{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_62004/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_62004","id":"gutenberg_62004","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62004","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - British","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church tax -- Great Britain"],"text":"Transcribed from the William Edward Painter edition by David Price, email\nccx074@pglaf.org\n\n                       [Picture: Cover of pamphlet]\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   THE\n                               CHURCH RATE\n\n\n                                A DIALOGUE\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                   BETWEEN A CHURCHMAN AND A DISSENTER.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n              [_Reprinted from_ \u201c_The Village Churchman_.\u201d]\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n             \u201cSUBMIT YOURSELVES TO EVERY ORDINANCE OF MAN FOR THE\n                        LORD\u2019S SAKE.\u201d\u20141 _Pet._ ii. 13.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                 LONDON:\n                   WILLIAM EDWARD PAINTER, 342, STRAND;\n\n                        AND ALL OTHER BOOKSELLERS.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n           _Price One Penny_, _or Seven Shillings per Hundred_.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nTHE object of the following Dialogue is to expose, in familiar language,\nthe absurd arguments by which political Dissenters attempt to justify\ntheir deeds of hatred against the Established Church, and their union\nwith Papists and Infidels\u2014with every wild boar out of the forest of\nirreligion and error\u2014in attempting to root up a vine, under the shadow of\nwhich they have long reposed in security and peace.\n\nSeveral persons having expressed their approval of this Tract, the writer\nhas been led to print this second and enlarged edition of it for general\ncirculation, omitting those local allusions which were introduced to make\nthe work more interesting in his own neighbourhood, and which succeeded\nin rendering its circulation extensive among those for whose information\nit was first printed.\n\nHe trusts that the plain arguments here brought forward, may tend, in\nsome small degree, to remove unfounded and ignorant prejudices against\nthe Established Church, believing it, as he does, to be the bulwark of\nour national Christianity, and the fortress of our civil and religious\nliberties.\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHURCH RATE.\n\n\n_Mr. Churchman_.\u2014Neighbour Spinwell, what in the world are you doing?\n\n_Mr. Spinwell_.\u2014I am beating up for recruits to attend the Vestry Meeting\nin defence of Dissenting principles, and conscientious scruples; and to\nmake a stand against Church oppression.\n\nMr. C.\u2014I respect conscientious scruples; but if Dissent signifies\nReligion with _you_, it does not with _me_.\n\nMr. S.\u2014What!  Do you mean to say that Dissenters have no religion?\n\nMr. C.\u2014No.  But I say, that what Dissenters have of late years gained by\ntheir noisy and political strife, they have more than lost in real piety,\nand in the esteem of the wise and good.\n\nMr. S.\u2014But how many great and good men have been Dissenters?\n\nMr. C.\u2014Yes,\u2014men who would not own you.  Do you think that Watts, and\nDoddridge, and Matthew Henry would have joined with the noisy, factious\nDissenters of our day?  Would they have given \u201cthe right hand of\nfellowship\u201d to men, who, in railing against the Church and the State,\nexpose their own folly and irreligion?\n\nMr. S.\u2014Be that as it may, I say, that I ought not to support a Church to\nwhich I do not belong.\n\nMr. C.\u2014And does your saying it make it either law or gospel?\n\nMr. S.\u2014I say, that oppression is contrary both to the Law, and to the\nGospel.\n\nMr. C.\u2014And so say I.\n\nMr. S.\u2014Why, then, do you wonder at my making a stir, when I am an\noppressed and persecuted man?\n\nMr. C.