take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money; that take, and give unto them for me and thee." (Mat. xvii. 24-27.) And we find the great apostle Paul (who was not a whit behind the chief of the immediate disciples of Christ) corroborating and inculcating this positive command of Jesus, in these words,

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

perstition, if they continued the use of such a title, either in their speech or writing. But the abuse of any thing is not a just ground to lay aside the right use of a thing. Would any one consider the apostle Paul guilty of giving "sanction to superstition and idolatry," where he rites, "to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus?" or "To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ, which are at Colosse?" Verily not. If abuse argues any thing against the right use, there will be an end to all good words and good works, for all have been abused in their using.

But how is it that members of your society can, at a certain time, voluntarily, and invariably, at least feel themselves at liberty to say, "please God," or "if the Lord permit." Perhaps some critic may say, this is only once in their life time. At the day of marriage it should seem adviseable, according to your rules for proceeding in marriage, that each (the man and woman) should repeat the above sacred words. (Vide Extracts from the Minutes and Advices, &c.)

I find, however, "the primitive Friends" did use the word "God," in their common conversation, One instance may suffice here. John Roberts, in answer to an invitation given him by his deliverer from prison; (a “woman," known by the name and title of lady Elizabeth Hewlings, of Amney, near Cirencester) "if it please God," said he, "to give me life,

"Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinances of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.

"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minis

health, and liberty, I intend to, &c. (vide Memoir, p. 18.) And surely the injunction of the apostle James, ought to have some weight here. "Go to now, ye that say, to-day or to-morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy, and sell, and get gain. Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even as a vapour that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, if the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that." (Jas. chap. iv. 13-15.)

How different, how gratefully was the conversation of the patriarchs, and the primitive disciples. Let us hear "the voice of years," "the days that are past." We read in scripture, that Boaz, in the midst of his riches, was laborious, diligent in husbandry, plain, without luxury or pride, and forgot not to acknowledge God in the "common concerns of his life." "The Lord be with you," says he to his reapers; "The Lord bless thee," was their answer to him. This was the beautiful, the affable, and kind language of religious antiquity;---but, alas! how little known; in our days at least, nothing can I discern of the sort, among the professors of primitive purityyour society.

"True religion extends to every part of our conduct, aud will appear in none more remarkably than in those in which the general custom of the world would allow us, without cen

ter of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

"Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

"For, for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

"Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." (Rom. xiii. 1-7.)

The above texts of scripture are so clear, and

sure, to deviate from the straight line of Christian practice." And the reverence which is due to the sacred name of God, will manifest itself, by the manner in which we always mention it:" but I should not expect to see in this " enlightened age," a celebrated philosopher (who must, by the way, be well known to the primitive Friends, in those troubled times, the civil war, 1645) now brought forward to reprove the very culpable negligence, to call it by no worse title, of those who, to express their surprise, or embellish their discourse, will introduce the sacred names of our God and our blessed Redeemer, in so light and irreverent a manner, as makes it difficult to conceive that they entertain any real veneration for them." I say I should not expect "the modern professor" would need reproof by this celebrated philosopher, and first of the "Institutes ;" not like those of Calvin, not like those of Robert Barclay, no, no; but of the "philosophic college," of physic, statics, pneumatics, chemistry,"

""the secrets of fire, air, water, animals," &c. (since called "the royal society.") ROBERT BOYLE, of whom it is said, "that he never pronounced this great and holy name (of God) without a distinct pause, which should enable him to call to his recollection the glory and majesty of him whose name he was going to repeat." (Christian. Observer, p. 159. v. 6.)

expressly on the side of "government taxes, customs, or tribute," that one would think any comment or explanation is unnecessary and I cannot help thinking such who "resist," refuse to pay tithes as "a government tax," must be impenetrably dull, bigoted, and superstitious, or otherwise exceedingly "prejudiced by their education."

But, perhaps, some may still say, "it is not clear that tithes are meant or included in the above passages of holy writ; and if they are, Christ came to abolish them:" besides, they may urge further, "It is well known that for several centuries (during which the Christian church existed in all its purity) such a thing as tithes was utterly unknown, "Montesquieu says, that Charlemagne (about the eighth century) established tithes, a new kind of property, given particularly to the church, and set the example by enforcing payment on his own demesnes. The clergy assisted powerfully in preaching up the payment of them, as the very essence of religion, and their doctrine they amplified and enforced with all their eloquence." According to Blackstone, (a celebrated judge, whose authority in law few will dispute,)" a few years later tithes were established in England, but were unknown in Ireland, so long as the church was independent of Rome. In the manuscript annals of Ireland, this extract puts it out of question. "Anno 1224. This yere, in the time of Chaulus the Red, first king of Connaught, tithes began to be paid legally in Ireland." Let any person look at Father Paul's History of Ecclesiastical Benefices, p. 36, and he will there see "the priests calling loudly for tithes, as of divine right,"

although the clergy in Christendom were then maintained by the liberality of the people. Now what does all this prove? but that tithes are legally established, Cæsar's customs, tribute, or dues: this is the point at issue.

But I must admit, the question respecting the non-payment of tithes, as it stands between you, my friends, and the public, has been so fully discussed, and the "errors of a tithe establishment in a profound Christian church, the blindness and superstition of the first promoters of it; and the fulminating craft and hypocrisy of regal and priestly power, by which a general division of the value and produce of lands became effected; by which a tenth, or a nominal tenth, was set apart, in a way most unwise, unworthy, and perplexing,"* (to say nothing here about the compounding system of commutation of tithes, as a rent charge, or other projects again on foot) that it is unnecessary for such an "inferior pen as mine to enter upon this part of your scruple of couscience. Your worthy friend, Anthony

* Vide "the Recorder, being a collection of tracts and disquisitions, &c. chiefly relating to the people called Quakers," p. 81. vol. 1. This worthy author (once a member of your society) hath endeavoured to show "the supremacy and authority" of the tax of tenths, or tithes, in the Saxon race, from Alfred to king Athelstan, anuo 931, and which he has in a very clear, concise, and convincing manner, at least much to my satisfaction, pointed to the source "from which the laws of England, respecting future divisions of property, received their existence and their different operations." Ibid. 74-78. and p. 100-110. This work challenges the wisdom of your society, and I think, bids defiance to a refutation, on this important point in theology.