Mr. C.—I know it to be the argument of _modern_ Dissenters, that “Kings” are not to be the “nursing fathers,” nor “Queens the nursing mothers” of the Church; but they learnt that, not from the Bible, but from the authors of the French Revolution. We know that Owen, Baxter, Henry, Watts, and Doddridge, and many other pious Dissenters of former days, have maintained the direct contrary—they not only held the lawfulness, but they knew something of the value, yea of the absolute necessity of an established Church. “If it comes to this (says Dr. Owen to the rulers of his day), that you shall say, you have nothing to do with religion as rulers of the nation, God will quickly manifest that he hath nothing to do with you as rulers of the nation.” “The State (says Baxter) cannot stand secure without the Church.” “Let us (says Matthew Henry) give God praise for the national establishment of our religion; that Christianity, purified by the Reformation, is supported by good and wholesome laws, and is twisted in with the very constitution of our country.” Again he writes, “_It is the duty of rulers to take care of religion_, and to see that the duties of it be regularly and carefully performed by those under their charge, _and that nothing be wanting that is requisite thereto_.” And how can this be done without a national Church, which is responsible to the nation for that regular observance of public worship to which your meeting-houses are not? Mr. S.—But, why will you not show respect to the opinion of _modern_ Dissenters—our ministers of the _present_ day? Mr. C.—When your anti-corn law divines shall bear comparison with the pious and learned men I have named, men who “lived in all godly quietness,” it will _then_ be time enough for me to consider _their_ objections and _yours_ too. Mr. S.—Notwithstanding, your great names, and your great men, I rest upon those striking words of our Saviour, “my kingdom is not of this world.”—John xviii. 30. Mr. C.—Pray how do you apply them? Mr. S.—I apply them to the Church as being “of this world,” and to Dissent as being not “of this world.” Mr. C.—And pray, what right have you to sit in judgment, and apply in condemnation of the Church, and in commendation of Dissent, words which have no application to either? Mr. S.—I maintain that this text does apply to the subject in hand. Mr. C.—It is easily proved that it does not. An accusation was brought against our Saviour, “We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that he himself is Christ, a king.” Our Lord did not deny that he was a king, but said, that his kingdom was not of this world—that it was not an earthly sovereignty. “If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews.” “But now (as you may see by my servants not fighting), is my kingdom not from hence,” that is “not of this world.”—John xviii. 33, 36.