istence of tithes, usually speak of them as if the whole went to the support of the Established Church; but, the fact is, I believe, that less than one-half of them are applied to that purpose, and that the rest are the property of lay persons, as much as land or house is their property. TRANQUILLUs must know many instances of this sort, I am sure. He must know instances of laymen, very worthy men, and even of Dissenters, and, perhaps, of Unitarians, who are the proprietors of tithes, and who make the most of them too, as well as the parsons. Let me ask TRANQUILLUS what he would wish to have done in such cases? Come, let me thrust it home to him; would he deny the right of an Unitarian proprietor to his tithes? If he would not, with what justice does he deny the right of the clerical proprietor, whose title rests upon a less disputable foundation, if possible, than that of the Unitarian?In order to get out of this difficulty; in order to avoid, on the one hand, giving support to the Church, and, on the other, the laying of violent hands upon property, he would, according to the vulgar notion, abolish all tithes, giving, through the means of a general tax, the Unitarian, or other lay proprietor, a compensation for his tithes, and leaving the clergy to be supported by the voluntary contribution of their followers. Perhaps his justice would lead him so far as to give the latter, during the lives of the present incumbents, a stipend out of the national revenues. But, does he suppose, that the nation at large would be such fools as to acquiesce in a measure so flagrantly unjust as either of these would be? Does he suppose, that those who might remain attached to the Doctrines and Worship of the Church, would be content to pay their pastors out of their own pockets solely for the purpose of relieving the land-proprietor from the expense of paying them? Does he suppose, that people would consent to pay taxes upon income, upon soap, upon salt, upon windows, &c. in order that the Unitarian or other lay proprietor of tithes might receive

to dissenters, who are, ninety-nine out of every hundred, of that class called the poor. Out of the 11,000, or thereabouts, church livings in England and Wales, more than 6,000 are the property of individuals, and, in most cases, of those who own a great part of the soil as well as the living. This fact alone serves to shew how comparatively trifling the landed possessions of dissenters must be; and, at the same time, to shew, that a very large portion of the land-proprietors are, in fact, the proprietors of the tithes, seeing that they may give them away if they please, or sell the reversion of them to the highest bidder.. -But, be it in ever so small a degree, Dissenters, he says, ought not to contribute to the support of the Church. There might be some reason in this, if the Church were supported by a tax, collected from individuals out of their earnings or incomes. But, he means not this; for he objects to their yielding part of the produce of their fields, gardens, herds, flocks, and poultry; and, of course, he objects to their paying tithes, because they are dissenters. How many farmers or landproprietors would not become dissenters, if his principle were to become law, I shall not pretend to say; but, this I know, that he proceeds wholly upon a wrong idea of the nature and effect of tithes. He evidently regards them as a mode of contribution to support the clergy, originating voluntarily on the part of some of the people, who have now compelled the rest to join in that contribution. Whereas the tithes are real property as much as the land itself; the right to them descends along with the right to the land, and the title of their owner is, in general, much safer than that of the owner of the land can possibly be, because it rests upon unwritten law, and requires no parchments to prove its origin. We need not here go into any inquiry as to the origin of tithes. It is sufficient for our purpose to know, that, at some period, the land became charged with them for the support of an Established Church. Those who now hold the lands, hold them either by descent from the first grantors of the tithes, or by purchase or gift. If by de-a compensation, or that the clergy might scent, they cannot claim any exemption from the charge, nor, surely, can they, if by purchase or by gift. In every case they received the lands with the charge upon them, and have no more reason to complain of the tithe than a man would have to complain of a ground-rent, who should pur chase a house with such a charge upon it. -Those, who complain against the ex

receive a stipend in lieu of those tithes which they now receive from the land proprietors in general? But, come, TRANQUILLUS: let us suppose, that, at one and the same moment, the tithes were to be abolished along with every thing and notion belonging to what has been called religion, or, which is about the same thing, suppose the tithes to be abolished and all of us

