RESISTANCE TO CHURCH-RATES: A LETTER THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND. r.Y THE REV. I. E. X. MOLEStVOltTII, -Mek, Brethren, and Fathers, Thoccii not pretending to the gifts of Paul or Stcplien, yet as a servant and ambassador of their gra¬ cious Lord, I address you by the affecting and grave appellations which they used 1 , and which relate to duties and feelings closely connected with our present subject— Min, Brethren, and Fathers —Hearken—inquire and deliberate, before you lend your voice to swell the cry of the infidel, the papist, the revolutionist—and be¬ fore you lend your hand to cripple the power of that Established Church, which derives its commission and succession from Christ and his Apostles; and which, purified at the Reformation from Romish corruptions, has been the Protestant bulwark—a store-house of sa¬ cred literature and theological armour—an asylum of the persecuted, and an example of pure doctrine and sound morals, not only to this country, hut to all Eu¬ rope. Surely, Christians of whatever denomination, and however they may differ in minor points, will not deny that the Word of God is read, and that much of .'„i .-digiou'knowledge and principle dill'uscd over the Mi-inirv, is planted and cherished in the Clmrclies of ii.1 Establishment. For, to tlte.se purposes they are ever appropriated. For these public uses only, •htv are held hv the clerjy, in their corporate capacity, They cmuii’t it turned again to scathtr purposes. They ere not built ou speculation, and, il that fail, capable beinir used or sold bv the builder, for a theatre, or .at assembly-room. I do not put this as a sneer, or a I. pruach, to dissenters ; but merely to state one gene- ,..! distinction between the places of worship of the Establishment, and those of dissent, which, indepen- dimly of all other considerations, entitles them to the national support. They are olli-rings of public or pri¬ vate piety ami munificence to the nation, and upon the ’intuit trust of being fur ever set apart and maintained for the national religion. To keep up such buildings, is only fulfilling the tacit understanding on which they were built; and even contributions from the public revenue to effect this, or meet the increased necessities ■ a the country, if required, would be nothing more than v.nut is due from all professing Christians, and to that manifestation of national care, for the honour and fa¬ vour of God, and fur the morals and religious principles of its subjects, which a truly Protestant state cannot consistently disclaim. 1 do feel assured that (whatever mere political dissenters, papists, agitators, and rovoln- nomsts, may, upon their principles, not unreasonably consider it their duty to do), tile seriaushj religious dis¬ inter, and still more, the professed churchman, must l ave been deceived, by some gross prejudice, by some -pectous fallacies, before lie can have been led to league i.unself in this unhallowed alliance, against a Christian, and an essentially Protestant, Church. I will now, inert-fore, state the avowed claims of the Association against Church-rates, and the chief positions which they nut tort!, as neither to be assailed nor doubted, and on 3 Miicli they seek to raise a confederation, and genera! clamour, to accomplish their object. Of the fallacies alluded to, the four following are the chief:— I. They call the Church-rate, which is, in fact, a rent-charge, a tax. II. They assert, that not only the dissenters ought not, directly, to pay this rent-charge, but that the State itself may not, FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE, COM¬ PROMISE THIS MATTER, NOR EVEN COM¬ MUTE THIS KENT CHARGE FOR A PAYMENT OUT OF ITS GENERAL REVENUE TO REPAIR ITS NATIONAL CHURCHES; because the dissen¬ ters, and others, who must, in some direct or indirect way, contribute to this revenue, have places of worship of their own to keep up, and receive, as they say, no ad¬ vantage from these Churches. III. That it is putting a burden on their consciences, either to make them pay directly, or for the State to furnish the means of keeping up the Churches of an establishment which they dissent from. IV. They refer to certain documents, which, they would persuade us, prove that in this country, a certain proportion of the tithes, at some remote and unknown period, were set apart for this purpose, and, therefore, that it is an unlawful claim on the people, and that the present law should be construed or restored according to this imaginary ancient custom. I. 