thus a "Church of Christ" retains in its bosom that which is confessedly irrational, inconsistent with Scripture, contradictory, absurd, subversive of the very genius and design of the gospel:-for what? Because the church is allied to the state; because it is a Religious Establishment. There is such an interest, an importance, an awfulness in these things, resulting both from their effects and the responsibility which they entail, that I would accumulate upon the general necessity for reformation some additional testimonies. In 1746 was presented to the convocation, "Free and Candid Disquisitions by Dutiful Sons of the Church," in which they say, "Our duty seems as clear as our obligations to it are cogent; and is, in one word, to reform." Of this book Archdeacon Blackburn tells us that it was treated with "much contempt and scorn by those who ought to have paid the greatest regard to the subject of it;" and that "it caused the forms of the church to be weighed in the balance of the sanctuary, where they have been found greatly wanting." our "Our confirmations, and I may add even ordinations for the sacred ministry, are dwindled into painful and disgusting ceremonies, as they are usually administered."† Another archdeacon, who was not only a friend of the church but a public advocate of religious establishments, says, "Reflection, we hope, in some, and time we are sure in all, will reconcile men to alterations established in reason. If there be any danger it is from some of the clergy, who would rather suffer the vineyard to be overgrown with weeds than stir the ground; or, what is worse, call these weeds the fairest flowers in the garden." This is strong language: that which succeeds is stronger still. "If we are to wait for improvement till the cool, the calm, the discreet part of mankind begin it; till church governors solicit, or ministers of state propose it, I will venture to pronounce, that (without His interposition with whom nothing is impossible) we may remain as we are till the renovation of all things." Why "church governors" and "ministers of state" should be so peculiarly backward to improve, is easily known. Ministers of state are more anxious for the consolidation of their power than for the amendment of churches; and church governors are more anxious to benefit themselves by consolidating that power, than to reform the system of which they are the heads. But let no man anticipate that we shall indeed remain as we are till the renovation of all things. The work will be done though these may refuse to do it. "If," says a statesman, "the friends of the church, instead of taking the lead in a mild reform of abuses, contend obstinately for their protection, and treat every man as an enemy who aims at reform, they will certainly be overpowered at last, and the correction applied by those who will apply it with no sparing hand."§ If these declarations be true (and who will even question their truth?) we may be allowed, without any pretensions to extraordinary sagacity, to add another: that to these unsparing correctors the work will assuredly be assigned. How infatuated, then, the policy of refusing reformation even if policy only were concerned ! The next point in which the effect of the state alliance is injurious to the church itself, is by its effects upon the ministry. It is manifest that where there are such powerful motives of interest to assume the ministerial office, and where there are such facilities for the admission of unfit men-unfit men will often be admitted. Human nature is very stationary; and kindred results arose very many centuries ago. "The attainments of the clergy in the first ages of the Anglo-Saxon church were very considerable. But a great and total degeneracy took place during the latter years of the Heptarchy, and for two generations after the union of its kingdoms." And why? Because “mere worldly views operated upon a great proportion of them; no other way of life offered so fair a prospect of power to the ambitious, of security to the prudent, of tranquillity and ease to the easy-minded." -Such views still operate, and they still produce kindred effects. It is manifest, that if men undertake the office of Christian teachers not from earnestness in the cause, but from the desire of profit or power or ease, the office will frequently be ill discharged. Persons who possess little of the Christian minister but the name, will undertake to guide the flock; and hence it is inevitable that the ministry, as a body, will become reduced in the scale of religious excellence. So habitual is the system of undertaking the office for the sake of its emoluments, that men have begun to avow the motive and to defend it." It is no reproach to the church to say that it is supplied with ministers by the emoluments it affords." Would it not have been a reproach to the first Christian churches, or could it have been said of them at all? Does he who enters the church for the sake of its advantages, enter it" of a ready mind?"