extra full service, which, as he has another Church partially to supply, is more frequently performed in the evening; and so far are the people from even thanking him for his gratuitous services, that, I have heard they have actually objected to the trifling expense of lighting the Church for the purpose. Would these people, then, it may be asked, provide religious instruction for themselves, upon the voluntary principle? They would certainly do nothing af the kind. It may be thought that they are too poor to bear the expense: this, however, instead of being against, would be a good argument in favour of the Established Church. But the very reverse of this is the case for they are far wealthier than the inhabitants of any other township in the parish; indeed, I