'They call it a tax. Well! you will say, what is tile harm of that '! I will tell you. 1. Everybody knows the prejudice and unpopularity of the very word, tax. It is calculated to raise in your minds a feeling, which will incline you to judge in the argument unfavourably to the Church, and favourably 'o its enemies, who are advocating the abolition of the rate. Those, who do not consider deeply, may be led, by the very name of tax, to think that it is an enactment made since the dissenters separated from the Church, and charged upon the persons of dissenters. Therefore, I beg to tell them, and you, that Church- rates are not a lax, and that to cal! them a tax, is a mi¬ serable trick, tending to deceive the people, and to mis¬ lead their judgments, by appealing to their prejudices. Church-rates are not a tax charged upon the persons of dissenters, but a rent charge on property, “ older by centuries than the title of any estate on which it falls.” They are a rent-charge, subject to which, every pro¬ prietor or occupier, whether dissenter or churchman, and his forefathers, before dissent, as now constituted, was heard oh purchased, inherited, or rented property, as the case might be, and according to which, he calcu¬ lated his purchase money or his rent. If the Church- rates had been called into action after the appearance of dissent, and imposed on them specially as dissenters, or with a cion to depress them, and exalt the Church, then they might have had reason to complain, and to call it a la:;. But when it was apportioned (from remote anti¬ quity, and before dissent was in being) by the whole nation, for national edifices of religious worship, it w ould be only demanding a premium upon dissent from that worship, to require either a special exemption in their favour, or even a general confiscation for their pleasure. The real object of the revolutionary aboli¬ tionists is, to induce a Christian nation to overturn an establishment for teaching Christian Doctrines, and rob its religious edifices of their ancient means of support. But before they can do this, they must deceive the people, and persuade them, that it is a personal tax con¬ trary to their national liberties. II. If I am right in my first position about the rent- charge, there is an end also of the second assertion of the abolitionists—that the dissenters ought neither to pay Church-rates, nor to let the State commute them ; because, forsooth, they tell us they (the dissenters) get no advantage from our Churches. For, if it be not a tax, hut a rent-charge, I leave you to judge what his principles must be, who refuses to pay either to a body, or to individuals, that which belongeth to them, before he -possessed the property, merely because he gets no advantage front it. The question is, not whether he gels advantage by paying, but whether, as a conscientious man, (to say nothing of the religious purposes to which it is applied,) he ought to resist a charge, subject to which, he took his properly. But, to shotv the real weight of this supposed truism, that no man is to be taxed for that from which he gels no advantage, and oi which be, perhaps, disapproves, let us suppose, for the sake of the argument, thatChurch-rates really were a lax. Would this principle be a sound one ? I deny it, and, I trust, can disprove it. 1 deny that taxes are either unjust or impolitic, because they are applied to objects from which some individuals derive no profit, or which they even disapprove. I deny that the revenues of the State ought to be withheld from public objects, on ac¬ count of the dissent and dislike of certain individuals. The legislature should look to the general benefit, not to excepted notions, caprices, and wants. For, if it were not so, what application of public money could be made from which more or fewer would not be found, who de¬ rived, or fancied they derived, no benefit, and who, consequently, according to the views o! this Association, would have a claim to he exempted from payment, or to demand from the legislature an abandonment of the object itself? I say “ fancied,” for as far as the conduct of the individual is concerned, the argument might be used with just as much reason by him who fancied he had no advantage, as by him who really had none. Only carry out this principle. Let us show a few ex¬ amples of its application to practice, anti its absurdity will he glaring. Lc-t certain Christians (we know the case lias oc¬ curred) take up the tenet that it is sinful to go to law. Lit these men build a common hall, in which they v. ould meet to settle any disputes among themselves,— might thev not, on the same principle as the abolition¬ ists, claim that no part of the State resources should go to the payment of courts of justice, or judges, or prisons, Ac., because they neither derive advantage from them, nor conscientiously approve of them, and have torepair their turn court-house ? Mi glit not the republican, by the same rule, complain that national justice and his civil rights v. er L - invaded, by the state paying, against his will, for the maintenance of the King, his palaces, his ministers, Src. ? Might not the smuggler with equal justice, complain of the outrage upon natural equity, that the State, to which he in various ways is taxed, should appropriate any part u: its revenues to keeping revenue cruisers, and a host of preventive guards, from which he not only derives no advantage, but most cordially disapproves; while he is aho compelled to keep up his on watchers and fighters, and his luggers and cutters, and while, moreover, he is a most zealous and practical advocate for the advantages office trade? Thus, you might show its absurdity in ten thousand instances. It is evident that the general advantage, not that of this or that body, or individual, who may choose to make exceptions, must be the princi¬ ple on which the revenue of the State must be applied. 