bigotry, intolerance, and enmity to the Church proceed further than this? The Church of England is called "an alien Church." Its influence over men's minds is falsely said to be the result of "the employment of coercive, and therefore invidious, measures in its favour." Church of Englandism is alleged "to wear a foreign garb." The Irish Protestant Church is represented as "a galling and continual oppression," and "while in its perpetual claims, its racking assessments, too often in deeds of blood, it exists as a perpetual irritation, reminding them of defeat and disaster; making them feel that it was conquest paved the way for its establishment, and that it is power that must force it on their conscience; thus bringing the very grace of heaven to them under the form, and with the emblems, and in the bitterness of oppression."

It is now necessary to turn to the proceedings of the Religious Freedom Society, whose second annual meeting was held in May last. As the Protestant Society for the Protection of Religious Liberty is the orthodox agitating Society amongst Dissenters and Calvinistic Methodists, this Religious Freedom Society is the organ of a motley of Socinians, Socinian-Baptists, Arians, Universalists, and all the varied shades and grades of an astounding number of every description of Separatists. Strange to say, indeed, in this Society orthodox and heterodox Dissenters meet together, though the latter greatly prevail; and at the second anniversary, over which Sir John Easthope, Bart., M.P., presided, the great Dissenting bugbear was "CHURCH EXTENSION." Mr. Hawes, M.P., delivered himself, on that occasion, of the following observations:

"If ever there was a time when Dissenters were called upon to unite together, it was at this moment (hear, hear); if ever the great cause of religious freedom was in peril, it was at this moment (cheers); if ever there was a necessity for firm and united exertion against the attacks of a bitter and intolerant oppression, it was at this moment (renewed cheers)."

What, then, has the Church been doing? What are these unheard-of persecutions and wrongs to which the nominal descendants of the Howes, the Baxters, the Doddridges, the Calamys of former times cannot submit? Let Mr. Hawes speak for himself :—

"Perhaps before long they would see the question of Church Extension brought before Parliament by an influential member of the house -a member of one of the Universities (hear, hear). Then would be the time to see of what metal the Dissenters were made; then would be the time to prove whether members of Parliament were to look only to their own exertions, or to the great Dissenting body of Eng

land; then would be the time to prove the value of the professions the Dissenters had put forth (cheers): and he did not despair of the result. He believed that, when the Dissenters were fairly roused, they would speak in so firm a tone that no Parliament would dare to insult them (great cheering). He believed that the spirit which had animated their ancestors still inspired the Dissenters of modern times; and he believed, rather than they would be trodden under foot by a party that spoke of toleration whilst practising oppression, all England would ring with the resistance of those who fought, not for the mere rights of property, but for those dearest of privileges which extended over all time (cheers). At the present moment it was not so much the civil as the religious liberties of the people that were endangered. Insidious attempts would be made to put still heavier fetters upon them (hear, hear). The question he had adverted to (Church Extension) would be brought forward before the house, and there could be little doubt but that it would pass; but would the Dissenters permit it? (cries of No, no').. What, then, would they do to prevent it? (hear, hear). Every class of Dissenters, every man whose religious liberty was in danger, was bound to unite, and they must be firm when the day of election came (cheers). If the Dissenters were only true to themselves-and he knew their activity, their spirit, their wealth-he felt sure the cause of religious liberty would not fail. No question was more unpalatable in the House of Commons than that of church-rates; but let the question be for taxing others for the support of their own religion, and they were eager to carry the proposition, be it what it might.'

"

Why, we ask, was not this speech printed and circulated in every house of the borough of Lambeth? Why was Mr. Hawes allowed to declare, without contradiction, at the hustings, that he was a "friend, a sincere friend, of the Established Church?" But with this matter we cannot interfere now. We are anxious to point out that one of the grievances of Dissenters is this, that those who love the Church of England, that those who have no notion of having a nominal National Church instead of a real one, and who believe that Church Extension is essential to the moral and religious improvement of the people, are determined to bring this matter forward again and again, until the parochial system of the Church shall be fully carried out, and until all the parishes, hamlets, and districts of this mighty empire shall be supplied with established, national, and authorized means of spiritual instruction and salvation. But to return to the meeting of the Religious Freedom Society, and its protest against Church Extension. The following is the portion of the resolution passed by these Dissenting patriots respecting this subject :—

"That all grants of public money for the extension of the Church Establishment ought to be refused and withheld by the representatives of the people; first, as unjust to other denominations, whose religious worship, while maintained by themselves, is sanctioned by the laws of

the realm; and, secondly, as uncalled for, the Church of England being already in possession of ample resources and endowments, besides comprising within its pale a majority of the wealthier classes, whose free contributions ought to be amply sufficient to meet any alleged deficiency, without increasing the public burdens."

Now as this is the joint manifesto of heterodox and orthodox Dissenters against Church Extension, headed by Sir John Easthope, Bart., M.P., a proprietor of the Morning Chronicle and the intimate friend of Lord Palmerston, as well as by Mr. Hawes, the member for Lambeth, and by Daniel O'Connell, the Rev. Mr. Burder, of Stroud, Rev. Mr. Burnet, of Camberwell, &c., we propose to devote a few lines to its refutation.

