PSALM XLVI. GOD is our refuge and our strength, Therefore we will not fear. Although the pillars of the earth Although the waters rage and swell, There is a river, which makes glad The tabernacle's holy place Of the Most High's abode. Our God is in the midst of her, Because the Lord our God, himself, The heathen lands make much ado, The Lord of Hosts our refuge is, + CORRESPONDENCE. The Editor begs to remind his readers that he is not responsible for the opinions ON TITHES. To the Editor of the British Magazine. SIR, Your correspondent, Camelodunensis, has observed, that "it is some presumption that the institution of tithes is not absurd, or unworthy of consideration, that the inventor of them was the Almighty ;" and it certainly does appear to me that, prior to all reasoning upon the question as to which is the best and most convenient mode of providing for the ministers of religion in any country, a very strong inference lies in favour of that which prevails amongst us, viz. the appropriating a certain share of the fruits of the earth for that purpose, from the circumstance of the Divine wisdom having appointed it amongst the Israelites. This argument, of course, will not weigh much with a certain class of objectors; but we have a right to claim that it should not be lightly dismissed by those who do not reject the Scriptures. But these latter will probably meet it with some such answer as this-they will say, the circumstances in which this country is placed are totally different from those in which the Jews were placed, and an institution which was well suited to a community in a particular stage of society, is ill suited to another country in a different stage. In reply to this, I would observe, that there is no reason to doubt that the Jewish nation, during the 1500 years that it subsisted, though stationary with respect to divine ordinances, underwent continual changes with respect to its population, its system of agriculture, its degree of refinement and civilization; yet the law of tithes continued to prevail, without any repeal, from the first to the last period of their abode in Palestine, which is a strong presumption that it did not prove, in their case, adapted only to a society in a particular stage, but that it accommodated itself to meet all the varying circumstances of their condition, and to all the ebb and flow of manners and customs, and of domestic and foreign relations; and I think objectors, who are not unbelievers, may fairly be required to point out what special inconveniences, in an economical view, as respects agriculture and the employment of capital and labour, can be charged upon the system of tithes in England, which it was not chargeable with in Judea, when it was the institution of God; or in what way it is found to be a more injurious tax on the English farmer than it was on the Jewish farmer, or on the English consumer than it was on the Jewish consumer. C. S. BISHOPS IN PARLIAMENT. To the Editor of the British Magazine. SIR,I have lately met with a plan of church reform, by Lord Henley, in which the removal of the prelates from Parliament, and the substitution of convocations, are spoken of as highly desirable measures. Perhaps no proposal is so fraught with difficulty and with danger to the Established Church as the restitution of convocations. Upon this question, however, I do not now mean to embark: I shall only make one or two observations regarding his Lordship's objections to episcopal peerages. The reasons he gives are assumptions rather than deductions. Because Christ and St. Paul exercised no such privilege, we are told that no such privilege should now be exercised. The fallacy of comparing things present with things past, forgetful of the entire revolution which the world has undergone, is an extremely common, but an extremely absurd one. I every day expect to be told that the clergy should restrict their food to locusts and wild honey, and their garments to camel's hair, because there is scriptural warrant for their doing so. We have been already more than once told, that nothing beyond scrip and staff is legally theirs. Lord Henley perceives the inexpediency of this, but he perceives not that it is the conclusion to which his own reasoning drives. When Christianity was proscribed, its Founder crucified, its professors persecuted, the conduct it put on towards the world, arrayed in hostility against it, must of necessity have been very different from that required when (formally at least) there is no hostile world, and Christianity is acknowledged as paramount in name at least. The true question is, simply, Would religion equally flourish, or would it flourish even at all-human means alone regarded-under other circumstances? If Christianity be established, and be recognized as having established interests, is it desirable, or is it not desirable, that these interests should be attended to? But Lord Henley thinks that the interests of religion are not promoted by the prelates having seats among the peers: because, first, their voice is weak VOL. II.-Dec. 1832. 