-But the more lucra tive offices of the church are talked of with much familiarity as "prizes," much in the same manner as we talk of prizes in a lottery. "The same fund produces more effect-when distributed into prizes of different value than when divided into equal shares." This "effect" is described as being "both an allurement to men of talents to enter into the church, and as a stimulus to the industry of those who are already in it." But every man knows that talent and industry are not the only nor the chief things which obtain for a person the prizes of the church. There is more of accuracy in the parallel passage of another moralist. "The medical profes sion does not possess so many splendid prizes as the church and the bar, and on that account, perhaps, is rarely, if ever, pursued by young men of noble families." Here is the point: it is rather to noble families than to talent and industry, that the prizes are awarded. There are, indeed, rich preferments, but these, it is observed, do not usually fall to merit as the reward of it, but are lavished where interest and family connexion put in their irresistible claim." That plain-speaking man Bishop Warburton writes to his friend Hurd," Reckon upon it, that Durham goes to some noble ecclesiastic. 'Tis a morsel only for them." It is manifest that when this language can be appropriate, the office of the ministry must be dishonoured and abused. Respecting the priesthood, it is acknowledged that "the characters of men are formed much more by the temptations than the duties of their profession."** Since then the temptations are worldly, what is to be expected but that the character should be worldly too?-Nor would Southey: Book of the Church, c. 6. + Knox's Essays, No. 18. Knox's Essays, No. 53. Warburton's Letters to Hurd, No. 47. any thing be gained by the dexterous distinction that I have somewhere met with, that although the motive for "taking the oversight of the flock" be indeed lucre," yet it does not come under the apostolical definition of "filthy." Of the eventual consequences of thus introducing unqualified, and perhaps irreligious, nobles into the government of the church, Bishop Warburton speaks in strong language. "Our grandees have at last found their way back into the church. I only wonder they have been so long about it. But be assured that nothing but a new religious revolution, to sweep away the fragments that Harry the VIII. left after banqueting his courtiers, will drive them out again.' When that revolution shall come which will sweep away these prizes, it will prove not only to these but to other things to be a besom of destruction. If the fountain be bitter, the current cannot be sweet. The principles which too commonly operate upon the dignitaries of the church, descend, in some degree, to the inferior ranks. I say in some degree; for I do not believe that the degree is the same, or so great. Nor is it to be expected. The temptation which forms the character, is diminished in its power, and the character, therefore, may rise. I believe that (reverently be it spoken) through the goodness of God, there has been produced since the age of Hartley, a considerable improvement in the general character (at least of the inferior orders) of the English clergy. In observing the character which he exhibited, let it be remembered that that character was the legitimate offspring of the state religion. The subsequent amendment is the offspring of another, and a very different, and a purer parentage. "The superior clergy are in general ambitious, and eager in the pursuit of riches; flatterers of the great, and subservient to party interest; negligent of their own immediate charges, and also of the inferior clergy and their immediate charges. The inferior clergy imitate their superiors, and, in general, take little more care of their parishes than barely what is necessary to avoid the censures of the law. I say this is the general case; that is, far the greater part of the clergy of all ranks in this kingdom are of this kind." t-These miserable effects upon the character of the clergy are the effects of a Religious Establishment. If any man is unwilling to admit the truth, let him adduce the instance of an un stablished church, in the past eighteen hundred years, in which such a state of things has existed. Of the times of Gregory Nazianzen, Bishop Burnet says "The best men of that age, instead of pressing into orders or aspiring to them, fled from them, excused themselves, and judging themselves unworthy of so holy a character and so high a trust, were not without difficulty prevailed upon to submit to that which, in degenerate ages, men run to as a subsistence or the means of procuring it " It might almost be imagined that the right of private patronage was allowed for the express purpose of deteriorating the character of the ministers of religion-because it can hardly be supposed that any church would allow such a system without a perfect consciousness of its effects. To allow any man or woman, good or bad, who has money to • Warburton's Letters to Hurd, No. 47. Hartley Observations on man. care, 12th ed. p. 77. "Under Lanfranc's primacy no promotion in the church was to be obtained by purchase, neither was any unfit person raised to the episcopal rank," Southey: Book of the Church, chap. 7. spend, to purchase the power of assigning a Christian minister to a Christian flock, is one of those desperate follies and enormities which should never be spoken of but in the language of detestation and horror.