of so numerous a body as the Clergy, and where the persons to be profited at their expence can by no means be considered as the public. But supposing that tithes are an objectionable or an impolitic species of property, even that cannot authorize the meddling with them, particularly under the false idea of their being a tax upon property. Objections against other kinds of property, might be made with equal ease. But it is further urged, that the incomes of some of the Clergy are very great and why should they not be so? Is not the land divided into very unequal portions? Are not great fortunes derived from every profession, trade or occupation? Is not this country distinguished beyond all others, by the liberty that every man born in it has to acquire the greatest honours or wealth? Whilst thus the, highest prizes are open to all, no reasonable man will complain, if he fails to attain them. There is such a disposition in many persons (and especially amongst the dissenters) to regard with jealousy any thing like affluence in the Clergy, as is quite unaccountable. The most splendid fortune acquired by any other liberal profession, the greatest income squeezed out of the meanest calling, excites no uneasiness: why then should the income of Clergymen alone be regarded with aversion? In what other class of men equally numerous, is to be found more talent or respectability? What other description of persons, spend their property with more credit to themselves, or more utility to the pub. lic? The Clergy in asserting their legal claims, cannot be considered, either as unjust, or arrogant! And he must seek in vain, who seeks for even a colourable pretext, for disturbing the rights of the sacerdotal order.2dly. It is said, it is not intended to deprive the Clergy of their tithes, without giving them an equivalent for that right, which it is affirmed, hinders the improvement " of the land. Supposing they are to have a real equivalent, it is not easy to see who is to be benefited by the exchange; and if neither the landlord nor the tenant are to gain by it, how is the improvement of the land to be assisted? But why should the tithes be an obstacle to improvement? When an estate is purchased, or taken to farm is not the first question, whether it be tithe-free? And is not the price of the rent regulated accordingly? It is true that the value of the tithes will in general be increased in proportion to the improvement of the land: and it ap pears to be the very object of the law, that by this mean the property of the Clergy, should increase with the increasing wealth of the country but where is the proof that tithes are a check upon improvement? Whoever considers what has been done even during the last twenty years in that way, will not easily be led to believe that more would be attempted if tithes were abolished tomorrow.-3dly. It is asserted that "tithes create hostility between the rector and his parishioners, and cause their defection from the Established Church. That such disputes occasionally exist cannot be denied: but to assert that they bear any proportion, to the number of parishes in which they do not occur, is unjust and untrue. The fair question is, are the Clergy to be blamed for those disputes? It is somewhat hard to be deprived of what is due to them: it is still harder to be blamed for not submitting tamely to injustice: but surely it is the very climax of oppression to take from a man his rights in point of law, merely because he resists their invasion in point of fact. It is observed those disputes are said to turn in general on the value of the tithes, but will any one be bold enough to say, that the Clergy ever demand more than its value? It is impossible that they should receive it, if they did! Those with whom they have to do, are neither careless nor ignorant of pecuniary matters. Who knows so well the value of the tithe as the farmer? Is he likely to make an extravagant composition? On the other hand the maximun of the tithe-owner is very clearly defined, it is the commodity itself. As to defection from the Church little need be said that is a matter for the agriculturist or landlord, to settle with his own conscience. Of what value a man's religion is to himself or to the community, who deserts the worship of God, because he is not permitted to defraud his neighbour, is clear: and it is strongly to be suspected that those who are most apt to dispute with the Clergy, do not want this motive to induce them to avoid the Church; and that their notions of religion and morality are pretty much upon a level. On this subject, however, one fact is worth a thousand arguments. The income of my rectory in Buckinghamshire, arises from glebe in commutation for tithes, whilst the income of my rectory in Norfolk arises from tithes, and about 18 acres of glebe; they are both of the same value. During my incumbency on the former since 1798, the parishioners (without any other ostensible reason, than because they think themselves perfectly independent of the rector) have interfered in every instance, with my ecclesiastical and secular rights: and though the resident curate is a gentleman highly respectable both in his performance of the duties of the cure and in his private character, they have procured a licence for a cottage, in which a dissenter (and most frequently a lay man) preaches twice on Sunday. In the Norfolk parish, of which I personally perform all the duties, there are none who habitually absent themselves from the Church; there are no dissenters, nor any meeting; and I have lived for twenty years upon the most cordial terms with my parishioners; excepting only for five years, during a contest with one dissenting farmer, of notoriously bad character! Would not the conduct of the parishioners have been diametrically opposite, if tithes were the true causes of dissension? The difficulties of the present times, are indeed great; but they are not insuperable let us then meet them firmly and honestly: let every