1. It is not true that the Church of England, in England, is a denomination, in the ordinary and generally understood acceptation of that term. The Church of England is the national religion of these realms-recognized as such, not only by the laws, but by the constitution of the country. The country, as a country, is pledged to provide for this national religion, but it is not pledged or bound to support any other. The country possesses the churches of the land, on the condition of keeping them in order; and the country has accepted the churches built by our pious ancestors, on that condition. The country took possession of the endowments of those churches, also supplied by their founders, and the country is bound, legally, constitutionally, and equitably, to provide for the spiritual support of the clergy of those churches.

2. It is unpatriotic, irreligious, and impious, to object to grants of public money for the extension of churches and for the increased supply of buildings for the public worship of Almighty God by the mass of the people, who would not otherwise possess adequate means. The national religion stands on a wholly different footing to the voluntary denominations of Romanists, Dissenters, and Calvinistic Methodists. We say Calvinistic Methodists advisedly, because our opinions of the Wesleyan Methodists are already in print. But even the Wesleyan Methodists, with all their mighty influence and extensive ramifications, would not pretend that, unaided by the State, they could supply sufficient chapel room for the millions of population of the whole community.

The churches of Great Britain and Ireland are public property, and afford gratuitous accommodation to the parishioners of each parish, without regard to their age, rank, or education. The chapels of all denominations, on the contrary, afford accommodation to those who pay pew-rents, and only offer free seats in the proportion of one out of one hundred of the whole popu

lation. When we say one out of one hundred, we include the free seat accommodation afforded by all sects of Dissenters and Methodists.

Those, then, who object to grants of public money for the extension of churches, must, if they are honest men-to say nothing about their being Christians, so act upon one of two principles: either, first, they must believe that adequate church room is already supplied to the increased and increasing population of these realms-the fallacy of which statement we shall demonstrate hereafter; or, secondly, they must believe, with Mr. Binney, one of the most intolerant chiefs of the modern Nonconformist school, that the Church of England "ruins more souls than it saves;" or, in plain terms, that they would prefer the population of this empire rather to remain without any Christian instruction and means of Christian worship, than to be brought under that of the Church of England. As, however, thank God! we believe that there are few Mr. Binneys to be found, even amongst the most inveterate of the enemies of the Church of England, we shall not address ourselves to those who would prefer Atheism, Deism, Infidelity, or little short of Paganism, to exist among our population, rather than that Church of England principles, doctrines, and discipline should spread. Such sentiments are still-we would hope, at leastentertained but by few; and we would desire, in Christian candour, to believe that the mass of those who object to all grants of public money for the extension of churches, do so on grounds less disgraceful and unworthy.

To the objection that new churches are not required, we shall address ourselves hereafter, and will show how great is the want of them, not only in the manufacturing, but also in the agricultural districts. But then it is said, in the resolution which we are now combatting, that "the Church of England is already in possession of ample resources and endowments." For what? For the present churches, without multiplying their number? We answer, no, not even for them are the resources and endowments ample, nor even adequate. We shall adduce facts hereafter in confirmation of this declaration-facts which the most inveterate enemies of that Church will find it impossible to gainsay. But admitting, for a moment, that the resources and endowments of the churches of Great Britain are adequate for the present churches and the labouring clergy, does it follow that they are sufficient to enable the Church to provide means of worship for large masses of the population wholly destitute of church accommodation, and who are in a state of unparalleled ignorance and appalling vice?

Take the case of Bristol, with a population of upwards of 104,000 souls-what is the amount of church accommodation? Sixteen churches, or 6,500 for each parish church! Take the case of Birmingham, with a population of 140,000-what is the amount of church-room there? Thirteen churches, or nearly 10,800 for each parish church! Take the case of Manchester, with a population of 275,000, at least-what is the church-room there supplied? Only seventeen, or about 16,000 souls for each church! "What a mockery is this (says the author of " Your Life") of that original parochial system, the theory of which is as admirable as ever, but the practical working of which, owing to the want of piety in our Governments and our Parliaments, is a solemn and awful deception!" Does the Church possess ample resources and endowments to meet the calls which are thus made for new erections, and for a much vaster plan of church accommodation and instruction than any ever yet supplied? If so, where are these resources? In what mine are they hidden? Where has Sir John Easthope, Bart., M.P., discovered them? Is his friend and contributor, his correspondent and master, Lord Palmerston, in the secret? No; the truth is, that the Church of England has no resources whatever to meet the demand for increased church room and church instruction, and no one knows this better than the framers of this very resolution!

3. It is not true that the free contributions of the wealthier classes, who are Churchmen, are adequate to the providing sufficient church-room for the inhabitants of these realms. We admit that much might be done, as well as that much has been done, by the piety and zeal of individual Churchmen. We are, of course, not ignorant of the fact that many churches have been erected within the few last years by the noble and mighty of this empire; and we render them the homage of our profound respect, and our sincere gratitude. But the demand for Church. Extension which now exists cannot be met by individual benevolence, or even by collective charity. Much has been done, and much more may still be effected, by individual piety and by public subscriptions; but we protest against the principle of thus attempting to meet the demand for an increase of national churches by private and individual liberality. The Church of England ought not to be expected or required to act upon "voluntary principle." The national religion is the Protestant Episcopal Church. It is the religion of the Crown. It is the religion of both Houses of Parliament. It is the religion of our courts of law. It is the religion of our hospitals, poor-houses, and prisons. It is the religion of our army and navy. It is the religion of the State! The oaths of the Queen of England

the