*

it appears, from Anglo-Saxon historians, that, after the liberality displayed on the first promulgation of the gospel, there was, at times, a certain falling away from that spirit, it was deemed necessary that the due repairs and services of the church should not depend upon uncertain contributions; and therefore a direct tax was imposed by Ina for that purpose, nearly three hundred years before the parochial allotment of tithes. The origin and working of what is called the fourfold system may be traced in our early writers: it was the custom with a part of the Roman church to make that division at the time of Austin's mission to England; it was the law in France, Germany, and Spain; and when Austin, with his collegiate society of priests, preached the gospel in Canterbury and the neighbouring country, they found the Anglo-Saxons not deficient in those generous feelings which the gospel everywhere called forth, on its first publication, towards both the ministers and members of the church. (2 Cor. viii. 1, 7; xi. 9; Phil. iv. 10; Gal. iv. 15; Acts, ii. 45; xi. 29, &c.) The voluntary gifts of the converts formed a superabundant supply for the bishop and his priests, who lived in a frugal style, and had all things common. Austin, therefore, wrote to Rome for instructions how to dispose of his collections: "Into how many portions are the offerings at the altar to be divided ?" In reply, Gregory said, it is customary with the church to divide the OFFERINGS into four parts: one to the bishop, one to the clergy, one to the poor, and one to church repairs. Now it is a fact to be observed, that nothing is here said of tithes; the funds in question were the accumulated offerings at the altar. [Gregory, too, expressly recognises the fact that this was not the custom in England, and therefore he does not enforce it.-ED.] The analogy of modern times is, therefore, not afforded in the legal title to tithes, but in the eleemosynary offerings at the altar; concerning which the present practice is to distribute the entire collection amongst the poor; at the same time that nearly (and in some instances more than) one fourth of the tithes is paid to the support of the poor, in the shape of a compulsory rate, exclusive of what is freely bestowed to the schools and other parochial charities, which are chiefly originated and supported by the clergy; wherefore, as regards the established church, the fourfold division affords no parallel for modern times.

Having thus shewn that the fourfold division only extended to the voluntary system, (which, at one time, included tithes,) and therefore must now be looked for, if anywhere, from the ministers of voluntary churches-who, extremely liberal in certain theories, have never, that I have heard or read, been the practical patrons of this mode of partitioning the receipts of quarter day, and to whom it might here be sug

The mode of living here adopted by Austin and his clergy, gives the infant model of our cathedral establishments, in which the fourfold division still prevails. The bishops and the chapters are possessors of property voluntarily bestowed upon their sees, and accumulated through many ages by the munificence of private individuals. From their voluntary offerings, the bishops and clergy are maintained, the repairs and services of the cathedrals provided for, and, directly and indirectly, a very large fourth goes to the poor.

gested, "to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin," I proceed to ascertain how far the term illegal will apply to church-rates :

A.D. 693. Ina, king of the West Saxons, enacted, in a legislative assembly, that church-scot should be paid according to a regular assessment; defaulters to be fined forty shillings, and pay church-scot twelve-fold.

A.D. 844. Ethelwolf summoned a parliament at Winchester, and made a solemn grant to the church of all the tithes of crown lands, free from all taxes and impositions.

A.D. 928. Athelstan held a parliament at Grateley, which passed an act to give the tithes of the whole kingdom to the clergy; and by a separate decree ordered the payment of church-scot.

A.D. 948. Edmund held a legislative assembly in London, in which tithes and church-scot were recognised as distinct claims, and confirmed accordingly.

A.D. 969. Edgar held a legislative assembly at Andover, which, enforcing parochial limitations, re-enacted tithes and church-scot.

A.D. 103. Canute assembled a parliament at Winchester, which, having confirmed the statutes of Edgar, declares that, independent of tithe, all people are bound by right to assist in repairing the churches.

The Norman conquest did not at all disturb the legal position of the church; the clergy were now become wealthy, and all, and more than all, just and reasonable dues were cheerfully rendered.

A.D. 1215. Magna Charta confirmed to the church all her rights and privileges.

A.D. 1305. A dispute having arisen between certain clergy and their parishioners, as to the division of expenses for church repairs, vestments, and other requisites for public worship, it was decided, that the rectors were to keep the chancels in repair; but that the repairs of the body of the church, vestments, and all other requisites for public service, were to be provided by the parishioners.