one patiently sustain his own share of the pressure, and not endeavour to fix it on the shoulders of his neighbour: remembering that if it be the duty of a Christian to bear the burthens of other men, it is more incumbent on him patiently to sustain his own. Note. When in lieu of taking the tenth in kind, the minister consents to take a composition in money for the same, as an accommodation to both parties, it is entirely at the option of the farmer, whether he will pay the sum demanded: if he thinks it too much, the only conse quence is, tithe is taken in kind, and as the quantity so taken, can never exceed the minister's right, what becomes of the charge of exaction, or grievance in any possible case? and in point of equity, the thing is impossible, for no claim, can be unjustifiable, that is confined within the bounds of right! A NORFOLK RECTOR. The right Method of interpreting Scripture, in what relates to the Nature of the Deity, and his 165 Dealings with Mankind, illus. trated, in a Discourse on Predes tination, by Dr. King, late Lord Archbishop of Dublin, preached at Christ Church, Dublin, before the House of Lords, May 15, 1709, with Notes by the Rev. Richard Whutely, M.A. Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. 8vo. 140 pp. Murray, 1821. DR. COPLESTON observes, in the commencement of his first Sermon, "that one of the earliest religious practices of rude nations is to consult the Deity about that which is to come; plainly implying, that foresight, which is the strongest evidence of superiority among men, inust belong to God in a far more eminent degree." To this just remark we may add, that the very men who thus demonstrate their belief in God's foreknowledge, are at the same time fully convinced of their own free will; and in the act of enquiring into the decrees of the Almighty, entertain a design of counteracting such as are unfavourable to themselves. The father seeks to learn what dangers menace his children, that he may be able to surmount them. Nation makes war against nation, and tribe against tribe, and both parties are anxious to learn the secrets of futurity; not merely that they may know, but also that they may obviate that which is about to happen. They believe at one and the same time in foreknowledge and in freewill; and it may humble the pride of human reason and learning to remember that those persons who take the clearest view of Predestination and its kindred questions, who reverently acknowledge God's Providence, and temperately assert man's liberty, admitting that they are unable to reconcile or explain them: those persons are only wiser than the American savage, by being able to give an account of their igno. rance. The ignorance itself is just the same in all. The difficulty which exists now has existed from the beginning. And the only real improvement which has taken place or can be expected to take place is, that the wise and the philosophical cease to plume themselves upon their superiority, and be contented with those notions which they partake with the generality of their fellow-creatures. Viewing the subject in this light, we cannot join in the displeasure which is often expressed against those who prolong or even who originated the controversy respect ing liberty and necessity. In an evil hour, says Mr. Southey in his Life of Wesley, did the busy mind of man devise for itself the perilous question of fatalism.'-If we look merely to the strife which the question has produced, we may assent, without hesitation, to this remark. But if we turn to the actual nature and constitution of man, we must doubt whether he could have avoided the debate. From what he felt within himself, he always knew that he was free; from what he heard or discovered of a Deity, he knew that God must foresee and govern. And it would have been most strange and unaccountable if our busy and meddling minds, ever prone to ex tremes, to exaggeration, and to paradox; ever prone to advocate theories which may excuse and vindicate corrupt practices; disposed almost in equal proportions to dogmatise and to doubt, had not entangled themselves in a question of so much real perplexity, and which does actually come home to the business and bosoms of us all. If we have any serious and sufficient reason to suppose either that God's Providence or that man's freedom is a dream, we are in the one case deprived of every solid support, and exposed to the freaks of chance; in the other we are passing our lives in a state of constant delusion, cheated by the faculties which should, teach and direct us, and uncertain even of our existence itself. The apprehension of such calamities must naturally be expected to unsettle the mind which entertains them. And when men see a danger, which menaces them on one side, we may calculate that they will in most instances rush headlong to the other. Thus the advocates for Providence denied the liberty of man: and those who could not be persuaded to disregard the dictates of consciousness, rejected the government, if not the existence of God. The Stoic de sired to establish and support religion and morality-but he overshot his mark, and discarded Providence for Fate. The Epicurean played a meaner part; and advocated licentiousness by submitting every event to chance. While those who pretended to stand neuter, and to moderate between the parties, either did not know the secret by which the knot might be untied, or were too much in love with scepticism to put an end to the debate. It was handed down in all its vehemence, and all its perplexity to Christian sages, and may be traced even by the least acute observer, through many a century of darkness, through many a volume of learned phistry, and inconclusive ratiocination. 