\u2014Many, who pay _the least_, often complain _the most_; and though\nyou feel yourself so grievously persecuted, I dare say that your\nChurch-rate has never been more than two or three shillings a-year.\n\nMr. S.\u2014I do not care whether I pay two shillings or two pence.  I say,\nthat I ought not to pay to the Church-rate, and support a religion to\nwhich I do not belong.\n\nMr. C.\u2014Nothing is more common than to hear a Dissenter say \u201cI ought not\nto pay to a religion to which I do not belong.\u201d  It sounds very\nplausible, but there is no truth in it.  The fact is, that you do not pay\nthe Church-rate as a Dissenter, nor do I as a Churchman.\n\nMr. S.\u2014How do you make that out?\n\nMr. C.\u2014Ages ago, and long before there was a Dissenter in this or any\nother town in England, the property we occupy was made liable to the\nvarious expenses of the Church; and the annual charge is on the property\nwe occupy, and has therefore nothing to do with the religious opinions of\nthose who occupy it.\n\nMr. S.\u2014I should very much like to know, when Church-rates began?\n\nMr. C.\u2014And so should I; but this tribute has been paid to the Church from\nsuch an early period, that no one can tell when it began.  All I can tell\nyou, is this, that the first record we have of its being levied, is in\nthe reign of Edward III., more than five hundred years ago. {6}\n\nMr. S.\u2014If the payment is so ancient, and a charge on the property we\noccupy; having, therefore, nothing to do with the religious opinions of\nthose who occupy it, how is it, then, that so many persons are opposed to\nthe Church-rate?\n\nMr. C.\u2014Men of hasty spirits\u2014little knowledge\u2014and less judgment\u2014are too\noften led away by those who ought to teach them better.  Your teachers\nknow, as well as I do, that the Church-rate being charged on the\nproperty, the payment of it can affect no religious principle.  As I said\nbefore, \u201cit has nothing to do with either your religion or mine;\u201d and if\nthe churchwardens, in days like the present, had to stop and inquire at\nevery door, before they knocked, what is this man\u2019s religion?\u2014or, has he\nany at all?\u2014they need have nothing else to do.  Nor is that all; a\nProtestant Church would be turned into a Popish Inquisition, and\nchurchwardens into inquisitors!\n\nMr. S.\u2014But, Mr. Churchman, how should you like to be compelled to pay a\nrate every year to our Meeting?  You could not pay to it as a Dissenter,\nand you would not like to pay to it as a Churchman.\n\nMr. C.\u2014If a law should be passed to-morrow, charging my house in common\nwith those of my neighbours, with the repair, &c., of your meeting, I\nshould pay the charge, I hope, as a Christian, submitting \u201cto every\nordinance of man for the Lord\u2019s sake\u201d (1 Peter, i. 13).\n\nMr. S.\u2014But would it not be an act of oppression to levy an annual payment\non property, which had always before been bought or rented free from such\na charge?\n\nMr. C.\u2014Though I could not but regard it as very different to a\nChurch-rate, which has existed from time immemorial, and subject to which\nall property is purchased or rented; and though I might also consider it\nunreasonable to pay to one sect of Dissenters rather than another; yet, I\nhope I should be one of the last men in the world to resist a charge made\nby the law of the land, though made unjustly, \u201cFor this is thankworthy,\nif a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully\u201d (1\nPet. ii. 19).\n\nMr. S.\u2014Perhaps such conduct might be a proof of the sincerity of your\nChristian principles, though I can hardly admit that it would.\n\nMr. C.\u2014If it be a part of true religion to tread as far as we can in the\nsteps of our Divine Redeemer, I would ask, has he not, in this very\nparticular, set us an example which it is our duty to follow?\n\nMr. S.\u2014In whatever Christ has set us an example, I admit that we should\nfollow his steps; but I do not remember the instance to which you allude.\n\nMr. C.\u2014Do you not recollect that our Saviour, though he had proved that\nhe and his disciples were \u201cfree\u201d from paying the tribute, the Church-rate\n{7a} demanded for the support of the Jewish temple, yet wrought a miracle\nfor the payment of it, lest they should offend by refusing it? (Matt.