to become Unitarians, and that no com-
pensation or provision were to be made for
the Clergy. What would the land-pro-
prietor get by it? Suppose yourself a land-
proprietor and your tithes to amount to
£100 a year. Do you imagine that the
rest of the parish would suffer you to gain
that £100 by the change? If they were
to do it, they would be most egregious
fools. What benefit would they, in that
case, derive from the change? They, as
far as tithes went, would have made a re-
volution for your sole advantage. They
would merely have taken from the parson
£100 a year, part of which, at least, he
spent in the parish, to put it into your
pocket to enable you to lounge your time" word of God," how am I to conceive
away in London or at Bath.- -No, no. that it is possible for them to have any of
That would not be the way of proceeding. the imperfections of which you speak? You
They would say, that you ought not to be say, that I should not treat any other pub-
the sole gainer by this change of religion.lication so unfairly. I trust that I am not
That the whole community ought to share in disposed to treat any publication unfairly;
it. They would value your tithes; they but, certainly, I should not treat any other
would then compute the fee-simple of them publication in the same way, unless I were
at about thirty-two years' purchase; they to see another that was called "the word
would call upon you to purchase them of" of God;" and then I should either be-
the public at that rate, and, if you refused, lieve that other publication to be all true,
they would sell them to your neighbour. or a fiction from one end to the other.
-To believe, that you would be able to What do you mean, Sir, by an old book
avoid consequences like these, requires faith. . . . about making allowances for the time
nearly as strong as it does to make a man a when it was written. ... about the pre-
sincere Trinitarian.-If, then, it be ob- judices of the writer. ... the idiom of the
vious, as I think it is, that you would gain language.... the figurative allusions....
nothing at all by the total abolition of and about other defects to which old writ-
tithes, what reason can you have to com- ings are liable? What! were not the
plain of the hardship of yielding them? writers inspired, and did not they write under
the direction of God! Allowances! Talk
to me of allowances where God is the dic-
tator! What have I to do with comparing
and expounding? I must believe the whole,
or none of it.- -So, if there be any part
of Scripture that I do not find compatible
with other parts, in my view of the matter,
I am to reject it as spurious. Upon my
word this is giving us a pretty good lati-
tude. At this rate the thief may reject
the commandment that forbids him to steal,
and I am afraid, that most of the decalogue
would find numerous persons to declare it
spurious. The short and long of the
matter comes to this at last: Are the Old
and New Testaments "the word of God,"
or are they not? Will you, in your next
letter, be so kind as to answer me that
question distinctly? I beg you to do it
distinctly, or else we shall never get on.

"truth, or every part of it a lie." I will.
not say lie; but put fiction in the room
of that word, and I say amen to your
statement. I do call the history of Tom
Jones lies. Lies are wicked falsehoods. I
call it what it is, a fiction, and a very
pleasing and useful fiction, being very
sorry that I cannot say as much of all other
fictions. The "Spirit of the Book," is a
fiction; but, being meant to deceive the
public as to facts in real life, it is wickedly
false, and, therefore, a tissue of lies.
Well, then, I do say, that I take up the
two testaments with the previous determi-
nation that you mention; and well I may,
for, if I am to look upon them as "the

-If, indeed, you proposed that every land-proprietor should yield tithes to a priest of his own sect, and not to the priests of another, there might be something like reason in your complaint, if common sense did not instantly rush forward and tell you that every land proprietor would, in that case, be, from day to day, changing his sect and his priest; and, in short, that any way of getting rid of tithes, other than the one pointed out and traced into practice as above, must be utterly impracticable, without a total annihilation of all the laws and all the notions relating to property.