3 Q against that of the remainder of the house, and totally inefficient against that of the country. But is there any thing essentially connected with a spiritual peerage compelling its holder to vote always in opposition to the opinions of all the world beside? If the bishops vote conscientiously and according to right reason, they will not always so be found. No man is perhaps ever influenced in voting by the previous discussion which takes place; such, at least, is very rarely indeed the case, if it ever be. But the discussion is not therefore without its use. It goes forth to the world; it is read and weighed by thousands and tens of thousands, and its effects are always ultimately felt; first, through the people upon the Commons, and lastly by the Lords. Why are the affairs of religion alone to be precluded from this advantage? The second reason for effecting a change so vital to the constitution, not, as it happens, of our church only, but of our state and nation also, is, that bishops are liable to be occasionally made spectators of those debates in which peers unduly "Let their angry passions rise." Whether any large body of men, even convocations, can ever be brought to discuss matters vitally important to their interests, and be perfectly free from every taint of passion, is what I exceedingly doubt. To follow up this rule would be to prevent the bishops, and finally the clergy, from ever engaging in, or being present at, any discussion whatever. The more important the discussion, the less proper will their presence become, and at last they must be prohibited from all influential intercourse with society. How far the superior decorum of the upper house may be owing to a restraint imposed on ordinary occasions by the presence of the bishops, is a question which experience alone can solve. But there is some reason why the House of Lords is not quite such a bear garden as the House of Commons has too frequently shewn itself. Thirdly, Lord Henley opines that the bishops are ever compelled to earn obloquy by supporting, as a body, the administration of the day, or by embarking, as a body, into a systematic course of opposition. But I have already stated that there is no necessity compelling the episcopal peers to do either one or the other. The bishops have never earned this threatened obloquy by supporting government. In two reigns they opposed themselves violently to the ministry of the day in 1688 they obtained, to say the least, quite as much popular fame as in 1832 they lost. But they did something more; in 1688 they saved the constitution; the very constitution which is now our greatest glory and our greatest blessing. James I. was unsparingly ridiculed for saying "No bishop-no king:" Charles I. found his father's axiom extremely true. The "no bishop" of 1642 was not the deprivation of orders, but the deprivation of seats. "No king" implied a great deal more than the loss of one life, or the confusion of one estate: no bishop" has once in this country, and once in France, and once in Poland, been followed by absolute anarchy. I should be very loth to see that" once" made "twice." I have the honour to be, Sir, Your's respectfully, F. J. September 2nd, 1832. ON THE PROPOSED REFORM IN THE CHURCH. To the Editor of the British Magazine. SIR, It is impossible that any one should duly consider the extent of the information required by his Majesty's Ecclesiastical Commissioners concerning the revenues of the Established Church, without perceiving that in every department of that Church some very considerable changes are meditated. That these changes, if adopted, will be for the worse, so far as the glory of God is concerned, the eternal happiness of mankind, and the peace of this nation, I am fully persuaded; for the same puritanical spirit is now very evidently abroad which existed in the days of Charles I.; and the religionists to whom I allude are so effectually, though unintentionally, serving the cause of the avowed enemies of Christianity, as that no reasonable man can expect but that, when once a breach is effected, the whole Church establishment will, in the end, most probably be devoted to destruction. I am willing to yield to no man living in zeal for, and in attachment to, the Church of England, as it is now by law established, or in heartily wishing well to the cause of true and practical religion; and consequently I am as anxious as any one can be to reform what in the Church are real abuses. In a word, I am most anxious both to see a resident clergyman (whether incumbent or curate, I care not), and to have the evening as well as the morning service duly performed, in every parish throughout England. But still, if it be sought to accomplish this desirable object by robbery or spoliation, I feel confident that the work will not succeed according to the expectations of the promoters of it, but will rather bring down some national judgment upon us. But how, then, it will naturally be asked, are the acknowledged existing evils to be remedied? The attempt, I think, might be made in the following manner: Let returns, in the first instance, be called for, which at once will shew where the evils complained of do exist, which returns would very cheerfully be made, I am quite sure, by all the Bishops. Let inquiry next be made why these evils do exist; and, if this inquiry be fully prosecuted, it will appear, I apprehend, that where the evils exist, the revenues, which the piety of a former age had devoted "to God and the Church," and which would have been amply sufficient for the purpose of ensuring both a resident clergyman in each parish, and the regular discharge of his duty in it, are now very commonly possessed either by some corporate bodies, lay or ecclesiastical, or by some lay individuals. But if this be the case, as we know it is very generally, it is surely very difficult to imagine with what plea of justice, or with what good conscience, they, who are already