Pearson, if I am informed right, hath not had his rival, if his equal,

I will admit, for argument's sake, (though it is the general opinion of the people of England,) that tithes are the most offensive and obnoxious of all taxes, they are the cause of thousands leaving the `established church altogether; and to them may be ascribed the success of all the sectaries. They are the never-ending source of ill-will, quarrels, and litigations." (Carlisle Chron. for 9th month, 3d, 1801.) And it is well known that the celebrated champion of civil liberty, the late William Pitt, had it in contemplation to adopt some method of relieving the lower order from the oppression of the tithes, which, as he expresed it, "operated as a great practical evil!"

I will admit, my friends, further, that your society suffered severely for their testimony; it is notorious that many paid heavy fines; others suffered long imprisonments, as was proved by the petitions and the debates in the house of parliament, on the tithe bill, 1736; and which your writings abundantly set forth. But I hope they did not pay too dear; for to suffer for well-doing is honourable, and praiseworthy; but to "offer the sacrifice of fools," even though through ignorance, connot be very honourable to the cause of truth. The poor Lollards, “many of them were burnt for not paying the tax called Peter's pence; yet that tax was then due by the laws of the land, as much as the tithes are now. However, these good people thought that they could not în conscienee pay it, and suffered being burnt to

death, rather than get over the scruple of conscience.” And truly, all due respect should be paid to seruples of conscience.

66

But I do not wonder so much at your early friends suffering so much for conscience' sake in this matter, if that the courts in which they might have had redress were "courts in which the conscience of a Quaker would not so much as permit him tỏ appear," a court where no man ought to be made to appear for the recovery or for the defence of any temporal right; the very sentence pronounced being a damning sentence !" And as my author begs leave to denominate it, "a most damnable sentence: to excommunicate a man for the value, perhaps of four-pence, was terrible; and to imagine it had the effects pretended, could proceed from nothing but a belief in that antichristian power, set up by the church of Rome.*

If in our modern ecclesiastical and temporal 'courts," there is no room for suspicion of influence or partiality, but where the proceedings are carried on by known and stated rules; and where the wrongdoer is obliged to answer by oath (though by the way, this is an act of severity to the Quaker, at least to me, if as may be seen presently) I am yet at a loss to discern this "equal and tender regard "shewn" to the scruple of conscience! It is true, by the act made in the seventh and eighth years of the

Vide debates in t the upper House, called the "House of Lords," in the "Gentleman's Magazine," so called, for 1786, vol. i. p. 672.

reign of William III, an "act that the solemn affirmation and declaration of the people called Quakers, shall be accepted instead of an oath in the usual, form;" yet it is also true, that, "Whereas," by another act, made in the first year of the reign of King George I, (the same remedy, oath, extends for the recovery of tithes, &c.) the act expresseth, that if they, the Quakers, shall refuse "to set forth, pay, or compound for tithes," &c. Here the suffering of your society recurs, and is likely to continue while you adhere to this your testimony for conscience sake!

I introduce the foregoing extracts to shew "the legal establishment of tithes ;" but as it respects your society's sufferings, in this case, from the first, to the recent instance of imprisonment, and severe trial, of several of your members in York Castle, (from 1795 to 1797) after having been harrassed with proceedings at law about six years, I may say of one and all, in the following words of your forementioned worthy cotemporary, William Matthews, that "their honest zeal might be allowed, and doubtless was admitted by most candid persons, who think favourably of the general simplicity and professed integrity of your society. But I have no difficulty in declaring my belief, that few indeed could acquit the sufferers of erroneous prejudices." And truly, on the other side, "their adversary," "the unwarrantable, unrelenting severity of this priest-his arro

I must confess my ignorance here, that I am at some loss to know what the acts of William III, or George I, have to do with the peaceable and "loving subjects" of George III!

gation of merit, instead of taking shame to himself, -and his meanness in publicly cringing for a reward of iniquity, cannot be too much reprobated by the honest part of mankind." (Vide Record, p. 104.)

The grand point at issue then, or rather, what I wish to unvail, is, whether tithes, being "legally established," ought to be paid or not, as the king's customs, tributes, or dues? To a question proposed by a well-known adversary of your worthy primitive predecessors, namely, " But what if the light within some Quakers should allow them to pay tithes, and think they ought in conscience to do it, as being legally established,"-" would the Quaker rulers allow them liberty of conscience, and give them leave to follow their light within?" ("Snake in the Grass," p. 244.) Your worthy, not "Quaker ruler," for it seems he rejects and knows of none such," but the worthy author of "a Switch for the Snake," thus replied:

"

"Whether tithes be legally established, is neither my business nor purpose here to discuss; but supposing them to be legally established, is a legal establishment, by civil or human authority, a bond to bind conscience in things relating to religion and the worship of God?

"Time was, when the sacrament of the altar, auricular confession, the cælibate, or single life of priests, and the rest of the six articles, were, in this nation, legally established. Did that establishment bind the conscience to the performance of those things? Unhappy martyrs, then! who gave their

bodies to be burnt rather than they would comply with those things, though so established! Legal establishments are of equal force in one country as in another. Are not these six articles, not only practised by the popish party, but reputed to be legally established in popish countries, and vigorously imposed and pressed in some, particularly in France? Are the poor protestants there to be condemned as acting against conscience, while they have suffered such ravages and inhuman cruelties, for not complying with those things which are there legally established? Who but a snake would thus hiss at them, in his envy against us?" (p. 379.)

Here is an error in judgment, handed down to you from the time that you were "first a people ;" and seems to be retained and held as sacred to this day! I therefore find myself under a necessity of differing from your worthy predecessor; not from an affectation of novelty, or any fondness for dispu tation, but from a high regard to the truth of the gospel. And however specious may be his claims to candour and truth, to primitive simplicity and holiness, (and specious indeed they are,) yet an error in such an important point as this, very much lessens your esteem in the eyes of all discerning and truly religious people whom I ever conversed with.

I perfectly concur with this primitive worthy, and hesitate not to answer, that "legal establishment, by civil or human authority," is no "bond to bind conscience in things relating to religion, and the worship of God:" but the act of paying tithes,