* A man buys an advowson as he buys an estate, and for the same motives. He cares perhaps nothing for the religious consequences of his purchase, or for the religious assiduity of the person to whom he presents it. Nay, the case is worse than that of buying as you buy an estate; for land will not repay the occupier unless he cultivates it-but the living is just as profitable whether he exerts himself zealously or not. He who is unfit for the estate by want of industry or of talent, is nevertheless fit for the living! These are dreadful and detestable abuses. Christianity is not to be brought into juxtaposition with such things. It were almost a shame to allow a comparison. "Who is not aware that, in consequence of the prevalence of such a system, the holy things of God are often miserably profaned?"-" It is our firm persuasion, that the present system of bestowing church patronage is hastening the decay of morals, the progress of insubordination, and the downfall of the establishment itself. Morality and subordination have happily other supports: the fate of the establishment is sealed. I say sealed It cannot perpetually stand without thorough reformation; and it cannot be reformed while it remains an establishment. Another mode in which the state religion of England is injurious to the character of its ministers, is by its allowance and practical encouragement of non-residence and pluralities. These are the natural effects of the principles of the system. It is very possible that there should be a state religion without them; but if the alliance with the state is close -if a principal motive in the dispensation of benefices is the promotion of political purposes-if the prizes of the church are given where interest and family connexions put in their claim-it becomes extremely natural that several preferments should be bestowed upon one person. And when once this is countenanced or done by the state itself, inferior patrons will as naturally follow the example. The prelate who receives from the state three or four preferments, naturally gives to his son or his nephew three or four if he can. Pluralities and non-residence, whatever may be said in their favour by politicians or divines, will always shock the common sense and the virtue of mankind. Unhappily, they are evils which seem to have increased. Theodore, the seventh archbishop of Canterbury, restricted the bishops and secular clergy to their own dioceses;" and no longer ago than the reign of James I., "when pluralities were allowed, which was to be as seldom as possible, the livings were to be near each other." But now we hear of one dignitary who possesses ten different preferments, and of another who, with an annual ecclesiastical revenue of fifteen thousand pounds, did not see his diocese for many years together. § And as to that proximity of livings which was directed in James's time, they are now held in plurality not only at a distance from each other, but so as that the duties cannot be performed by one person. || * Upon such persons "rests the awful responsibility (I might almost call it the divine prerogative) of assigning a flock to the shepherd, and of selecting a shepherd for the flock." Gurney's Peculiarities, 3d. ed. p. 164. + Christian Observer, v. 20, p. 11. Southey: Book of the Church, c. 6. § For these examples see Simpson's Plea... I say nothing of present examples. Here it may be observed how imperfect is the argument (see Paley,) that a religious establishment does good by keeping an enlightened man in each parish. Mem. in the MS. L Of the moral character of this deplorable custom, it is not necessary that we should speak. "I do not enter," says an eminent prelate, "into the scandalous practices of non-residence and pluralities. This is so shameful a profanation of holy things, that it ought to be treated with detestation and horror." * Another friend of the church says, "He who grasps at the revenue of a benefice, and studies to evade the personal discharge of the various functions which that revenue is intended to reward, and the performance of those momentous duties to God and man, which, by accepting the living, he has undertaken, evinces either a most reprehensible neglect of proper consideration, or a callous depravity of heart." It may be believed that all are not thus depraved who accept pluralities without residence. Custom, although it does not alter the nature of actions, affects the character of the agent; and although I hold no man innocent in the sight of God who supports, in his example, this vicious practice, yet some may do it now with a less measure of guilt than that which would have attached to him who first, for the sake of money, introduced the scandal into the church. The public