11 the opposite principle were adopted, it would be at once a premium upon dissent from every measure of government, and would tend, not to the prosperity and union of society, but to its misery and dissolution. And it the general good of the State be a legitimate object, I affirm that the good conferred by the Church is of ti e highest arul most important character, that the sup¬ port of her public worship is an essential part of the polity of a Christian nation; and that the means at her disposal bring forth fruit to the State, of the excellence and abundance of which, no parallel can be found m the returns of any part of the national expenditure. There may be some hardy enough to deny this ; but I assert it, relying upon the echo which that assertion will find in the bosom of almost every candid and re¬ ligious-minded man. For, I feel assured, none such (though he may prefer his own mode of worship) can for a moment doubt, that the nation must derive inesti¬ mable benefits, from the appropriation of these sacred edifices to the service of Almighty God—from the Gos¬ pel of Christ continually read and preached there—from the weekly assemblage of rich and poor—from the mi¬ nistrations of an highly educated, and, I will say, pious and exemplary, hotly of Clergy —and from till the various religious, charitable, peaceful, and pure feelings, cherished by the Sabbath services of ten thousand parish Churches, The man that can lay his hand upon his heart, and. before God, say, “ My country derives no advantage from these ”—that man’s intellect must be of a strange mould, or his prejudices must have acquired a most dangerous power. Nay, more,—I contend that the plea of the dissenter not deriving any advantage, is fallacious. Not only the nation at large, hut every individual receives benefit from the Church, he his creed what it may. Herein I claim the candid admission of the religious dissenter, carefully and justly distinguished from those political and factious agitators, who use the name of dissent, and the plea of conscience, only as a stalking-horse of popery, infidelity, or revolution. I ask them, as sincere protestants—do you, HAVING FAITH IN THE ATONEMENT-INTERESTED IN THE VIRTUE AND SALVATION OF MAN—do you believe that even your cause has not benefited by the seal, the learn¬ ing, the organisation, the religious and moral influence of our Church ? Do you, as Christians, not recognise her at least, as a fellow labourer, and a most efficient one in the vineyard of Christ ? Will you assert that you—nay, will you assert that even the political foe, the very infidel,—that any man whatsoever, cun be so dis¬ sociated from the community, as not to be benefited by the honesty, the purity, the order, the regard for the sanctity of truth, and all those virtues which are essen¬ tial to the stability of society, and which the reading of tiie Word of God, the prayers and the preaching of the established Church, must diffuse and cherish ? I will put the reply to these questions not in my own words, hut in the words of religious dissenters themselves. i.is own pocket "hat belongs to another. But, ..Lain: suppose it a tax. Is it really a matter of cou- • iic.icc that the State under which you live, shall not apple ito revenues to the maintenance of national places of worship, set apart to teach the Gospel of our common Lord, because you happen, in some minor point, (many do not know what point.) to diller from the National Church 1 Is your haired and intolerance of this Church "iieh. that your very eonseimec is alilicted, because the nation should keep up its public edilices 1 ? If you were in Turhe.j or Persia, would your conscience trouble you for jiayi.na the taxes, because the .State directly, or indi- it-eily. maintained the masques ! If you were at Pome, would your conscience make you resist the taxes, be¬ cause part of them went to maintain the popish worship? Is >/our conscience to be governed by nicer rules than those of Christ and his/'postks, who paid, and enjoixed payment of taxes, not only to maintain the then corrupt Church of the Jews, hut to those very heathen govern¬ ments by which idolatrous worship was supported ? Alas, fur those tender and raw consciences! We should com¬ miserate the torments of their sensitive owners, did we no: at once perceive that in them, as in the productions "f nature, there is that principle which naturalists call compensatory, which makes up for the defect of one facility, by an increased powar in another. So, we often -ce these dreadfully delicate consciences become vastly accommodating, like the gullets of the Pharisees of old, which would strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. M bile they shrink and shudder, like cats skinned alive for profit, at the slightest contact with the parent Church ■>/ the Jujbrmation, they can lmg the papist and the in- 11 I'tilel, as cniij'ortubly as though they were clad in the hide of a rhinoceros, or the shell of a tortoise. Commend me, I pray you, Saint Hume, Saint Duncombe, Saint M'aklev, ye elect of scrupulous dissent, ye, canonized of O’Connell, and the Pope, patron saints of the association walk without in these fretful times. It is really difficult to imagine this plea to be gravely brought forw ard, or