\nxvii. 24, 27).\n\nMr. S.\u2014What reason have you for calling the tribute paid by our Saviour,\nthe Church-rate?\n\nMr. C.\u2014Because, \u201cthe tribute demanded was not any civil payment to the\nRoman powers\u2014that was strictly exacted by the publicans; but the Church\ndues, the half-shekel, about fifteen pence, which was required of _every_\nperson for the service of the temple, and the defraying of the expenses\nof the worship there: and which our Lord paid, notwithstanding his\n\u2018Father\u2019s house was become a house of merchandize, and a den of\nthieves.\u2019\u201d\u2014_M. Henry_.\n\nMr. S.\u2014I own, that if an ancient and annual charge on property was to\nchange with the religious opinions, first of one occupier, and then of\nanother, there would be great confusion, and every rogue would cry out \u201cI\nam a Dissenter.\u201d  Yet, still, I think, that some respect should be shown\nto the principle of Dissent.\n\nMr. C.\u2014I hardly know what you mean by the principle of Dissent.  It was\nsaid, not long since in the House of Commons, that \u201cDissenters have\nalways their Dissenting principles, and their conscientious scruples when\nthey have money to pay, but none when they have money to receive.\u201d {7b}\n\nMr. S.\u2014Do you mean to insult me by casting such reflections on the\nDissenting body?\n\nMr. C.\u2014Certainly not.  You and I are not going to quarrel after having\nknown each other for more than five and-twenty years.\n\nMr. S.\u2014I belong to a body of consistent, conscientious Dissenters; and\nyou can say nothing against them.\n\nMr. C.\u2014Do not boast too soon.  There are Dissenters here and elsewhere\nwho call the Church-rate \u201ca dead robbery,\u201d \u201ca scandalous imposition,\u201d \u201ca\nvile extortion;\u201d and yet when there is work to be done at the church,\nthese men, so conscientious\u2014so scrupulous as to where the money is to\ncome from\u2014are the first to send in their estimates to the churchwardens.\nAnd what would they care if our Church-rate was raised from fivepence to\nfive shillings in the pound?  We know they have a deal to say when they\nhave little or nothing to pay, but when there is money to be received,\nwhich has been raised by a Church-rate, then their Dissenting principles,\nand their conscientious scruples are lighter than a feather.\n\nMr. S.\u2014I confess that I cannot defend such persons, for I like\nconsistency.  But to turn our conversation to another subject.  I am\nquite prepared to maintain the excellence of the Voluntary principle.\n\nMr. C.\u2014I know you Dissenters like to talk about the Voluntary principle.\nThey are two very fine long words, the use of which is often flattering\nto the vanity of ignorant persons.\n\nMr. S.\u2014And pray, what have you to say against the Voluntary principle?\n\nMr. C.\u2014I do not wish to say much against it; but I have yet a good deal\nto say against the inconsistency of your practice, so directly opposed as\nit is to your fine speeches and avowed principles: for I suppose you must\nhave heard or read something about the Regium Donum.\n\nMr. S.\u2014Regum Docum!  What is that?\n\nMr. C.\u2014I did not say Regum Docum, that is your Latin, not mine.  I said\nRegium Donum, which means the royal bounty.\n\nMr. S.\u2014I am glad that we Dissenters have nothing to do with money from\nthe State.  For \u201cthat is a poor religion which cannot support itself.\u201d\n\nMr. C.\u2014If so, I think I shall prove that your\u2019s is a poor religion.\n\nMr. S.\u2014But what I say, is, this Regum Dose\u2019em?  Is it a sort of physic?\n\nMr. C.\u2014It is one of the cordials of Dissent, in the shape of an annual\ngrant from the State.  It is a Parliamentary grant to the three\ndenominations of Dissenters of about two thousand pounds a year out of\nthe public taxes.  Not a twentieth part of the sum is collected from\nDissenters, and yet the whole finds its way into the pockets of those,\nwho, if they acted according to their professed Voluntary principle, and\nconscientious scruples, would honestly refuse it.  