has now the means of knowing, by the returns to Parliament, the extent in which these scandalous customs exist an extent which, when it was first communicated to the Earl of Harrowby, "struck me," says he, "with surprise, I could almost say with horror." Alas, when temporal peers are horror-struck by the scandals that are tolerated and practised by their spiritual teachers! By one of these returns it appears that the whole number of places is ten thousand two hundred and sixty-one. Of the possessors of these livings, more than one half were non-resident. The number of residents was only four thousand four hundred and twenty-one. But the reader will perhaps say, What matters the residence of him who receives the money, so that a curate resides? Unfortunately, the proportion of absentee curates is still greater than that of incumbents. Out of three thousand six hundred and ninety-four who are employed, only one thousand five hundred and eighty-seven live in the parishes they serve; so that two thousand one hundred and seven parishes are left without even the residence of a curate. Besides this, there are nine hundred and seventy incumbents who neither live in their parishes themselves nor employ any curate at all! What is the result? That above one half of those who receive the stipends of the church, live away from their flocks; and that there are in this country three thousand and seventy-seven flocks amongst whom no shepherd is to be found!-When it is considered that all this is a gratuitous addition to the necessary evils of state religions, that there may be established churches without it, it speaks aloud of those mischiefs of our establishments which are peculiarly its own. One other consideration upon this subject remains. An internal discipline in a church, both over its ministers and its members, appears essential to the proper exercise of Christian duty. From what cause does it happen that there is little exercise of discipline, or none, in the church of England? The reader will perhaps answer the question to himself: "The exercise of efficient discipline in the church is impossible;" and he would answer truly. It is impossible. Who shall exercise it? The first Lord of the Treasury? He will not, and he cannot. The ⚫ Burnet: Hist. Own Times, v. 2, p. 646. Gisborne: Duties of Men, The diocese of St David's is not included, and the return includes some dignities, sinecures, and dilapidated churches. It cites that of 1810 I do not know but the details are substantially the same at the present time. Bench of Bishops? Alas! there is the origin of a great portion of the delinquency. If they were to establish a discipline, the first persons upon whom they must exercise it would be themselves. Who ever heard of persons, so situated, instituting or reestablishing a discipline in the church? Who then shall exercise it? The subordinate clergy? If they have the will, they have not the power; and if they had the power, who can hope that they would use it? Who can hope that, whilst above half of these clergy are non-residents, they will erect a discipline by which residence shall be enforced?- I say, discipline, efficient discipline is impossible; and 1 submit it to the reader whether any Establishment in which Christian Discipline is impossible, is not essentially bad. From the contemplation of these effects of the English establishment upon its formularies, its ministers, and its discipline, we must turn to its effects generally upon the religious welfare of the people. This welfare is so involved with the general character of the establishment and its ministers, that to exhibit an evil in one is to illustrate an injury to the other. If the operation of the state religion prevents ministers from inculcating some portions of divine truth, its operation must indeed be bad. And how stands the fact? "Aspiring clergymen, wishing to avoid every doctrine which would retard their advancement, were very little inclined to preach the reality or necessity of divine influence."* The evil which this indicates is twofold: first, the vicious state of the heads of the church; for why else should "advancement" be refused to those who preached the doctrine of the gospel;-and next, the injury to religion; for religion must needs be injured if a por 66 tion of its truths are concealed. Another quotation virtue, learning, and apparent piety, feared to preach gives a similar account: Regular divines of great the Holy Ghost and his operations, the main doctrines of the Gospel, lest they should countenance the puritan, the quaker, or the methodist, and lose the esteem of their own order or of the higher powers." Did Paul or Barnabas ever "fear to preach the main doctrines of the gospel" from considerations like these, or from any considerations whatever? Did our Lord approve or tolerate such fear when he threatened with punishment any man who should take away from the words of his book! But why again should the clerical order or the higher powers disesteem the man who preached the main doctrines of the gospel, unless it were from motives of interest founded