Now, Sir, as to your SECOND proposition, namely; that we are to judge of the contents of the Scriptures, as we do of other books, receiving or rejecting as our reason guides us, it is manifest, that you could not avoid this assertion, without admitting, that I was right. You complain, that I take up the Bible with a previous determination, to believe all, and every word of it, to be true, and inspired

-I beg your pardon for introducing here an observation on the letter of the "Freethinking Christian," who, in speaking of the Incarnation, says, that "this story is

"no where to be found in the Scriptures, | belief, and other things, in that strain,

own;

the

"except in the two spurious chapters of
"Matthew and Luke.' He, you see, has
named some of what he calls the spurious
parts. This, like Lord Peter's, in the Tale
of a Tub, is a very short way of settling a
disputed point. His Lordship, when it
was discovered that all the letters except
K were to be found in the Will, in order
to make out the words "Shoulder Knot,"
said, that knot ought to be spelled with a
C, instead of a K, and that, in future,
he would take care that such should be the
orthography.Upon what authority does
this man deny the genuineness of those two
chapters, which, in the most plain and po-
sitive terms, gives the account of the In-
carnatiou? He has no authority but his
he cites no authority; all is his own
bare assertion and conjecture. He has an
opinion to maintain, and, therefore, he
gives the lie direct to all that makes against
it. But, if men are to treat the Scrip-
tures in this way; if they are to say, this
is spurious and that is spurious; that is to
say, false, and even falsehood hatched for
if we are to be told by TRAN-
purpose;
QUILLUS, that these writings abound in
corruptions and defects, what are those
about, who, under the name of "Bible
"Societies,' are taking so much pains to
spread these writings amongst the most illi-
terate part of the people?-
of the people?If this is the
way, in which the Bible is to be treated,
those Gentlemen ought to begin to consider
what they are at. Nor is the matter un-
worthy of the attention of those rival bo-
dies, the Lancasterians and the Bellites,
both of whom, I believe, insist upon the
reading of the Bible. They would do well
to apply, in time, to my friend TRANQUIL-
LUS and the Freethinking Christian, in or-
der to obtain a correct version of the Scrip-
tures, before they go any further in spread-
ing them abroad. If the little Lancasterians
are told, that two of the Chapters of Mat-
thew and Luke are spurious, how are they
to know, that the ten commandments are
not spurious? In short, if they were made
to believe these chapters to be a mere fic-
tion, is it agreeable to common sense to
suppose, that they would put confidence in
any part of the whole Book?-For my
part, I will not go an inch further in the
dispute with any one, until he gives me an
explicit answer to this question:-Are the
Scriptures the Word of God? When I
have that answer, I know what to do. I
know my ground; but, with a disputant,
who talks about his christianity, and his

Dilcounts.

and who, when I cite a passage against him, answers me by calling the passage spurious, I can carry on no controversy; with a man, who like the anonymous writer abovementioned, talks of corruptions, "forgeries, lies, and impious inventions," as making part of what we, of the Church, deem the word of God, I can have no dispute; and, I really am astonished at the impudence of the man, who can affect to treat as infidels those who avow that they believe not a single word of the whole of that Book, part of which he describes in such terms of abuse.

The 3rd proposition of TRANQUILLUS, namely, that it is not sound reasoning to say, that, because the whole of the penal statutes on the subject of religion are not repealed, a part ought not to be repealed, And,

shall now proceed to answer. here, as well as in other places, I have, I think, a right to complain, that he makes no attempt to prove his assertion to be true. Nothing can be more easy than to contradict people without giving any reasons for the contradiction. Besides, I gave reasons for my objection to a partial repeal of these statutes; and, it became my adversary to state, to meet, to face, to combat, to overset those reasons, before he came to a conclusion the opposite of mine. I am not called upon to reply to his contradiction, because he has left my reasons untouched; but, it being of some consequence to me to be clearly understood upon the subjects of toleration, and the liberty of speaking and writing, I will re-state my reasons, and a little more at large than I did before.

My opinion is (and, I think, that no man will say openly that he differs from me here) that, upon all public matters, whether of religion, politics, or any other, TRUTH ought to prevail over falsehood. To deny this proposition would be to declare openly in favour of lies.-This point being settled, we have next to consider what is the most likely way of ensuring the triumph of truth; and, my opinion is, confining myself now to religion, that the most likely way is, to leave all men at perfect liberty to say or write what they please upon the subject of religion. To suppose, that, in consequence of such liberty, truth would not prevail, is to suppose, that truth is, in its nature, less pleasing than falsehood, or, that the human mind is prone towards a preference of the latter; which is directly contrary to all the maxims, and, indeed, all experience on the subject.