So that the Voluntary\nprinciple seems to be one thing, and Dissenting consistency another.\n\nMr. S.\u2014Do you know when this grant begun?\n\nMr. C.\u2014It was first given in the reign of George I., as an act of his\nroyal bounty.  But ever since the year 1803, it has been received from\nthe State\u2014and it is a fact acknowledged by Dissenters themselves, that\nwhile they are protesting against all STATE grants for religious\npurposes, TEN THOUSAND AND SEVENTY OF THEIR OWN MINISTERS in England and\nWales have participated in these grants in three years.\n\nMr. S.\u2014I really wonder how our great and good men can conscientiously\npocket money from the State; and I am surprised that none of them have\nhad the honesty to refuse it, and resolve to stand or fall on the\nVoluntary principle.\n\nMr. C.\u2014To tell you the truth, it has been objected to; and in the year\n1834, at a meeting of the three denominations, a vote was passed\ndisapproving of the grant from the State, as inconsistent with Dissent,\nand contrary to the Voluntary principle.\n\nMr. S.\u2014Well done!\n\nMr. C.\u2014It was well said, but there was nothing well done.  There was a\ngreat deal of fine talking, which all ended in nothing, except the\ndisgrace of continuing to pocket money, after having recorded, \u201cthat it\nis inconsistent with the principles of Dissent, and contrary to the\nVoluntary principle.\u201d\n\nMr. S.\u2014Well, after all, it is but a trifle!\n\nMr. C.\u2014I did not know that we were talking about trifles.  But it seems\nyou can sell your Dissenting principles for a trifle, and give your\nconscientious scruples into the bargain.\n\nMr. S.\u2014There may appear to be some difficulty in reconciling _the\npractice_ of receiving money from the State with _the theory_ of the\nVoluntary principle.\n\nMr. C.\u2014Do you not see, then, that if Dissenters can receive from the\nState two thousand pounds a year, {9} they might just as consistently\nreceive two millions; and do you not believe, too, that they would, if\nthey could get them?\u2014Like the Voluntary principle, I begin to think that\nthe Church-rate is a subject upon which you have been sadly misled.\n\nMr. S.\u2014I had always been led to consider the payment of Church-rates as\naffecting my religious opinions; whereas, I now see that it is not so;\nand as for the Voluntary principle, really it seems to be, like our\nindependence of the State, all a farce.\n\nMr. C.\u2014That is my opinion.  Besides your dependence upon the State, for\nmoney, protection, and liberty of conscience, your _Independent_\nMinisters are dependent on their congregations; and it is well known that\nthey prefer a certainty to an uncertainty, and never refuse, from\nconscientious scruples, a good legacy, or any other sort of endowment\nwhich they can get.  Indeed, when it is convenient.  Dissenting Ministers\ncan plead the uncertainty of the Voluntary principle, with all the\neloquence which experience teaches.\n\nMr. S.\u2014I have long suspected that you had but little respect for Dissent,\nand now I find that you have none at all.\n\nMr. C.\u2014I think I have pretty clearly shown that none is due to it.  If,\nhowever, any proof be required, look at Dissenters walking arm in arm\nwith Papists to the political meeting, or the parish vestry.  Look at\nProtestant Dissenters hugging Popery, that old Demon of idolatry,\nsuperstition, and wickedness\u2014that monster of tyranny and oppression,\nwhich their forefathers utterly abhorred.\n\nMr. S.\u2014I was for years a soldier in Spain, where Popery only tolerates\nher own idolatrous worship, not merely of images, wafers, and saints, but\nalso those precious relics of superstition, old bones and rotten rags!\nand as I know what Popery is where she CAN exercise her tyranny, and that\nall her professions of liberalism are nothing but \u201clies spoken in\nhypocrisy,\u201d I must acknowledge that by joining such a companion Dissent\ndegrades herself in the respect and the esteem of all good men.\n\nMr. C.\u2014Then I have a question to ask you.  