enlarging, by rebuilding, the church at River, in the county of Kent; enlarging, by rebuilding, the church at Chawton, in the county of Southampton; building a chapel at Bushey Heath, in the county of Herts; enlarging the church at Horfield, in the county of Gloucester.

LIST OF CHURCHES BUILT SINCE THE YEAR 1830, IN THE COUNTIES OF HANTS AND SURREY, DIOCESE OF WINCHESTER.

Eight more additional churches are now in progress, and two rebuilding; and since the same period, twenty-two new glebe-houses have been built, and three are now building in the two counties.

VOL. X.-Dec. 1836.

5 D

IN the town of, there are three parishes of unequal extent; one, a very populous district, comprising upwards of two-thirds of the whole town, the others are proportionally less; the majority of all being composed of dissenters of various denominations.

Assuming that a vestry duly called, and the majority governing by vote, will not grant a church-rate for any of the following purposes, viz. :—

1st. To do the needful repairs of the church; to provide books for the several registers, and duplicates to be transmitted to the registrar of the diocesan.

2nd. For the sacramental requisites, and the customary attendance of beadles, vergers, organist's salary, lighting, airing and cleaning the interior of the church; being deemed matters of domestic comfort and convenience for those who worship there.

3rd. For paying the annual instalments of money borrowed by the parish, pursuant to the Acts of 58 and 59 Geo. III., under the sanction of a vestry, on mortgage of the burial ground, and which, hitherto, the parish have regu

* Readers are requested to assist in completing this table of rates, granted or reused in 1836.-ED.

larly paid, but now, from its savouring so much of the name and character of a church-rate, the vestry, to get rid of it, vote an adjournment sine die.

Please to advise what course the churchwardens should pursue in the several quoted instances.

And particularly, if the majority at a vestry meeting vote an adjournment, are the churchwardens legally authorized to make a rate? and, after obtaining, in addition to their own, the signatures of the minister, and some of the parishioners, or without any of those signatures, are they bound to tender the same for the magistrate's concurrence, to raise money thereby, for all or any of the several quoted purposes? or

What is the advisable course for the churchwarden to pursue, in discharge of his duty, under such peculiar circumstances?

And, if the churchwarden is desirous of obtaining a rate for the specific and sole purpose of paying for requisite repairs, which the ordinary of the diocese may order to be done; and after in vain applying for a rate, is he compelled by the ecclesiastical law to do such repairs, and has he any and what power to reimburse himself?

OPINION.

The parish are bound by law to make a church-rate for expenses under the first head, so far as the sacramental requisites and the necessary lighting and cleaning of the church: all other expenses mentioned under this second head are optional with the vestry.

Money duly borrowed under the statutes stated must be repaid, and it is the duty of the churchwardens, even if the vestry refuse to make a rate, to make one themselves for this last specific purpose.

A churchwarden ought to call a vestry, and propose to them a rate for such expense, as I have already said ought to be done by church-rate. If the parishioners refuse to make one, it is a question of great doubt whether the churchwarden can, of his own authority, make a rate at all. I consider such question undecided. I cannot advise a churchwarden to make the attempt, for my opinion inclines me to think that he has no such power. The signature of the minister and some few parishioners would not render the rate valid, if otherwise invalid.

The Ecclesiastical Court cannot compel a churchwarden to do any repairs at his own expense, nor can he legally obtain reimbursement, if he spends any money, without having first obtained a rate.

I am of opinion, that a churchwarden has discharged his duty when he has called a vestry and proposed to them a rate for necessary purposes. I do not think he is bound to enter into a doubtful litigation by going further, if they refuse; except, as I have already stated, making a rate to repay money under the act cited. S. LUSHINGTON.

Doctors' Commons, 8th of July, 1835.-Patriot.

CHURCH MATTERS.

CHURCH RATES.*

(From a Correspondent.)

THE wide diffusion of what are styled liberal principles has been the means of bringing the dissenters into a more prominent position than they have occupied since the days of Cromwell, and they have not

These remarks on the important subject of church rates come from the pen of an able and practical writer, who will be responsible for their accuracy.—ED.

hesitated to "let their moderation be known unto all men.” How that moderation may have affected others I presume not to define; to me it is trumpet-tongued, and thunders in my ear the warning of Swift -"to preserve the obedience of dissenters, a government cannot give them too much ease, nor trust them with too little power." Time was when I thought differently, and, in addition to ease, would have willingly yielded a full participation in all civil rights; and, if I now waver upon that point, if I would retrace any of our late steps, it is the dissenters themselves who have made me an unwilling convert to a restrictive system. But, if the first efforts of their infant power are to be directed to the destruction of the national church, how are they who are conscientiously attached to it, as the great instrument of national Christianity, to deal with them, on the basis of civil equality? If, by libel and scurrility against the national clergy,-if, by intemperate language, dissenting ministers will urge on passive and active resistance to the laws, and thus force upon every reflecting mind the conviction that the church and the meeting-house cannot stand together, in the enjoyment of their several rights and privileges,-who shall blame the future legislator, when the present revolution shall have run its course, and the people themselves, satiated with agitation and quackery, demand a return to the laws and customs of their forefathers, if he renew the acts which withhold the power of mischief from those who have never possessed privileges but to abuse them? + Every restriction is now removed from the dissenter; and, if the gospel were in reality the foundation of his civil and moral code, I might