HAL

Hence naturally follows, that I must be having been given up, they flocked round of opinion, that it would be conducive to the Perceval, and, at the very time when he was complete triumph of truth, in matters of reli- proposing the Mary-le-bone and other new gion, to give full and free scope to the Barracks, covered him with their applause tongues and pens of all descriptions of dis- as a friend to freedom. Thus their grati senters. But, it does not follow from the tude was gained without any boon at all; same premises, or from any thing that I but merely by shaking the rod at them, and have ever said, that I must be in favour of then laying it aside without using it. a partial liberty to speak and write upon The Catholics were coming on in nearly the subject of religion. I know that it is the same way; and, as I have before obsaid, as some say about parliamentary re- served of them, I have never, in any of form, get what you can; but, it has never their public proceedings, been able to disbeen, that I have heard, attempted to be cover any thing favourable to public liberproved, that the getting of a little would ty.Thus, then, TRANQUILLUS may do any good, or, that it would not tend to perceive, that, leaving religion wholly out the perpetuating of the evil; and, as I have of the question, there are reasons why a no hesitation to say, that I would rather the partial repeal of these penal statutes should parliament should remain as it is, than see not pass. These reasons may, possibly, triennial parliaments adopted, so have I no not be "sound;" but, he has not shewn hesitation to say, that I would rather all them to be unsound; nor, indeed, has he the penal statutes on the subject of reli- made any, even the slightest, attempt to gion should remain as they are, than to see shew it; and, until he does, he will exa repeal of certain parts of them, and espe- cuse me if I continue to regard them as cially at the request of particular sects. sound. -But, I am not for leaving reliFor, observe, what, in such case, becomes gion out of the consideration. And, I am the effect of such penal statutes. They are sure, that no fair man will say, that any bands in the hands of the government, who, man ought to be punished for publishing a to gain the good-will of one sect, relaxes a work intended to inculcate the belief of the little this time; of another sect, relaxes a falsehood of certain parts of the scriptures, little next time; and, thus, it gains the if the Unitarians are allowed to publish gratitude of these numerous sects by means works intended to inculcate a belief of the quite distinct from considerations connected falsehoods of other parts of those same scripwith the public and general weal. For my tures. I am quite sure that no just man part, I can imagine nothing better calcu- will say this. What! while the Freelated to give undue power to the govern- thinking Christian is allowed to say, in ment, and, of course, nothing more hostile print, that the scriptures contain " corrupto public liberty, than the existence of nu-tions, forgeries, lies, and impious invenmerous religious sects, all condemning tions," shall other men be punished for each others' creeds, and all having motives speaking in the same strain of other parts to make them seek the favour and indul- of those very same writings? Ought not gence of the ministers of the day. A reli- the law to operate on all men alike? gious sect, and more especially the priests Ought one man to be permitted to call of such sect, who, in fact, guide the sect, some of the chapters spurious, and anonaturally think the prosperity of the sect of ther man not be permitted to call other more importance than the prosperity of the chapters spurious?There is no pride nation at large, and, of course, their first equal to spiritual pride. Gratify that, and and chief object, whatever may be their you have the sect, body and soul. Then politics, is the prosperity of the sect. And, each sect is always aspiring. Sectarians if the government, by the partial repeal can never let people alone. If they had of acts of parliament, or by any other power, all (except the Quakers) would be means, possesses boons to toss down to more intolerant than the church is, or ever them at pleasure, we may be very sure, has been. See with what fury this Freethat those sects will never take much trou- thinking High Priest (for one of such I underble in the cause of a reform in which all stand he is), falls upon me! I do not like the nation is interested.. We have seen sects for this reason amongst many others, the Methodists, with their roaring, raving, that they, with the coolest insolence, give ranting, foaming priests at their head, up to perdition all who dissent from them. pouring in thousands of petitions against a The Quakers are an exception. Theirs is Bill which they thought would a little a religion that has an effect upon their accramp their particular sect; and, the Bill tions in life. It produces cleanliness and

