you have taken, arraying before him, at one time, the most eminent sectarian ministers, who, though differing in temporal more than spiritual matters, still considered the existence of the Establishment as essential to their own welfare-and then removing yourself to higher ground, by confronting him with the great champions of the Reformation, the men to whom he and all are indebted for the pure translation of the Bible from the original Greek and Hebrew-thus at once striking at the ingratitude, as well as the injustice, of any resistance to the support of HER, who, through "divers troubles," has granted to him, and all seceders, the privileges they now enjoy these and the prior reasoning evince your abilities as an advocate.

For such an apology from a lay brother, we, the ministers, as the sacred pools of our venerable fabric, ought to feel extremely grateful. At a time when every weapon in the armoury of Schism is being cleansed of its rust, and sharpened to wound our "Daughter of Zion," for the editor of a provincial journal to arise and put on the apostolic armour to "defend the right," is indeed a theme for exultation.

When the good Nehemiah surveyed the fruits of his labours-Jerusalem "shaking off the dust," and "putting on her beautiful garments," -when he viewed the joy and satisfaction of the people at the raised altar and the revived splendour of the temple in its Mosaic state, he, with natural complacency, exclaimed, "Remember, O my God, concerning this, and wipe not out my good deeds that I have done for the house of my God, and the offices thereof." May not you, without arrogating to yourself a comparison with the prophet, with becoming humility, utter these words? Will not your efforts arise as good deeds done for the house of God, and the offices thereof? I leave the reply with every Churchman-"Hear the Church."

Without further trespass on your time, and with sincere respect for your abilities as a writer, I subscribe myself, Sir,

Yours, faithfully and obliged,

HENRY. T. WOODINGTON. Exmouth, April 20, 1837.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND CHURCH

RATES.

TO THE INHABITANTS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF THE CITY OF EXETER.

[Extracted from a Supplement to Woolmer's Exeter Gazette, May 13, 1837].

BROTHER CITIZENS,-The pamphlet recently published by Sir John Campbell on the law of church-rates having been relied on by the church-rate abolitionists here, and in other parts of the country, as authority for their assertion, that "church-rate is not property, and that there is no law to enforce its payment," I am induced, after having maturely examined this production of the learned Attorney-General, to offer a few observations to your notice, in reply to the statements and arguments set forth therein. Being driven from every other place of refuge-signally defeated in their attempts to set up "conscience," "principle," "moral equity," "religious peace," "national justice," or "the spirit and genius of the Gospel," as a plea for demanding the abolition of the church-rates, they at length entrench themselves behind these propositions; leaving, as a dernier ressort, in case of accident or overthrow, another -namely, "if church-rate is property, and its payment can be enforced, then it belongs to the Church of Rome, and not to the Protestant Established Church of England." I shall now proceed to dispose of the two first propositions, and hereafter demolish the last, leaving Sir John Campbell and his worthy friends, "like the baseless fabric of a vision, without a wreck behind.” Where these unhappy people will next seek a resting-place I know not, unless they turn back to that primitive chaos, when "the earth was without form, and void." I venture to express an opinion, that church-rates, as well as tithes, were "given" or "bequeathed" at first, and that, consequently, this property right did originate in a "bequest;" so that the church-rate, and other church property, does not stand only on law, on the law of Edward VI.; consequently, what law did not give, "law, if it be needed, cannot take away." Church property was originally an endowment, voluntarily given,

out of their abundance, by the owners of the property, and therefore all that the law did respecting it was to protect the Church in the enjoyment of that which rightfully belonged to her, and to her alone; just in the same manner as the law protects every Englishman in the enjoyment of his property. I am fully borne out by Dr. Lushington in this opinion, since he says, in one of his recent decisions, "There can, I think, be no difficulty or doubt in assuming that church-rates have existed in this country from time immemorial." And the redoubtable Sir John Campbell, although he labours much to show that churches were, "in very early times," repaired out of the tithes, admits that "probably it was very gradually shifted to the parishioners, and their contributions to the expense were purely voluntary. The CUSTOM growing, it was treated as an obligation, and enforced by ecclesiastical censures." So that Sir John Campbell concedes, that "probably" church-rate was first voluntary, and that it became a custom, which was afterwards legalized. If the learned gentleman had taken the trouble to examine a little more into the matter, supposing it to have suited his purpose to do so, he might have produced copies of deeds still in existence, proving, beyond all doubt, that, very early in the Saxon times, the lords of manors voluntarily built and endowed churches, giving the tithes of the produce of the land, for ever, for the support of the clergyman only, leaving the fabric of the sacred buildings to be kept up, from time to time, by the parishioners. There is no difficulty in stating that such was the case when the manorial churches were built, after which the country was divided into parishes. The first legal enactment we find for the repairs of the churches in this kingdom, distinct from tithes, is Anno Domini 693, which states-" Every dwelling was valued at Christmas, and the rate so imposed was called church-scot, and payable on the following Martinmas." (Ang. Sax. ch. p. 80-L. L. Inæ. 4-10). Church-scot is found also in several legislative acts of the other Saxon states.