If, when you were beating up\nfor recruits, the Papists had joined in your opposition to a Protestant\nChurch, pray how did you mean to act with your new allies?\n\nMr. S.\u2014I meant that they _should_ march _behind_.\n\nMr. C.\u2014But suppose they _would_ march _before_, you could find but one\nway of getting out of your difficulty, and that is, by walking arm in arm\ntogether.\n\nMr. S.\u2014It is not unlikely but I might have found myself in some\ndifficulty; and so, to say no more about it, I will just remark, that\nnotwithstanding some proof of our connexion with the State, I still think\nthe Bible requires that the State should have nothing to do with\nreligion.\n\nMr. C.\u2014I know it to be the argument of _modern_ Dissenters, that \u201cKings\u201d\nare not to be the \u201cnursing fathers,\u201d nor \u201cQueens the nursing mothers\u201d of\nthe Church; but they learnt that, not from the Bible, but from the\nauthors of the French Revolution.  We know that Owen, Baxter, Henry,\nWatts, and Doddridge, and many other pious Dissenters of former days,\nhave maintained the direct contrary\u2014they not only held the lawfulness,\nbut they knew something of the value, yea of the absolute necessity of an\nestablished Church.  \u201cIf it comes to this (says Dr. Owen to the rulers of\nhis day), that you shall say, you have nothing to do with religion as\nrulers of the nation, God will quickly manifest that he hath nothing to\ndo with you as rulers of the nation.\u201d  \u201cThe State (says Baxter) cannot\nstand secure without the Church.\u201d  \u201cLet us (says Matthew Henry) give God\npraise for the national establishment of our religion; that Christianity,\npurified by the Reformation, is supported by good and wholesome laws, and\nis twisted in with the very constitution of our country.\u201d  Again he\nwrites, \u201c_It is the duty of rulers to take care of religion_, and to see\nthat the duties of it be regularly and carefully performed by those under\ntheir charge, _and that nothing be wanting that is requisite thereto_.\u201d\nAnd how can this be done without a national Church, which is responsible\nto the nation for that regular observance of public worship to which your\nmeeting-houses are not?\n\nMr. S.\u2014But, why will you not show respect to the opinion of _modern_\nDissenters\u2014our ministers of the _present_ day?\n\nMr. C.\u2014When your anti-corn law divines shall bear comparison with the\npious and learned men I have named, men who \u201clived in all godly\nquietness,\u201d it will _then_ be time enough for me to consider _their_\nobjections and _yours_ too.\n\nMr. S.\u2014Notwithstanding, your great names, and your great men, I rest upon\nthose striking words of our Saviour, \u201cmy kingdom is not of this\nworld.\u201d\u2014John xviii. 30.\n\nMr. C.\u2014Pray how do you apply them?\n\nMr. S.\u2014I apply them to the Church as being \u201cof this world,\u201d and to\nDissent as being not \u201cof this world.\u201d\n\nMr. C.\u2014And pray, what right have you to sit in judgment, and apply in\ncondemnation of the Church, and in commendation of Dissent, words which\nhave no application to either?\n\nMr. S.\u2014I maintain that this text does apply to the subject in hand.\n\nMr. C.\u2014It is easily proved that it does not.  An accusation was brought\nagainst our Saviour, \u201cWe found this fellow perverting the nation, and\nforbidding to give tribute to C\u00e6sar, saying that he himself is Christ, a\nking.\u201d  Our Lord did not deny that he was a king, but said, that his\nkingdom was not of this world\u2014that it was not an earthly sovereignty.\n\u201cIf my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I\nshould not be delivered to the Jews.\u201d  \u201cBut now (as you may see by my\nservants not fighting), is my kingdom not from hence,\u201d that is \u201cnot of\nthis world.\u201d\u2014John xviii. 33, 36.\n\nMr. S.\u2014Well, admitting that you are right, and that my view of the text\nis just as ignorant as it is common among Dissenters, would you not\nconsent to abolish the Church-rate on account of the opposition that is\nmade to it?\n\nMr. C.\u2014Most certainly not.  