in the establishment? And thus it is, that they who are assumed to be the religious leaders of the people, who ought, so far as is in their power, to guide the people into all truth, conceal a portion of that truth from motives of interest! If this concealment is practised by men of great virtue, learning, and apparent piety, what are we to expect in the indifferent or the bad! We are to expect that not one but many doctrines of the gospel will be concealed. We are to expect that discourses not very different from those which Socrates might have delivered will be dispensed, instead of the whole counsel of God. What has been the fact? Of" moral preaching," Bishop Lavington says, "We have long been attempting the reformation of the nation by discourses of this kind. With what success? None at all. On the contrary, we have dexterously preached the people into downright infidelity." Will any man affirm that this has not been the consequence of the state religion? Will • Vicessimus Knox: Christian Philosophy, 3d edition, p. 24. + Id. p. 23. any man, knowing this, affirm that a state religion is right or useful to Christianity? But as to the tendency of the system to diffuse infidelity, we are not possessed of the testimony of Bishop Lavington alone. "It is evident that the worldly-mindedness and neglect of duty in the clergy, is a great scandal to religion, and cause of infidelity." Again: "Who is to blame for the spread of infidelity? The bishops and clergy of the land more than any other people in it. We, as a body of men, are almost solely and exclusively culpable."† Ostervald, in his "Treatise concerning the Causes of the present Corruption of Christians,' makes the same remark of the clergy of other churches ;-" The cause of the corruption of Christians is chiefly to be found in the clergy." Now, supposing this to be the language of exaggeration supposing that they corrupt Christians only as much as men who make no peculiar pretensions to religion -how can such a fact be accounted for, but by the conclusion that there is something corrupting in the clerical system? The refusal to amend the constitution or formularies of the church, is another powerful cause of injury to religion. Of one particular article-the Athanasian creed a friend of the church, and one who mixed with the world, says, "I really believe that creed has made more deists than all the writings of all the oppugners of Christianity, since it was first unfortunately adopted in our liturgy." Would this deist-making document have been retained till now if the church were not allied to the state?Bishop Watson uses language so unsparing, that, just and true as it is, I know not whether I would cite it from any other pen than a bishop's: "A motley monster of bigotry and superstition-a scareerow of shreds and patches, dressed up of old by philosophers and popes to amuse the speculative, and to affright the ignorant." Do I quote this because it is the unsparing language of truth? No; but because of that which succeeds it: "Now," says the bishop, "a butt of scorn, against which every unfledged witling of the age essays his wanton efforts, and, before he has learned his catechism, is fixed an infidel for life! This I am persuaded is too frequently the case, for I have had too frequent opportunities to observe it."§ If, by the church as it subsists, many are fixed infidels for life, how diffusively must be spread that minor, but yet practical disrespect for religion, which, though it amounts not to infidelity, makes religion an unoperative thing -unoperative upon the conduct and the heart unoperative in animating the love and hope of the Christian-unoperative in supporting under affliction, and in smoothing and brightening the pathway to the grave! To these minor consequences also we have unambiguous testimony: "Where there is not this open and shameless disavowal of religion, few traces of it are to be found. Improving in every other branch of knowledge, we have become less and less acquainted with Christianity."||—“Two-thirds of the lower order of people in London," says Sir Thomas Bernard, "live as utterly ignorant of the doctrines and duties of Christianity, and are as errant and unconverted pagans, as if they had existed in the wildest part of Africa."-" The case," continues the Quarterly Review, "is the same in Manchester, Leeds, Bristol, Sheffield, and in all our large towns. The greatest part of the manufacturing populace, Hartley Observations on Man. + Simpson's Plea, 3d edit. p. 76. Observations on the Liturgy, by an Under Secretary of of the miners, and colliers, are in the same condition; and if they are not universally so, it is more owing to the zeal of the methodists than to any other cause." How is it accounted for, that in a country in which a teacher is appointed to diffuse Christianity in every parish, a considerable part of the population are confessed to be absolute pagans ? How, especially, is it accounted for, that the few who are reclaimed from paganism, are reclaimed, not by the established, but by an unestablished church? It is not difficult to account for all this, if the condition of the established church is such as to make what follows the flippant language of a clergyman who afterwards was a bishop: "The person I engaged in the summer," as a curate, "is run away; as you will think natural enough, when I tell you he was let out of jail to be promoted to this service."