The following references also show the state of the law from that early period down to the reign of William and Mary, subsequent to the Revolution:

There is a law of Athelstan, 930—of Edmund, 943—

of Edgar, 961, to the like purpose; and amongst the laws of Canute, A.D. 1020, which Seldon says were called "Leges Angliæ," there is one, "Ad fanum reparandum omnes quidem jure debebant." (L.L. Can Lambert, p. 121). This law (says Johnson) shows that the reparation of churches was devolved on the people sooner than is commonly thought;" and this was one of those laws confirmed by Magna Charta, A.D. 1215, as is evident by the reference to it in the canons of Otho in 1222, where the parishioners being bound to repair the whole church (except the chancel) is spoken of as a well known custom; and so again in the canons of Othobon, A.D. 1268.

In Athona's celebrated comment on these canons, 1290, he says, of that entituled "De domibus ecclesiarum reficiendis," "this canon alludes to the common custom in England, by which the repairs of the nave of the church, where the lay parishioners sit, belong to the parishioners themselves, and which they are compelled to repair”—and "that the parishioners do contribute according to the number of acres which each possessed, and the number of cows which he fed"-"that the rector is exempted from all expense in repairing the church, he having to maintain the chancel."

In the statute of Merton, A.D. 1305, the reparation of the church, the walls of the churchyard, and the costly things used in divine service, are expressly stated as a charge on the property of the parishioners.

By 13 and 35 Edward I., we find the statute law confirming these charges upon the parishioners.

Linwood (Lib. 3, p. 254), a.d. 1440, demonstrates clearly that the reparation of churches was borne by the parishioners, and was considered as a rent charge on the property which they held in the parish.

Within five years after the dissolution of the monasteries, an Act of Parliament was passed for the union of churches in certain cases (37 Hen. VIII., c. 21), which distinctly refers to the liability of the parishioners to repair" Forasmuch as the charges of the maintenance of such two chapels and churches, with all manner of reparations, ornaments, and other accustomed duties pertaining to a church, be much greater than may be well raised or borne among such poor parishioners, and

might and should be eased and remedied by the uniting and knitting such two churches in one," &c.

Another statute to the like effect was passed 17 Car. II., c. 3, and another 4 and 5 William and Mary, c. 12, for the purpose of compelling the parishioners of parishes, whose churches were taken down, to contribute towards the repairs and ornaments of the parish churches to which they were united-" And the same shall be rated, taxed, and levied, and, in default thereof, such process and proceedings shall be had and made against him or them as if it were for the reparation and finding decent ornaments for their own parish church, if no such union had been made."

It seems to me to be utterly impossible that evidence can be produced stronger than this, to show that churchrates are property, confirmed by the law of the land, which requires the parishioners to keep their churches in repair, and to furnish the necessary requisites for the celebration of divine worship. And that the law may be enforced, and has been enforced, not only by "ecclesiastical censures," but by the King's Courts, I have proved by the decisions referred to in my last, if it were not well known by the experience of many who have disputed the payment. A learned and much esteemed friend, W. Leigh, Esq., judiciously observes upon this subject-The Constitution of England supposes an Established Church-an Established Church supposes the sustentation of the fabrics, and the performance of its divine service. The law has raised, and centuries have sanctioned, an obligation for the continuance of these holy things. There is no obligation, any more than there is any right, without the power of enforcing it."

It has been attempted by Sir John Campbell, as well as by others, to draw a distinction between tithes and church-rates, in order to show that, although the former (they admit) is property, the latter is not. I think I have already said enough to dissipate this casuistry. The only difference I can see between tithes and churchrates is, that the former was fixed at a tenth of the produce of the land, and the latter was undefined as to the amount. The reason for this must be self-evident, since it was impossible to lay down any specific amount