If on that principle the Church-rate is\nabolished, on the same _convenient_ principle, you might abolish every\nother kind of rate, and at last refuse to pay to the State, as well as\nthe Church.\n\nMr. S.\u2014I should now like to hear what you have to say against an annual\nsubscription, as the best way of raising the money wanted for your\nChurch.\n\nMr. C.\u2014It _might_ do pretty well if your Voluntary principle could be\nrelied on.  But how can _we_ rely on that which you are afraid to\ntrust?\u2014Nothing is more certain than the uncertainty of an annual\nsubscription; and if our old churches were made to depend on annual\nsubscriptions to keep them up, my opinion is, they would soon fall into\ndecay, and this I suspect is the opinion too of you Dissenters.  Many of\nyour Dissenting meeting-houses have been sold, and not a few of them have\nbeen converted into churches;\u2014and why?  Because they could not stand on\ntheir own Voluntary principle.\n\nMr. S.\u2014Really, I feel as if you had knocked me and the Voluntary\nprinciple both down together.  But have you any other objections to an\nannual subscription besides its uncertainty?\n\nMr. C.\u2014Yes, annual subscriptions generally fall exclusively upon those\nbenevolent persons who give to everything; whereas the Church-rate\nobliges those selfish persons to bear their part who would not, if they\ncould help it, do anything for the bodies or souls of their\nfellow-creatures.\n\nMr. S\u2014Then, you would have no annual subscriptions?\n\nMr. C.\u2014That is not my meaning.  Sunday School, and Religious Societies\nmay be properly supported by annual subscriptions, or congregational\ncollections; and what Christian would like to miss such appeals to his\ncharity?\n\nMr. S.\u2014To tell you the truth, I begin to think that there is some wisdom\nin not allowing your venerable old churches to depend on the Voluntary\nprinciple; and that there is no great objection to raise money for the\nnecessary expenses of the Church by a rate, which divides the burden\namong so many, according to the property of each, that it is hardly felt\nby any.  Those who, like our Squire and other great men, pay the most,\nfeel it perhaps the least.  Really, my scruples have almost vanished; I\nfear they had but little foundation in religion, reason, or common sense;\nand I shall go again to my wheel, and let my neighbours see, for the time\nto come, that I have too much good sense to be again made the tool of a\nparty.\n\nMr. C.\u2014Mr. Spinwell, {12} let me speak one word to you before we part.\nDays and weeks, months and years, like your wheel, go round and round,\nwith wonderful rapidity, but with this difference, that you can stop your\nwheel, whilst neither of us can stay the progress of time.  The thread of\nlife is far spun both with you and me.  Let me then advise you to leave\nthe noisy \u201cpotsherds of the earth\u201d to \u201cstrive together,\u201d how they may\nmost effectually resist the payment of a few shillings a year, in support\nof a Church, which the wisest and best of men have maintained to be so\nnecessary to our national welfare.\u2014Considering how the world is passing\naway with all its transient concerns, let us pray for grace and strength\nto \u201cpress towards the mark for the prize of our high calling of God in\nChrist Jesus,\u201d that so we may meet at last in the paradise of God, there\nto dwell in perfect love and everlasting peace.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n          William Edward Painter, 342, Strand, London, Printer.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES.\n\n\n{6}  Lambert has traced up Church-rates to the laws of King Ina, in the\n_seventh_ century.\n\n{7a}  So considered by Dr. Gill, and other Dissenting Expositors.\n\n{7b}  This was said in reference to their receiving the Royal Bounty.\n\n{9}  The whole amount, including the Royal Bounty to the Dissenters of\nIreland, is more than thirty thousand a year.\n\n{12}  Mr. Spinwell is a rope-maker in the writer\u2019s parish.","title":"The Church Rate: A Dialogue Between a Churchman and a Dissenter","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":3971}