to treat it seriously ; but let me not be supposed to assert, that among all those who use the plea of conscience, there are not many who honestly en¬ tertain scruples. It is not to them, but to those who use it as a stalking horse, that 1 apply the above obser¬ vations 1 . Yet, I must maintain that these scruples, however sincere, are wholly fantastical, and cannot be sustained on either scriptural or rational grounds. That the State, under which you live, should pay towards a Christian Church, and still more, that this Church should receive that, which it holds by the most ancient and sa- 'Gosmlof C-l.riJror ev. nnon seme and justice, this Umd, can surely never which takes its rule from 1 from those principles of y which society must be IV. The la>t pha is, that it was, many centuries ago, the practice of this country to apportion the tithes in a tour-fjh! illusion. of which one-fourth was applied to the repair' M the Church. I cannot, front the nature of this Ictur, and those to whom it is addressed, enter at large into the arguments by which the Rev. Hale Hales exploded this assertion, and showed the unfair use that was made of it. 1 shall be brief—but to the point. I defy the Association to prove, by any evidence, that the practice in question mis ever generally adopted in this cue.-di y. The Romish decree of Gelasius upon this subject was directed to the llomish Church LONG LIE FORD THE MUTISM CHURCH ACKNOW¬ LEDGED THE AUTHORITY OF THAT CHURCH. If the practice was even ever partially adopted here, u must have been when the Bishop and his Clergy lived together ill a collegiate form, as in Cathedral precincts, and at a period before the date nf legal memory, from which a common laic title of unimpeachable validity mould arise. This, Blackstone, who is of opinion that such a practice prevailed at some remote hut unknown period, clearly recognizes, and speaks of the circumstance as a question of history, and not as one which would, in the mind of any lawyer, or reasonable man, have the slight¬ est connection with the present rights of tile Church. W hen I look at the nonsense advanced on this point, and the air of antiquarian learning, the scrupulous reve¬ rence lor ancient customs, and the nice desire of inter¬ preting the law against the Church, by old papal decrees and Anglo-Saxon canons, 1 begin to fancy 1 have got back to Ovid’s Metamorphoses again. How should we admire this ncu-liorn radical reverence of antiquity! Our ears yet tingle with the sound of the cackle which proclaimed everywhere that history is an old almanac; old charters are only parchment and max. But what a delightful and convenient new light has broken in! Church law must now be reverently interpreted only by the dim light of old customs, and seen through the po¬ litico-religious spectacles of the new deity of radical justice 1 . Methmks I see the venerable beldame at work upon her new system. She has exchanged the sword for a bludgeon—the scales for a sponge. She disdains the bandage. She will look, she says, at least on one side before she decides. One eye she has put out, for economy, deeming it superfluous to maintain two, in these enlightened days. The other has a most marvellously useful squint. Even now, while she is grubbing for a Romish authority to withdraw from the Church a support, on the plea that she had it not some thirteen hundred or fourteen hundred years ago, the venerable and equitable old lady contrives to squint over the intermediate space. She cannot see that, ac¬ cording to her rule of restoration to old customs, there is one close under her nose, in which honest zeal may be easily gratified, without going quite so far, and into grounds quite so uncertain—I mean the property plun¬ dered from the Church, by certain great families at the time of tlie reformation; let that be restored first; and then talk about putting things on their ancient footing. But I have done. I have, perhaps, bestowed too much on these miserable puppets of arguments, which are dressed up and paraded under the titles of justice, civil and religious rights, conscience, and reverence for law am] ancient custom—lint which are neither more nor less than the stalking-horse of anti-protestant, in¬ fidel. and revolutionary, factions. If any man, alter reading these observations—if any religious dissenter—especially if asy churchman, can believe lie is doing his duty as a Christian, in joining such a league, 1 have only one request to make to him, which is, that before he acts, he will fall down, pri¬ vately. on his knees, and pray God’s lloly Spirit, through Christ, to direct him aright; and then, remembering whose eve beholds him. and before whose judgment-seat he must ana in have the question put—ask himself— AM I PROMOTING THY GLORY, 0 GOD?- AM I, O SAVIOUR! SEEKING THE SALVA¬ TION OF THY 1IRETHREN ?—AM I AIDING TO INCREASE THE KNOWLEDGE OF THY GOSPEL?—AM I, IN A WORD, ACTUATED BY CHRISTIAN MOTIVES, IN ENDEAVOUR¬ ING TO INDUCE THE LEGISLATURE OF MY COUNTRY TO ROB THE MINISTRY, AND THE BUILDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CHURCH, OF A RENT-CHARGE APPROPRI¬ ATED TO THEM BY COMMON LAW, AND BY A TITLE SO ANCIENT THAT ‘‘ME¬ MORY OF MAN RUNNETH NOT TO THE CONTRARY?” I. E. N. MOLESWORTH.