time, doubled, and the spirit of Arianism took its flight from the venerable sanctuary. Mr. S. continued for thirty years the pastor of the church. A short memoir of his life, &c. was published, in a sermon preached by the Rev. W. Priestley, before the Wilts and Somerset Association, from which we take the following particulars:

Mr. Sibree was born in the Borough of Southwark, London, April 24, 1764, but brought up by his parents in the village of Merton, in Surrey, only a few miles distance from the metropolis. Here he continued till his 20th year, and sought his happiness in the follies of youth, which were interrupted by occasional and inoperative resolutions of amendment.

A young friend, however, pressed upon him the perusal of Mr. Hervey's Theron and Aspasio, the sixteenth dialogue of which produced the most alarming impressions, so that his ignorant parents sought to deter him from pursuing such subjects, lest he should " go out of his mind." But, as he afterwards expressed it, I was well convinced that God was bringing me to my right mind, and from that day I was brought to know, to seek, and to serve the Lord."

66

Mr. Sibree soon felt a zeal for the conversion of sinners; and removing to the neighbouring village of Mitcham, he united himself to a religious society, who soon discovered, by his devotional exercises and conversational powers, that God had entrusted him with talents which might be usefully employed amongst the benighted villagers around them.

At this period, divine providence led the Rev. William Jay, of Bath, to spend a sabbath at that village, and not wishing to preach

in the afternoon, he inquired if there was any occasional preacher who could undertake the service. Mr. Sibree was proposed, and to Mr. Jay's surprise, the youth preached with almost as much readiness, zeal, and acceptance, as in future years. Perceiving that he only needed academical instruction to render him more publicly and permanently useful, he requested an interview, and finding that Mr. S. desired to enter permanently on the work of the ministry, Mr. Jay introduced him to the late Rev. Matthew Wilks, and his admission to the seminary, then at Mile End, (now Highbury College,) under the tuition of the Rev. S. Addington, D.D. was determined.

At the close of his studies, Mr. S. received two invitations to the pastoral office, but was, by the recommendation of the late Rev. Mr. Tuppin, of Bath, induced to visit Frome, where the happy results already described, followed his visit.

During the period of his ministry, those churches which had been so diminished and divided by erroneous sentiments, that when united, only formed a body of thirty-six members, soon rapidly increased; and during the course of his pastorate, nearly 400 members were added to the church. Some neighbouring towns and villages received a share of his active labours, and in two of them congregations were raised, and places of worship built chiefly by his benevolent exertions, and he travelled more than a thousand miles to collect the money necessary

for these purposes. This estimable minister was the subject of a mental disorder which first appeared in his 27th year, and suspended his usual services for six months. After nineteen years intellectual health, it appeared again

with such a degree of dejection, gloom, and despair, that for two years his life itself was a burden.

He was also the victim of calcareous disease, and his infirmities combined in that attack which brought him to death, which event occurred on the 11th of February, 1820.

It is gratifying to know, that the gloom which had so often obscured every evidence of grace, and every prospect of happiness, was entirely dispelled for twentyfour hours before his decease, and in the language of faith and joy he continued to triumph till the moment came when death was swallowed up in victory.

Mr. Sibree left a numerous fa. mily, and the Rev. J. Sibree, of Coventry, and the Rev. P. Sibree, of Weatherfield, are his sons, and a third brother is now prosecuting his studies for the Christian ministry.

After the removal of Mr. S., the church invited the Rev. Mr. TOZER, of Tooting, who had previously been co-pastor with Mr. S. during his illness, to take the pastoral office. His relationship with the church was but short, death soon after translating him to a happier world. The Rev. Mr. DONEY, late of Plymouth, succeeded Mr. T., but some points of

disagreement arising, after a few years the connection was dissolved. Mr. D. is now happily settled at Trowbridge. The present pastor of Rook Lane, is the Rev. Mr. WITTY, late of Axminster Academy, who is privileged to minister to a large congregation.

There are several donations left towards the support of the pastor and meeting-house. Mr. Joseph Whatley, of the City of Winchester, a native of Frome, and whose family formerly attended here, left a bequest for this purpose; as also did Mr. Jesser. But the principal is an estate, the gift of John Smith, Esq. originally left to the meeting at Star Acre. It is freehold, in the parish of Frome, and of considerable value.