80. The same difficulties were at the root of the Oriental mythology, which represented the earth as the work of an inferior and even an evil spirit, who was strong enough to resist the delegated power of the Deity, and was only to be subdued at last by the direct interposition of the MOST HIGH. These tenets notoriously infected some of the earlier Christians, and their fruits are still visible in the doctrine of man's total pollution, and the redemption of a select few out of the great mass of the condemned. It seems therefore that the same questions have arisen always and every where. The antient sages of Asia and of Europe, the Mahometan doctors, the Christian Fathers, the monks in the retirement of their cloister, and the Freethinkers in the midst of their dissipation are all divided into parties and sects upon this grand topic; and we may infer that it is a topic which man must necessarily discuss, and that in spite of the inconveniences which attend it, the discussion is inevitable. If this conclusion be correct, it will follow that instead of lamenting over the existence of the controversy, we should prepare ourselves to conduct it with skill; and instead of turning away from the subject as from a source of error and confusion, we should consider it as a mist which extends over the whole intellectual territory; in which no one need lose his way, provided he advances with care. Instead of declining, therefore, we should court the consideration of these questions:-the explanation of them should form a regular branch of liberal learning, and the less educated classes should be made acquainted with the result of our enquiries. We are aware that an opposite theory is in existence if not in fashion. It is said that a speculative belief in fatality can do little or no harm: that the Calvinists, in spite of their errors, are as good as their neighbours; that their tenets are not really chargeable with the monstrous consequences which are im puted to them; and that the safest and best plan is to leave their doctrines alone; and to co-operate with them in good works, rather than argue about unintelligible mysterious points of faith. This advice sounds well; and if the statements by which it is preceded were all true, we should have no objection to follow it. But we cannot see that the advocates or apologists for modern calvinism, are the properest people in the world to make a correct estimate of its effects. For we are told continually, and we hope truly, that at the present day few believers in Calvin are disposed to lay much stress upon their peculiar tenets, or to encourage that assurance which their doctrines seems to authorize. And the consequence is, that a congregation which is mo ral and pious in spite of its calvi. nism, has imbibed that system in a very diluted preparation, if it has not altogether escaped it. The old story of the apothecary and his convalescent patient may be applied to such cases. The disease had subsided, and the medicines were extolled; but as they happened to have been standing unregarded on the shelf, their actual share in the good work was less than their compounder imagined. In like manner, if we are told that the Scotch, the Dutch, and the Swiss, have calvinistic creeds, and calvinistic teachers, and nevertheless are celebrated for the superior purity of their manners, we may answer, that the dose which is supposed to be so salutary, has never in point of fact been administered; that the calvinism which is professed is not always believed, and that even when believed, is very seldom inculcated. We must turn therefore to those seasons in which zeal has got the better of prudence, and the Predestinarian has preached as he thought, or we shall never be able to form a just opinion of his faith. We must listen not to such as say that Predestination is seldom insisted upon, and infer somewhat illogically that it is a harmless phantom, but to such as have actually witnessed the preaching of that doctrine, and have borne an unequivocal testimony to its effects. In the days of Cromwell and the puritans, calvinism was taught in good earnest; and Baxter, one of its wisest and most learned dis. ciples, has given a melancholy pic ture of the antinomianism to which it led, In the days of Wesley and Whitfield, the spirit of fanaticism revived-and stronger language has never been employed in the descripREMEMBRANCER, No. 34. tion of heresy and confusion, than that in which Wesley and Fletcher painted the Calvinistic doctors of their day. In our own time we have seen a secession from the Church and even from the Gospel,' of which calvinism was indisputably the cause; and one Calvinist, Mr. Hall of Leicester, has candidly confessed the fact. Similar cases might be collected in every other age and country; and they authorize us to conclude that whenever a Calvinist improves his congregation, he does it by the concealment of his creed-and that whenever he brings his system fairly into play, it leads to confusion, and heresy, and all ungodliness. Perhaps it will be said that this statement contains its own answer, as it admits that in the majority of instances, Calvinists do not teach the mischievous tenets which they maintain, and thus acquits them of producing the evils which are laid at their door. If the direct, and immediate production of immorality were the only charge which could be brought against them, we should be disposed to acquiesce in this excuse, and to confess that occasional and temporary confusion would be the worst that they could now produce. A practical belief in the doctrine of absolute decrees must be always very rare. It is improbable that in the present age the system should flourish as a theory; and when it has perplexed and captivated the understanding, it will be rejected by common sense. Thinking men have at length pretty generally agreed about the merits of that reasoning which proves us to be necessary agents. "The opinion of necessity," says Bishop Butler," is essentially destructive of all religion." And this general assertion is to be understood, as he informs us, in two senses; "first, in a practical sense, that by this notion atheistical men pretend to satisfy and encourage themselves in vice, and justify to others their dis 4 H |