in the possession of what they ought never to have had, shall presume to ask the Legislature either to rob other livings by means of augmented tenths, or else to despoil the Chapters, in order that the value of those small livings, of which they are the patrons, should be increased to their own private benefit. Let an exposition, I say, in the first place, be fairly made to the public of all the particular circumstances attending those livings, which of themselves are too small to maintain a resident clergyman, and perhaps a remedy will in most cases be found to arise simply out of this exposure. However, in case this should fail, and in preference of any other plan which I have seen suggested, it might justly be proposed, I think, that, in the first instance, wherever the Deans and Chapters, or any other ecclesiastical bodies, are in the receipt of the great tithes arising out of any parish, and are the patrons of the living in that parish, they should be compelled by law to make such a suitable provision for the incumbent of that parish, as should enable him to live among his parishioners, and to perform properly his duty towards them, it having been understood from the very beginning, that out of the revenues bestowed on the Church, some one should always be provided to supply adequately the spiritual wants of the people. And in the next place I would suggest, that where lay bodies, or individuals, are so circumstanced as the clerical bodies mentioned above, an option shall be given them, either to augment the several benefices of which they are the patrons, as they shall be found individually insufficient to maintain a resident clergyman, or else to receive an equivalent in money for the advowsons, and to allow them to pass into other hands, which should be bound to augment the benefices sufficiently for the purposes I have mentioned. The hands into which I would then recommend that the patronage of such livings should be transferred would be those of the King; and the way in which the Crown might be enabled both to purchase and to augment these poor livings might be by the sale of the advowsons of the richer livings already in its gift, in addition to what might be supplied by Queen Anne's Bounty. This plan is merely sketched out that others may improve upon it; and the writer would be gratified beyond measure to find that some one of greater ability and influence than himself should take the hint, and so improve upon it, as to discover an effectual remedy for those evils in the Church, which all good men must acknowledge and deplore, without at all exposing the fabric of our still venerable Church to any rash experiments. I will only add my earnest hope, that no man will be prejudiced against what is written above, by the supposition that what the author derives himself from the Church may make him apprehensive of any great change in its present constitution. For, if the truth must be known, he has expended upon a living, in which he has no more than a life-interest, the sum of three thousand pounds, and has also declined to accept two more livings, each of which was equal in value to the one he now holds, and both of which were at the time tenable with it.* I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, A COUNTRY CLERGYMAN. DISSENT IN WALES. To the Editor of the British Magazine. SIR,-As you have, in one of your recent numbers, published a letter by the Rev. Archdeacon Jones, Rector of Llanbedr, on the subject of a work entitled "An Essay on the Causes of Dissent in Wales," of which I am the author; and as the avowed object of that letter is, not merely to criticise my publication as a literary production, but to fix upon me individually the imputation of wilfully misrepresenting the present state of the Church in Wales, I trust that I shall not have to appeal in vain to your sense of justice for the insertion of the following reply to the reverend gentleman's accusations :- The first and principal charge that he makes against me is, that I have represented that he, as Archdeacon, receives 250l. per annum from the parish of Llandudno in Caernarvonshire, and pays out of it only 207. per annum to the Curate (who in the mean time receives 481. from Queen Anne's Bounty, in the whole only 687.) He proceeds to state that the greatest part of the tithes of Llandudno are enjoyed by a lessee, who holds under a lease granted by a preceding Archdeacon, and that he (Archdeacon Jones) receives only 401. per annum. Now, Sir, I have only to observe, that I never stated that the present Archdeacon enjoys 250l. per annum, but merely that the tithes are worth 250l. per annum; and this is not denied by my reverend opponent; nor did I state that it was from any fault of his that the present Curate receives only 201. a-year from a parish worth 2501., but merely that such was the fact; and this also is tacitly admitted. It may be that the reader of my essay might have been led to infer, from my silence† respecting the lease for lives, that the whole tithes were received by the Archdeacon; and I fully and candidly allow, that it would be a subject of regret to me had I any reason to believe that my The Editor has the names, &c., of both these livings in his possession. + Not from Mr. Johnes's silence only, (which, by the way, is bad enough,) but far more from his speaking marks of admiration, which are quite destructive to his present attempt to explain away what every one who read it could not but feel a serious charge on Archdeacon Jones.-ED. |