to call the mother of God, the mother of a man ;" and he explains himself a little farther on by saying,—" There is hardly one error of the Romish church, which he (Gregory) does not, not merely incidentally mention, but strongly express and defend. I will embody his creed on these points, and give the treatise where the erroneous doctrine is supported: ... of the mother of GOD, (Orat. V. in Pasch. and Ep. ad Eustath. Ambros. and Bas.)" The other is the anonymous author of a tract, (12mo. Nisbet, London, 1837,) entitled "Popery at Rome," which appears, from an advertisement on the back of the title-page (signed "E. H."), to have been sent as a letter to the Rev. Dr. Baggs, head of the English Roman-catholic college in Rome during the absence of Dr. Wiseman, in May, 1836. The writer says, (p. 10.) "With respect to the Virgin Mary, no doubt, Mr. Burgess [the clergyman of the church of England in Rome] would give her the reverence God permits, and no more- -that of being blessed among women. To call her the mother of God is blasphemy. If God had a mother, he had a beginning. And does your church presume to say, the eternal God had a beginning? The Virgin Mary was the mother of the Man Christ Jesus by a miraculous conception; therefore, as man, Christ had a mother; as God, he had no mother: and no subtlety or logic can overturn the scriptures on this head." I shall not spend any time in remarking on the daring ignorance of this writer: his want of information is the strongest ground for thinking charitably of him. I ought to mention that he throughout speaks of himself as a member of the church of England, and is contending warmly in behalf of the English clergyman at Rome.

Now, both these persons, Adam Clarke and E. H., have here openly avowed the old Nestorian heresy condemned in the council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, one of those four general councils on which the church of England is supposed to rely implicity. Johnson in his "Clergyman's Vade-Mecum," in the short preface which he has compiled to this council, says, that Nestorius "asserted that there were not only two natures, but two persons in CHRIST JESUS; and that the Deity was not hypostatically united to HIM, but only by way of inhabitation; and that consequently the blessed Virgin could not properly be styled OEOTOKOS." And this is exactly the ground taken by Adam Clarke, the orthodox (as he would be called by certain persons) dissenter, and E. H. the ultra-protestant church-of-England man. It is almost unnecessary to put in words, that the direct and undeniable consequence of stating that the blessed Virgin is not OɛoròKoç, the mother of God, is that her Son was not GOD. Such is the way by which protestantism "proceeds onward to Socinianism."

My present letter is already, perhaps, longer than may be convenient to you I will therefore leave my review of Dr. Shuttleworth's book at this point, and resume it in another. Your most faithful servant,

D. P.

MR. AUSTEN ON MR. SHAW LEFEVRE'S BILL.

SIR,-I am sorry and surprised that my saying, "I hope you will not decline to print this letter," gave you so much offence as you expressed in your "Notices to Correspondents" this month. I am sorry you spoke of me as at liberty to "write anything I pleased about the clergy," and as "thinking the clergy were very unreasonable," whereas what I said was, "rather hasty and unguarded." You have imagined various reasons for my inserting the offensive expression, any one of which would have been discreditable to me; I will give you another--viz, that I considered it possible you might not think my arguments worth occupying the place of more valuable matter. If all the world entertained the same opinion of them which you have expressed, the letter had better not have been printed; but as one of your correspondents at least considers that I have given a "clear and just view" of the subject, perhaps I was not wrong in wishing to see my letter in print. You have challenged me with Mr. Jones' pamphlet. I have read that publication, and am prepared to argue that it is not conclusive against me. I will offer a few remarks upon his arguments, which is all that the limits of a letter will permit. I must premise, in regard to what Mr. Jones says of the introduction of Mr. Lefevre's bill, that I did not, any more than himself, commend that proceeding; I went so far even as to say that the real purpose of it was not honestly

avowed.

