Widnes Examiner. — 1884-07-12 (Widnes, Cheshire, England)

VIII. time as the Protestant Church 2 Of course he knows this, the word not having then been coined. He knows full well that the Chuck of Rothe was the church referred to, not only up to this date but for long after. Every Act, and they can be pointed to without number, enforcing the payment of tithes was are Act establishing the Church. Every Act granting special privileges to clergymen gars them a.social position superior.to that of other ministers of the Gospel, and so far established them. Every Act determining the pains and penalties to which the careless, and those who.wonid not conform, should be subject, was an Ant intended to weld together a pious fraud, a despotic cristocracy, and a kingly rule. These three, acting on a people priding themselves more on their martial achievements than on any eflacatisnal code, have so far sustained ua.ae nation. To-day the people are- determined none of three shall exist any longer as privileged classes. Jost at present it is not quite clear which must go fiist. The House of Lords seems determined to commit suicide, so for the present we leave it. _ _  Our reverend friend hints at--a word he does not mention. Guessing at the word, perhaps- ho means robbery, in plain English. Well, there is net moat in a word, but will be kindly tell us-voters what he means by the following sentence? "Of course, the only form ;n which Christianity NVAS presented to the people at that time wax a Church forra." I have troubled myself some little ti find out the meaning of the word Church. Dr. Vance Smith, who is, I suppo3e, equal to the Rev. Mr. Carleton in scholarship, tells us "that it is not, aad moot be, the exoluaive property of any single communion." I conclude from this that any body, of men, however numerous, or however insignificant, have a right to the term, and that no body has a right to arrogate to itself ouch a position as the Established Church of England tries to do. The Rev. gentleman speaks of Congregationalism as "a thing of modern growth." Why, be might say the same of the clothes on his back. Was it a usual•thing for the Apostles and early Fathers to take themselves- off to tlae Lakes of Killarney to the utter neglect of their flock P Did "the Christian rulers of ancient times "' pay Bishops , to sit in a House of Lords to vote in favour of pigeon shooting ? To read at Church that all men are equal in the sight of God, and yet are unequal in a Franehise Bill? From the Test and Corporation Acts down to the [lariat Act , the Bishops have made us feel that they are an integral por-, it on of the State. This State Church that has taken so many Acts to establish it now clasps civil society with the arms of an octopus. Little by little. it sucks and exhausts every movement with which it beoomes connected, and threatens to stifle and kill all around it. It has become rich beciuse there has been a great namber of simple souls who thought to obtain grace from on high by giving or bequeath, log wealth and property to its inatitutiorm. . To say the Church is not established is to confess weak' ness. "Point to the act and repeal it," say these equivocators. They forget the history of the Church lies open for the liberators, as for the defender to read. Pope Gregory protested against the temples of the heathen being destroyed. "Let holy water be made and sprinkled In the sai,d temples, for it is requisite they be converted from the worship of devils to the service of the true God." I rather think Abbot Melitis (A. G. 601) was an instrument for putting into use the word about which our Rev friead is so dioident at using. If the Church is tot Establialied by law, bow is it that until the year 1867 all parishioners were liable for