A.D. 1450 (about). Lyndwood says, common law transferreth the burden of the reparation of the body of the church on the parishioners. At the Reformation, and so late as 1552, violent hands were laid upon an immense portion of the property of the church, as Lord John Russell can testify from his family archives; but the laws of tithe and of church-rate underwent no change. During the great rebellion, the establishment passed from the episcopalians to the presbyterians, and from them to the independents; and, strange to say, tithes, though threatened, were never abolished, and church-rates never thought of: so that, through all that stormy period, they retained their position on the statute-book, even though the independents gained for a time the ascendancy, and with that were well contented to take all the advantage they could of all dues and endowments. A few years after tranquillity was restored, Chief Justice Holt decided in court that, "by the common law of the land the parishioners of every parish are bound to repair the church." I am not aware that during the last century the payment of church-rates was ever seriously disputed. Certainly, no alteration was made in the law laid down as above by Lord Chief

Justice Holt. We therefore find, on examination, that, nearly a thousand years before the rise of modern dissenters, there was a legal establishment of church-rates recognised and confirmed by the legislature in its public acts, at various intervals, and that it reached through a period of twelve hundred years; wherefore, if any payments stand above the charge of vexatious and illegal, church-rates may fairly rank in the foremost place. That they are not illegal is sufficiently proved by the agitation now going on to force upon the government a law for their abolition; but having cast aside the restraints of principle-having joined in close alliance with papists and infidels the political dissenters care not what desperate plunges they make. They disturb the waters, but they communicate to them no healing powers. It is not, however, for the turbid streams of ignorance and hypocrisy to wash away the foundation of a scriptural church. The terms "ignorance and hypocrisy" are strong, but are they not strictly applicable to those who make a plea of conscience to excite universal discontent, when, by the example and precepts of Christ and the apostles, conscience should bind them to follow after peace? Are not those worse than ignorant who, by bold declamation, endeavour to represent as illegal a payment which the laws have recognised and enforced for twelve hundred years, through every change of government, civil and ecclesiastical? The dissenters may exclaim against all such sweeping accusations; for they who throw their firebrands about in sport, are exceedingly inflammable if a spark fall on their own heads. These charges are forced from us; we make them not willingly, but of necessity. They are directed against the overt acts of a party-not against individuals, least of all against the truly conscientious, whatever be the mode of worship which they hold most acceptable to their Lord; but the promulgation of principles founded upon bold and erroneous assertions, and, in their immediate effect, widely destructive of social happiness, is to be firmly and promptly met. No matter how specious and smooth some of the theories may be, if false let them be exposed, and let the shame and the reproach rest where they are deserved. The spurious liberality which hesitates to denounce the ignorance and the scurrilities of an active political body, carrying on their operations under the cloke of religion, is only rewarded with more hardihood of abuse, with more recklessness of argument. The language from many dissenting pulpits*-the speeches of their ministers and laity at their public meetings are so utterly at variance with His precepts who taught, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another," that we cannot but reject their pretensions as a religious body. It is therefore against a political party, whose language and conduct prove that religion cannot be their object, nor

* Most of the published sermons of dissenters confirm this statement; and a friend of the writer was, a short time since, informed by one of the higher class among the dissenters, that she had lately been driven from the meeting, which she had long attended, by the repeated attacks made from the pulpit on the church of England. These unchristian sallies have had the effect of converting this individual which, whatever be its faults, does not its pulpits a medium of slander.

church

a sound conscience their guide, that these remarks are penned. The highest is said to be the turning point; may it prove so with the dissenters. They have now attained all, and more than all, that their forefathers ever required there is neither ban nor proscription, let nor hindrance, remaining. The standard of civil and religious liberty' waves over every chapel and meeting in Great Britain, and it is not the hand of the churchman that is stretched forth to pluck it down. It was, therefore, to be hoped that the dissenters, having reached the summit of their desires, had also attained the full height of their uncharitableness; and that, excited and wearied with the toilsome ascent, they would pause a while to inhale the air of freedom, and of goodwill, and, descending again into milder regions, would be renewed in the spirit of their minds, and display something of that charity which envieth not-vaunteth not itself-thinketh no ill. This hope has, in some instances, been realized. The Wesleyans generally, and individuals of other denominations, have been influenced by good feeling, and have expressed themselves in strong terms of disapprobation of the language and conduct of the political agitators, who, jumbling together papists, Socinians, infidels, and revolutionists, call themselves dissenters. We have no desire to pick a quarrel with these parties. Our business is with friends, to warn them of the spirit which is abroad, and to supply them with such facts as may give a better insight into the nature of the controversy, and preserve them from the arguments of those who

"Clamour in the throng

Loquacious, loud, and turbulent of tongue,
Awed by no shame-by no respect controlled-
In scandal busy-in reproaches bold."