But to the subject of my letter. Mr. Jones' first argument is, that tithes, being a payment to the clergy for the performance of professional duties, the value of them does not represent the rateable ability of the clergy; he begins:-"The clergy of the church of England are supposed to constitute a body of nearly 20,000 men; of these, about half have benefices; of those benefices, 4861 are under 2007. per annum. The poverty of so large a body of ministers of religion is a subject of public sorrow. The educated persons who perform the duties of these benefices have, during the mutations of the law of rating, become subject to a tax on the wages of their personal labour, from which that same law exempts the members of all other callings and professions however rich; and from which, I firmly believe that the law, consistently interpreted, as to the wages of labour, from the beginning, would have exempted them."... (8) "I declare in the outset it is this great preliminary hardship which I mainly wish to see removed: the manufacturer, physician, and lawyer, ought not to escape direct taxation, while the scanty wages of the labouring clergy are made less by that anomalous exception." I answer, that, beyond question, the circumstances of the country demand that the incomes of the clergy should generally be increased; but it does not follow that the exempting them from rates would therefore be a right measure: it would be more to the purpose to require for them an exemption from such taxes as are borne by the whole community. But it appears to me that Mr. Jones has fallen into a great mistake in advancing this argument at all. Tithes are a property, the property of the church; but if they are treated as the wages of the clergy, this point is in a manner given up. Let us supVOL. XIV.-Nov. 1838. 3 Y

pose that, in the case of a benefice where the tithes are only 1507. per annum, the incumbent has a plea to be excused a portion of the rates on account of the inadequacy of his wages; then in a benefice of 1000l. per annum, the landlords will have a good plea to be excused a portion of the tithe on account of the redundancy of that income. A clergyman's small income from tithe is rated, and (say) a clerk in a public office has a large salary from a different source which is not rated; but if a clergyman derive his income from such other source, he would not be rated; and if the clerk were to derive his salary from landed property, he would be so. As to the value of the tithe which the church possesses, it must be admitted that the church has by no means so large an interest in the property of the country as it formerly possessed, or ought reasonably to have; but I am inclined to think, that the tithe of any particular farm, even when saddled with modern rates and taxes, gives to the tithe-owner as great an interest in that particular property as he ever enjoyed; for against the disadvantages of rates and taxes, with which it was not originally burdened, we are to set the advantages derived from a large capital applied to cultivation.

Mr. Jones contends, secondly, that by the statute 43 Eliz., upon which the law of rating is founded (6), “no thing is made the subject of taxation, it is wholly persons." (25), "The act of Eliz. would have given the clergy from the beginning the right of deducting the mere wages of professional duties, before their rateable ability was determined." He says (17), "The fullest exposition of this principle will be found in Nolan on the Poor Laws; the law is there found fully and clearly stated as I have stated it, and will do away the effect of those incorrect assertions regarding the case of Joddrell."I answer, in the first place, that whatever might have been the principle on which, in 1597, the statute was framed, it is not denied that it it is now administered on the principle of rating things and not persons. A lawyer, physician, &c., occupying only premises worth 1007. per annum, would be rated only at 1007., whether his income were 5001. or 20,000l.

But it appears to me that Nolan has decided against Mr. Jones' views. He (Nolan) says (72), "Two great principles were laid down by all the judges very soon after 43 Eliz. was passed respecting the rateability of property; 1st, the assessment is to be made according to the visible estate of the inhabitants both real and personal." Again (165), “It was unusual to assess personal property for near two centuries subsequent to the statute; and (145) "Both rectorial and vicarial tithes have always been deemed rateable; for the legislature intended, when rates were made, every person should contribute according to the benefit which he received in the parish; and this is a profit without any risk run." Observe, according to the benefit received, not according to his ability. How, admitting this exposition, can it be argued that a clergyman is not to be rated according to the value of his tithes? Nolan certainly says (225), "The principle that the rackrent (of a farm) is the criterion of the actual value upon which the tax is laid, is fallacious; rent being only so much of the actual value

as the tenant can afford to pay his landlord; the tenant's profit forms a part of its productive value." But he goes on to say, "Deductions for expenses of labour and capital necessary to render the subject pro. ductive, should be considered as drawbacks upon the profit." Now it is precisely on this ground I consider the decision on Joddrell to have been bad; no deduction was allowed for the expenses of necessary capital, or of a bailiff to the farm. The decision was, "Every proper allowance is to be made, not however including interest of capital or compensation to tenant." Mr. Jones has overlooked, and probably the judges did not know, what is represented by a tenant's capital-it is the expense of labour which at the commencement of his occupation he pays to the outgoing tenant, it is the cost of his waggons, carts, horses, &c., &c. Mr. Jones all along treats the question as between the clergy and the occupiers of land; why, he asks, is not the farmer to be rated on his income as well as the clergyman on his ? But I beg to say, the question must, at least, be treated as relating to the whole community; and I ask, why is the party engaged in agricultural business to be rated on his personal wages, and on the capital necessary for carrying on that business, when no other trade or profession is so rated? If the principle of rating persons and not things were generally acted upon, well and good. I am quite sure that the landowner would gain more than he would lose by a rate levied according to personal ability. The fundholders, learned professions, manufacturers, and traders together have an income now unrated much larger than what is enjoyed by the occupiers of land. Even in the most retired country village, there will be found an innkeeper, butcher, baker, shoemaker, shopkeeper, carpenter, deriving from their business their 50l., 100l., or 150l. per annum. I am not, however, at all certain that the clergy would not lose more than they would gain; for be it remembered, that they would have to be rated on funded property, on salaries attached to chapels and district churches, on the emoluments derived from pupils, and so forth.