† The ill effect of non-residence upon the general interests of religion is necessarily great. A conscientious clergyman finds that the offices of his pulpit are not the half of his business: he finds that he can often do more in promoting the religious welfare of his parishioners out of his pulpit than in it. It is out of his pulpit that he evinces and exercises the most unequivocal affection for his charge; that he encourages or warns as individuals have need; that he animates by the presence of his constant example; that he consoles them in their troubles; that he adjusts their disagreements; that he assists them by his advice. It is by living amongst them, and by that alone, that he can be "instant in season, and out of season," or that he can fulfil the duties which his station involves. prodigious, then, must be the sum of mischief which the non-residence of three thousand clergymen in. flicts upon religion! How yet more prodigious must be the sum of mischief which results from that negligence of duty of which non-residence is but one effect! Yet all this is occasioned by our reli. gious establishment. "The total absence of nonresidence and pluralities in the Church of Scotland, and the annual examination of all the inhabitants of the parish by its minister, are circumstances highly advantageous to religion." How The minister in the English Church is under pe. culiar disadvantages in enforcing the truths or the duties of religion upon irreligious or sceptical men. Many of the topics which such men urge are di rected, not against Christianity, but against that exhibition of Christianity which is afforded by the church. It has been seen that this is the cause of infidelity. How then shail the established clergyman efficiently defend our religion He may indeed confine himself fo the vindication of Christianity without reference to a church; but then he does not defend that exhibition of Christianity which his own church affords. The sceptic presses him with those things which it is confessed are wrong. He must either defend them, or give them up as indefensible. If he defends them, he confirms the sceptic in his unbelief; if he gives them up, he declares not only that the church is in the wrong, but that himself is in the wrong too; and in either case, his fitness for an advocate of our religion is impaired. Hitherto, I have enforced the observations of this chapter by the authority of others. Now, I have to appeal for confirmation to the experience of the reader himself. That peculiar mode of injury to the cause of virtue, of which I speak, has received its most extensive illustrations during the present century; and it has hitherto, perhaps, been • Quarterly Review, April 1816, p. 233. + Letters between Bishop Warburton and Bishop Hurd. Gisborne: Duties of Men. the subject rather of private remark than of public disquisition. I refer to a sort of instinctive recoil from new measures that are designed to promote the intellectual, the moral, or the religious improvement of the public. I appeal to the experience of those philanthropic men who spend their time either in their own neighbourhoods, or in "going about doing good," whether they do not meet with a greater degree of this recoil from works of philanthropy, amongst the teachers and members of the state religion than amongst other men-and whether this recoil is not the strongest amongst that portion who are reputed to be the most zealous friends of the church. Has not this been your experience with respect to the Slave Trade and to Slavery-with respect to the education of the people -with respect to scientific or literary institutions for the labouring ranks-with respect to sending preachers to pagan countries-with respect to the Bible Society? Is it not familiar to you to be in doubt and apprehension respecting the assistance of these members of the establishment, when you have no fear and no doubt of the assistance of other Christians? Do you not call upon others, and invite their co-operation with confidence? Do you not call upon these with distrust, and is not that distrust the result of your previous experience? Take, for example, that very simple institution, the Bible Society—simple, because its only object is, to distribute the authorized records of the dispensations of God. It is an institution upon which it may be almost said, that but one opinion is entertained that of its great utility: but one desire is felt that of co-operation, except by the members of established churches. From this institution the most zealous advocates of the English church stand aloof. Whilst Christians of other names are friendly almost to a man, the proportion is very large of those churchmen who show no friendliness. It were to no purpose to say that they