THE TITHE BILL.

It is understood, and from good authority, that the principle which is laid down for working this Bill, as to the sum to be put down as the 'equivalent' for rates, is what it ought to be, and what this Magazine has contended for all along. The inquiry is to be what sum has actually been paid for the last seven years, and this is the sum which, very rightly and in consistency with the rest of the bill, is to be adopted as the equivalent. This makes it unnecessary to use the excellent letter referred to in the Notices to Correspondents last month.

This, it is understood, has been the answer given by the Tithe Commissioners to those who have consulted them in the progress of Voluntary Commutation; and it does away with one of the difficulties (suggested in former Nos.) in the way of attempting them.

THE ERRORS OR UNFAIRNESS OF DR. WISEMAN.

arol DEAR SIR,-Dr. Wiseman is not more to be trusted in quoting the Fathers than in treating of the English Church. In the eighth Lecture of his series on the Catholic (R. C.) Church, he treats especially of

the pope's supremacy. As the first step of his reasoning, it was necessary, of course, to shew that St. Peter was bishop of Rome, in the ordinary sense of the word.

In attempting this, he asserts, that "authors of the highest literary eminence, and remarkable for their opposition to the supremacy of the Roman see, such as Cave, Pearson, Ussher, Young, and Blondel, have both acknowledged and supported it." p. 278.

He also cites several of the fathers to shew the primitive and admitted supremacy of Rome, founded on the episcopate of St. Peter, and his pre-eminence of authority among the apostles. I send you a sample of Dr. Wiseman's accuracy.

The first witness is Cave, who shall speak for himself.

"To conclude at last this dissertation, it is not without reason to be doubted whether Peter ought properly to be called bishop of Rome. That in a certain laxer sense, he may, indeed, be called so, inasmuch as he founded that church, and made it illustrious by his martyrdom, all, both the older and more recent authorities, will confess, I think, with me. But that he was fixed in the Roman chair as restricted (peculiarem) bishop, the very nature of the apostolic office will hardly suffer. Irenæus the first, who handed down the succession of the Roman bishops, thus speaks: The blessed apostles, (Peter and Paul,) founded and built the church, and delivered the episcopal office to Linus.' So writes Eusebius, after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, the first that received the bishopric of the Roman Church was Linus. Moreover, those of the old authorities that assign the bishopric of Rome to Peter, acknowledge that Paul was joined with him in the common labour and administration; and ever ascribed to him the privilege of the same dignity and the same charge with Peter, both in founding and governing the church of Rome. Let Epiphanius, who had examined the archives of the church very diligently, speak for all:-In Rome, the apostles Peter and Paul were themselves bishops, then Linus,' &c. And, presently after, the succession of the bishops of Rome is in this order, Peter and Paul, Linus, &c.;' and others say the same, did I wish to spend time in citing them.". Historia Litteraria, in voc. Petrus, sect. xi.

For the same assertion, and a refutation of the fable of St. Peter's twenty-five years' episcopate at Rome, see Cave's Life of Peter, sect. xi. 6, and xii. 14.

This co-equality of episcopal rank with St. Paul is not exactly what Dr. Wiseman wishes to exhibit; and his first witness proves too much for the case.

So does the second, Bishop Pearson.

"Irenæus, from whom first we received the table of the Roman succession, fetches its origin at once from the two apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul. For thus he writes:-'OEμewσavтeç K. T.λ. (as above) having founded, &c." So Epiphanius records the Roman succession, “ ἐν Ρωμῇ γὰρ γεγονασι, κ. τ. λ. In Rome, the apostles, &c.' (as above.) And a little after "the succession of the Roman bishops is in this order: Peter and Paul, Linus, &c. So Irenæus says that Hyginus had the ninth place in the bishopric by succession from