I will, in conclusion, put down in a few words what I mean to assert :-Tithes are a property, and must be treated similarly to other property. The farmer is entitled to deductions for the expenses of a bailiff and capital necessary to his business. The decision on Joddrell was bad, because it did not allow these deductions, and will impose a tax on the farmer which the rest of the community do not pay. I have sent you a long letter, but you have brought the infliction. upon yourself. I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

Aldworth, Oct 8th, 1838.

JOHN THOMAS AUSTEN.*

*Notwithstanding Mr. Austen's explanation, the Editor sees no reason for going back from what was said in last month's Notices. In respect to Mr. Austen's remark in particular, as to speaking about the clergy, the Editor will only say, that he brings no charge against Mr. Austen. That gentleman knows best what are his feelings towards his brethren, and how far he has acted in a friendly spirit towards them during this last spring, with respect to the matter in question. The Editor leaves it to Mr. Jones to notice Mr. Austen's remarks, which there will be no difficulty in doing - ED.

EXTEMPORE PRAYER.

SIR,-A little tract has just been put into my hands, entitled, "Extempore Prayer." Longman and Co., 1837. I am aware that much has been written upon this subject by far abler pens than hers who now ventures to beg you to insert a few lines, from the knowledge that many will read a short tract, or a letter in a periodical, who will not take the trouble to read larger works of sterling worth, the results of deep thought, patient research, and earnest prayer,—works to which the crude puerile production now under notice (which has been industriously circulated, not only in the United Kingdom, but also in our colonies) is as inferior as all extempore, or even written, prayers are to our incomparable (I believe inspired) liturgy. Why should our liturgy be so superior to every other compilation or composition (with the exception of the Bible), if the venerable and venerated compilers of it were not aided in a peculiar manner by the Holy Spirit, in answer, doubtless, to earnest prayer? Yet some would deny to the "Book of Common Prayer" this beauty and this sacred character, and amongst that number must evidently be ranked the authoress (for I fear it is one of my own sex) of the little tract entitled, "Extempore Prayer." I grieve that any members of our pure and apostolic church can cherish such feelings, or rather want of feeling, as is there evinced. I sincerely pity them; and I fear that to such the 2 Cor. iii. 3, 4, is as applicable as to those who pervert, or do not rightly understand, the inspired scriptures-it is the god of this world, Pride, which blinds the mind in both instances; and those undoubtedly are deceiving themselves, or are deceived by Satan, who prefer extempore public prayer to our spiritual liturgy. The soul in private may pour out its anxious desires in language most suitable to its wants-it may pray for others according to their peculiar necessities known best to them: but I defy any person to pray from the extempore words of another; it is impossible; the mind must take in the sense of a petition before it can be offered up; and the next sentence is watched for, and succeeds, before this can be effected. Public extempore prayer may be offered for others, it cannot be entered into individually. But with regard to the tract before me, I would first observe, that I cannot imagine why "the Archbishop of Dublin has addressed a circular to all the prelates of the church, begging to know if extempore prayer in a congregation is allowable, consistently with the discipline of the church of England." His grace may imagine that he has some good reason; but I should have imagined that the solemn promise which every bishop receives from each deacon whom he ordains, "to use the form in the Book of Common Prayer, and no other," would leave such a point indisputably settled amongst the governors of our church. Neither does it strike me that this engagement is at variance with the fifty-fifth canon, which directs that "before all sermons, lectures, and homilies, the preachers and ministers shall move the people to join with them in prayer, in this form, or to this effect." Some slight alterations in this prayer would be required according to place and circumstances, which explains, I think, the reason