right have the Quakers to term tithes and churchrates "imposts?" Men who would have it believed that they are more holy and more honest than the rest of mankind should pay the most scrupulous regard to truth, especially in reference to religious questions: they should, in all their public declarations of principle, take the greatest care to be themselves correct, that they may not deceive others. But the Quakers tell the public that tithes and church-rates are "imposts," or State taxes, the "exaction" of which, they say, is oppressive and persecuting towards them, as Dissenters. Yet this representation is manifestly untrue; for tithes and church-rates are endowments, or property rights, given by the owners of the estates of the country many hundred years before the Quakers were known as a sect: they are not State imposts, and certainly could not have been instituted for the purpose of oppressing Quakers, or any other Dissenters since these sectarians sprung up centuries after these endowments had been secured to the Establishment by the common law. It is somewhat extraordinary that Quakers and others, who make it a matter of conscience to refuse to pay tithes and church-rates, should not make it also a matter of conscience to refuse to purchase or rent estates having these charges upon them. With respect to tithes, there cannot be any necessity for Quakers purchasing or renting such estates, if they are really desirous of carrying out their principles, "void of offence toward God and man." But what course does the Quaker pursue in this matter? He buys an estate, well knowing at the time that it is charged with the payment of tithes and church-rates, which belong to other owners: he is aware that the value of these charges is deducted from the purchase-money, and that he pays less money, by this amount, than he would if the tithes and church-rates had belonged

to the landowner. He very conscientiously concludes his bargain, gets his deeds, and takes possession of his estate; but when the tithe owner and the churchrate owner come for their money, he refuses to pay, telling them it is a matter of conscience! After purchasing the estate upon these conditions, and paying less money for it in consequence, the Quaker raises a miserable and impious plea of "Christian testimony," and "conscience," for withholding the tithe and keeping money in his own pocket which he must know cannot belong to him: and when the "strong arm of the law" steps in to take the tithe for the right owner, and the church-rate for the right owner, just as the law would take the rent for the landlord, in case of a conscientious refusal to pay, or would enforce the payment of any other just debt, the Quaker pretends that he suffers for conscience sake, that he is a persecuted man on account of his creed, and that his religious liberty is infringed! It is precisely the same with a Quaker who rents land: he knows that he pays less rent on account of the tithe, and that he has two landlords-the landowner and the tithe-owner; yet, although he feels no qualm of conscience in contracting for the occupation and use of an estate upon such terms, he most conscientiously objects to pay the tithe when it becomes due! This may be Quaker "discipline" and "conscience;" but is it legally or morally honest? Does such conduct receive any countenance from the New Testament? I defy the Quakers to show me that it does. How can the Quakers call that "the amount of the sufferings of our friends, in regard to tithes and other ecclesiastical demands," which they wilfully and contumaciously bring upon themselves? They compel the rightful owners of the tithes and church-rates to have recourse to the law, and then pretend that, through the law, they "suffer for conscience sake:" in the spirit of rebel

lion they resist the law, and then dare to say, "We continue to desire that this our ancient Christian testimony may, in all its parts, be carefully and conscientiously upheld, in the spirit of the Gospel!" Whereas the spirit and letter of the Gospel presents the strongest possible. "testimony" against them, being as opposite to such principles and practices as light is to darkness, or as Christ is to Belial. I hope the Quakers, before they send forth their next yearly Epistle, will seriously reconsider this subject, for I cannot but think that statements such as those I have referred to are little short of an insult to the common sense of an intelligent people, a large portion of whom now clearly understand that the Quakers and other objectors pay tithes and church-rates as owners and occupiers of land, and not as Quakers or Dissenters. The religious and intelligent portion of the people know that it is not a question of toleration or religious liberty, but rather a question of common honesty.

There are two extracts more from the Quaker pamphlet, to which I desire to call especial attention. The author says

"It is well known, and the fact is very creditable, that the clergy exact tithes with much less rigour, and consequently occasion far fewer heart-burnings, than lay claimThe want of cordiality often results, too, from the cupidity of the payers, who invent vexatious excuses to avoid payment of the whole claim, and are on the alert to take disreputable advantages."

ants.

It is quite refreshing to meet with such a bit of genuine truth as this, amidst so much that is unfounded. But why is it said that the clergy "exact" tithes? It might as well be said that the Quaker, when he asks for rent due to him, exacts rent. Let this, however, pass. The pamphlet represents the case of the clergy, I believe, correctly, as the tithepayers generally admit; for, notwithstanding all that

is said about the "grasping parsons," the tenants generally prefer a clerical to a lay tithe-owner. But

am puzzled to conceive upon what principle the Quakers, who here admit that "the clergy exact tithes with much less rigour, and consequently occasion far fewer heart-burnings, than lay claimants," can desire to take the tithes from the clergy, and hand them over to more rigorous lay proprietors, who would occasion "far more heart-burnings!" I must leave the Friends to reconcile this apparent contradiction. The pamphlet further says

"If there must exist a religious establishment, let it by all means remain in its present hands. The experience which England has had of the elevation of another sect to the supremacy, is not such as to make us wish to see another elevated again."

This is a most important remark, and demands the grave consideration of those Dissenters who are seeking to destroy the present Church Establishment, under the mild and tolerating principles and practices of which they enjoy the blessings of complete toleration and religious liberty. I do not know of a settled monarchy having existed in any nation, from the earliest period to the present time, without a National Church, or "religious establishment,' whether the faith professed were true or false. England is an ancient monarchy, with which an Established Church has ever been incorporated; it may, therefore, be safely answered, that, as long as the monarchy exists, there must be a Church Establishment in England. The two institutions have co-existed from the beginning, and they cannot be separated without being each destroyed. There must, then, be a religious establishment in England if the monarchy is to be preserved; and will not every loyal Englishman say, with the departed author, "Let the Church

Establishment by all means remain in its present* hands."

I now leave the pamphlet, and the principles avowed in the authorized documents of the Society of Friends, and proceed to my purpose, as before stated, impressed with a conviction that I shall be able to prove, from "the law and the testimony," that "religious establishments" do derive "countenance from the nature of Christianity." In other words, I undertake to show, from the sacred Scriptures, that the union of Church and State, or the incorporation of religion with human laws and affairs -which the Quakers and others term an "unholy alliance," and which some political Dissenters have designated as "blasphemous "-is of divine origin and appointment, and of perpetual obligation; and that the principle of the national establishment and support of religion, as instituted by the express command and interposition of JEHOVAH, in the time of Moses, was not only sanctioned, but re-affirmed by the acts and teaching of our Saviour and his apostles.

* A note as follows is from the pamphlet:-"The religious sect who are now commonly called Puritans 'prohibited the use of the Common Prayer, not merely in churches, chapels, and places of public worship, but in any private place or family as well, under a penalty of five pounds for the first offence, ten pounds for the second, and for the third a year's imprisonment. These men did not understand, or did not practise, the fundamental duties of toleration. For religious liberty they had still less regard. "They passed an ordinance by which eight heresies were made punishable with death upon the first offence, unless the offender abjured his errors, and irremissibly if he relapsed. Sixteen other opinions were to be punished with imprisonment till the offender should find sureties that he would maintain them no more." And they quite abolished the episcopal rank and order. As if each Church might not decide for itself by what form its discipline should be conducted!"-[The state of this nation under Papal rule, and the sacrifices made by our forefathers to cast off this galling yoke, and to restore to the people "the true profession of the Gospel," and the liberty to read the Bible, are well known. Should this apostate Church again have the ascendancy, how long would Quakers and other Dissenters enjoy religious liberty?]