neatness in their dress, it produces economy, sobriety, gentleness, kindness, honesty, and universal benevolence. I never asked any of them what was their creed. I see the effects of their religion, and I judge of the tree by its fruits.I think that the law has gone, in one respect, too far in favour of religious sects; I mean in the exempting of their Ministers, as they call them, from the effect of the Militia Ballots. Perhaps, there are, at this time, from 15 to 20,000 persons, who are thus screened from their fair share of this heavy burden. And why, I should be glad to know, is a shoemaker, who is not a roarer at a meeting-house, to be obliged to serve in the Local Militia, or pay ten pounds, while another shoemaker, who is a roarer, is exempted? Is not this a sort of premium to become "inspired," as they call it? And, while men, the most ignorant men, can, by merely pretending to heavenly gifts, get rid of the most heavy of all the earthly burdens to which they are liable, is it to be supposed, that the number of the gifted will not continue to increase; and that reason and morality will not daily meet with additional insult and injury in the inculcation of a set of notions, which, in the means of ensuring salvation, dispense with the practice of every thing known by the name of virtue amongst men?

-The

merce with England. What effect bese
successes of Napoleon may make upoa
those nobles I know not. If they should
be alarmed, peace may soon arrive between
Russia and France; and this event may be
accelerated by the acquisitions of strength,
which the French will acquire by being
masters of the Prussian territories.-
interference of Austria is not, I think, to
be expected, except in the producing of
such a peace; for, to suppose, that she will
do any thing to favour the prosperity of
either Prussia or Russia is, I think, most
monstrously absurd.This, however, is
very far from being the set of notions now
in vogue, in England, where even these
decided triumphs of the French are treated
as drawn battles, and where it is believed
still that the people of Germany are unani-
mous in their hatred and hostility against
the French.We have seen the French
traverse a very considerable portion of Ger-
many; we have not seen a single instance
of their meeting with the smallest opposi
tion from the people; they themselves, on
the contrary, boast, in the highest strain,
of the good disposition of the people: and
yet, we are told, that we ought to believe
(and believe we shall), that the people of
Germany are rising, as one man,
-The TIMES news-
against the French.-
paper, that grand fountain of national delu
sion, and which is, I am told, edited priu-
cipally by a sectarian priest, has accompa
nied the official account of the above-men-
tioned battles with an article truly charac-

66

Now, I know, that I shall be told, that I am bringing a nest of hornets about my ears; but, if the fear of doing this were to deter us from disturbing the nests of real hornets, we should, in time, beteristic of the source whence it flows. It stung to death by those malignant and vindictive insects.

NORTHERN WAR.

calls Napoleon" a robber, the tyrant of
"the SAVAGES on the banks of the
"Seine." Thus are the French people,
the whole French nation, represented as
savages, because they have beaten our
Allies. To say nothing of the injustice of
this appellation, how can one sufficiently
deplore the use of language like this on ac
count of its impolicy? If we wished to
unite all Frenchmen in support of their
chief in all his hostility to us, what could
we do so likely to accomplish our purpose,
as to unite them and that chief in our scur-
rilous abuse?—This writer, in speaking
of the scene between Napoleon and the
Duke of Friuli, says:
"Amongst those

The details of the bloody battles fought in Saxony, on the 19th and 20th of the last month, will be found below; and they will, I should imagine, convince every rational and well-informed man, that the Allies will not be able to stop the progress of the arms of Napoleon. It is, I think, very probable, that an armistice may take place, followed by a continental peace, on the principles of the Continental system. I see no other means of escape for the King of Prussia, and, if he fall, what else is the Emperor Alexander to do? It is well-who were mortally wounded, was one known, that this war arose out of the refu- "DUROC, the son of a scrivener, and, for sal of Russia to adhere to that system, agreeably to the treaty imposed on her at Tilsit. It has been said, that Alexander" was not so hostile to the Continental system as his nobles, who profit from the com

the many years, a servile attendant on tyrant, who, in return, had created him Duke of Friuli. To this person, in his "last moments, Buonaparte paid a conso latory visit; and the poor dying wretch

66