have claims peculiarly upon themselves, for so have other Christians -claims which generally are complied with to a greater extent. Besides, it is obvious that these claims are not the grounds of the conduct that we deplore. If they were, we should still possess the cordial approbation of these persons-their personal, if not their pecuniary support. From such persons silence and absence are positive discouragement. How then are we to account for the phenomenon? By the operation of a state religion. For when our philanthropist applies to the members of another church, their only question perhaps is, Will the projected institution be useful to mankind? But when he applies to such a member of the state religion, he considers, How will it affect the establishment? Will it increase the influence of dissenters? prudent" not to encourage the proposition. It should be remarked too, as an additional indication of the cause of this recoil from works of goodness, that where the genius of the state religion is most influential, there is commonly the greatest backwardness in works of mental and religious philanthropy. The places of peculiar frigidity are the places in which there are the greatest number of the dignitaries of the church. Thus it is that the melioration of mankind is continually and greatly impeded, by the workings of an institution of which the express design is to extend the influence of religion and morality. Greatly impeded: for England is one of the principal sources of the current of human improvement, and in England the influence of this institution is great. These are fruits which are not borne by good and healthy trees. How can the tree be good of which these are the fruits? Are these fruits the result of episcopacy? No, but of episcopacy wedded to the state. Were this union dissolved, (and the parties are not of that number whom God hath joined,) not only would human reformation go forward with an accelerated pace, but episcopalianism itself would in some degree arise and shake herself as from the dust of the earth. She would find that her political alliance has bound around her glittering but yet enslaving chains chains which, hugged and cherished as they are, have ever fixed her, and ever will fix her, to the earth, and make her earthly. The mode in which the legal provision for the ministry is made in this country, contains, like many other parts of the institution, evils superadded to those which are necessarily incidental to a state religion. If there be any one thing which, more than another, ought to prevail between a Christian minister and those whom he teaches, it is harmony and kindliness of feeling: and this kindliness and harmony is peculiarly diminished by the system of Tithes. There is no circumstance which so often "disturbs the harmony that should ever subsist between a clergyman and his parishioners as contentions respecting tithes.”* Vicessimus Knox goes further: "One great cause of the clergy s losing their influence is, that the laity in this age of scepticism grudge them their tithes. The decay of religion and the contempt of the clergy arise in a great measure from this source." What advantages can compensate for the contempt of Christian ministers and the decay of religion? Or who does not perceive that a legal provision might be made which would be productive, so far as the new system of itself was concerned, of fewer evils?-Of the political ill consequences of the tithe system I say nothing here. If they were much less than they are, or if they did not exist at all, there is sufficient evidence against the system in its moral effects. It is well known, and the fact is very creditable, that the clergy exact tithes with much less rigour, and consequently occasion far fewer heartburnings, than lay claimants. The want of cordiality often results, too, from the cupidity of the payers, who invent vexatious excuses to avoid payment of the whole claim, and are on the alert to take disreputable advantages. But to the conclusions of the Christian moralist it matters little by what agency a bad system operates. The principal point of his attention is the system itself. If it be bad, it will be sure to find agents by whom its pernicious principles will be elicited and brought into practical operation. It is therefore no extenuation of the system, that the clergy frequently do not disagree with their parishioners whilst it is a part of the system that Tithes are sold, and sold to him, of whatever character, who will give most for them-he will endeavour to make the most of them again. So that the evils which result from the Tithe system, although they are not chargeable upon religious establishments, are chargeable upon our own, and are an evidence against it. The animosities which Tithe farmers occasion are attributable to the Tithe system. Ordinary men do not make nice discriminations. He who is angry with the Tithe farmer is angry with the rector, who puts the power of vexation into his hands, and he who is out of temper with the teacher of religion loses some of his complacency in religion itself. You |