* False pretences and promises, never intended to be adhered to, have marked every step of the dissenter's progress to "equal rights." Bishop Horsley, in his "Review of the Case of Protestant Dissenters," makes the following, partly historical, partly prophetical, observations:-" In the year 1772, when the dissenters were petitioning for relief from the subscriptions required by the first of William and Mary, public promises were made in the name of the body, in the strongest words which language could supply, that the dissenting ministers would, if gratified in that respect, esteem their toleration perfect, and never extend their wishes to any further indulgence. The dissenters now (1787) solicit a repeal of the test laws. The strongest assurances, it is said, will be given, that, gratified in this request, they will never extend their views to any further indulgence. Since, then, things may come within ambition's view far beyond what is now demanded, what security can the nonconformists give that they will feel themselves more bound by the promises of 1787 than they are now bound by those of 1772? Should the test laws be now repealed, dissenters will be dissenters still; their influence will be increased, while their prejudices will remain entire; government will have thrown down the best barrier against innovation, and the work of reform will go on till one stone will not be left upon another of the admired fabric of the British constitution." It is not here intended to impugn the motives or sincerity of the dissenters of 1772 because their descendants have advanced further demands, but to shew that dissent is not a religious, but a worldly, restless, principle, shifting with circumstances, and soaring to temporal dominion, with which alone it will be content.

When, during the rebellion, the dissenters for a while got the upper hand, they made the following enactment, 11th August, 1645:-If any person or persons whatsoever shall at any time or times hereafter use, or cause to be used, the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England in any church, chapel, or PRIVATE HOUSE, within the kingdom of England and Wales, every person so offending shall, for the first offence, pay five pounds (equal to more than three times that sum now); ten pounds for the second; and, for the third, shall suffer one year's imprisonment, without bail or mainprize."

have looked that "the envy of Ephraim should depart;" but it is not so! Every reasonable concession has been made to the dissenter; and what is the result? Not that he is become a peaceable and loyal subject, but that, throwing aside the former pleas and pretensions of his party, he boldly demands that the ancient constitution of the land. shall be made to square in every point with his views: his is no longer a defensive war, to drive the enemy beyond his own boundaries, but he is now openly and directly invading a territory which for 1600 years has never been his, except during a momentary usurpation, from which he was quickly expelled. These hostile demonstrations have lately been quickened by an edict sent forth from the conclave of dissenting delegates, to agitate universally upon the question of church rates. This order has been faithfully and too generally obeyed, and the consequence is the fierce array of neighbour against neighbour in many large towns and villages throughout England. So much strife and confusion, so many bitter animosities, have followed those proceedings, that a real Christian, one "that would not cause his brother to offend," would pause to inquire-" Assuming that I am correct in my view of church rates, am I justified in causing so much evil that good may come of it?". No such inquiry suggests itself to the modern puritan. Meetings are called, spoutifications, full of ignorance and rancour, are poured forth, and every stimulant is called into action to excite such a display of sectarian hostility as may intimidate a conciliatory government. I will take their sayings and doings as I find them, and, stripping them of a vast overlay of scurrility and abuse, there remain the following propositions:

*

If, according to St. Paul, (1 Tim. i. 5,) charity be the true end and character of Christianity, we are in no want of data to decide whether dissent, in the form of independency, be the religion of Jesus Christ. Milton, in his Treatise on Reformation, says, "The bishops of the church of England, who, by the impairing and diminution of the true faith, by the distresses and servitude of their country, aspire to high dignity, rule, and promotion here, after a shameful death in this life, (WHICH GOD GRANT THEM,) shall be thrown eternally into the darkest and deepest gulf of hell, where they shall be trodden down and spurned of all other damned, who in the anguish of their torture shall have no other ease than to exercise a raving and beastly tyranny over them, the basest, the lowermost, and most degraded vassals of perdition." Robert Robinson, a dissenting lecturer, in the year 1778 published his Syllabus ; and, speaking in the person of Jesus Christ, supposes him at the tribunal of judgment to present to the world the dissenting ministers as the great objects of his favour, and dragging forth the bishops of the church of England, he consigns them to everlasting fire. These lectures were approved by the Easter association of Essex, at Harlow, and recommended by order to all sister churches, June, 1778.

The Rev. John Sibree, a dissenting preacher, has this year published a sermon (more like a political pamphlet) in which the following passage is conspicuous :— "So far as regards the episcopal church, as a section of the Christian body, we have no wish to interfere with its internal concerns. Episcopalians might create as many bishops, build as many churches, and observe as many forms as they pleased, provided always that they will be so good as to support them themselves, without compelling us to pay for them. But we hesitate not to declare that we wish to pull down the establishment. We long and sigh for its overthrow; and shall do all in our power to hasten the consummation. We contend for nothing more; we shall be satisfied with nothing less."

Verily, puritanism knows but little what spirit it is of: there are, however, exceptions, and one honourable instance may be found-" British Magazine," vol. iii. 474.