The land on which the meeting is built, formerly belonged to Mrs. Margaret Smith, who granted a lease for 200 years. About 1776 it was offered for sale, and the church, with the assistance of their friends, collected sufficient money to purchase it.

We are indebted for the principal facts contained in the above statement, which have not been previously published, to the family of Mr. Thomas Harris, the senior deacon of the church at Rook Lane.

than one occasion, to circulate what we deem singularly erroneous and absurd ideas respecting it; efforts which, if not counteracted, may perhaps lead astray some of that large class of negligent readers, who are apt to take those things for granted which they find strongly asserted, and not strongly or immediately contradicted. The argument of the Review in question appears to us utterly untenable, and we cannot but regard it as one of the most extraordinary attempts ever made to mystify a plain subject, and to impose upon the credulity of the public. It is to be found in volume xxix., at page 524, and there it might long have remained undisturbed, if it had not been referred to in a recent article, probably written by the same person, who modestly assumes that his main propositions had been established to the perfect satisfaction of every unprejudiced mind. It is now, therefore, we think, high time to inquire into the merits of this same argument.

The object of the reviewer, who is supposed to express the sentiments of that distinguished class of persons who either appropriate to themselves, or distribute among their relatives, the more valuable benefices of the church, is to prove the consolatory doctrine, that nobody pays tithes. That somebody receives them, is pretty clear, but this writer is quite certain that nobody pays them, or at least, that nobody pays them in the sense in which they are generally supposed to be paid. But, as this is rather a nice and delicate point, we must allow the gentleman to speak in his own language.

"We have reason to believe, (p. 105, No.83,) that we succeeded in establishing, to the satisfaction of those who approached the subject with minds unfettered by prejudice and open to conviction, that, in

VOL, XIII, N. S. NO. 63.

almost every instance, tithes were originally conferred upon parochial benefices by the voluntary liberality or acquiescence of the owner or owners of the land contained within the limits of our modern parishes. This proposition, as we conceive, made good, it follows, as a necessary inference, that tithes do not constitute a tax imposed upon land by the authority of the legislature; and, further, that the land-owner-that the land-occupier-that the dissenter-nay, that the member of the Church of England pays nothing, in the proper acceptation of such an expression, towards the expense of the ecclesiastical functions ordained by the state.' For the steps by which we arrived at this conclusion, we beg to refer to the article itself."

It is our intention, having carefully referred to that article, to retrace these steps, and to show, with as much brevity as possible, the unsoundness of the conclusion at which the reviewer arrives. He wishes to make it appear that the church has something better than a legislative title to her tithes; we say she has a legislative title, and a legislative title only. He says that nobody pays tithes; we say that they are a tax, and a very heavy one too, upon the whole community. We invite attention to the singular manner in which he attempts to make his way to that comfortable conclusion, which his patrons are so anxious to see adopted by the good people of England.

First, he says that the dissenter pays no tithes, and then that the farmer pays no tithes, so that they can have no earthly reason to complain of the burden. And how is this? The reason is, that tithes are so much deducted from the rent, which the reviewer is perfectly sure the landlord would get

3 F

if tithes were abolished. It is very true that many political economists, of great reputation, think differently upon this point: they maintain that the abolition of tithes would benefit, not the landlord merely, but the entire community, and that, by increasing the quantity and reducing the cost of all agricultural produce, it would diffuse comparative plenty and content among our dense and pauperized population; but, as we do not at present intend to argue this question, we shall allow the reviewer the benefit of his supposition, that the landlord would gain so much additional rent, if tithes were no longer paid. Then the landlord pays the tithes! No such thing, says the reviewer, and he forthwith proceeds to make out his case, in the following ingenious and edifying manner.

It seems that the original owner of the land, who lived in the time of Noah, or later, but certainly a very long while ago, alienated a part of his estate, which alienated part constitutes tithes, and never came into the possession of any living landlord. So how can the landlord (it is asked, triumphantly) pay away, what the landlord never possessed? Thus arrives he at his conclusion, that nobody now pays tithes. The only real payer was the worthy person who died so long ago, and who, of course, had a right to give away his property in perpetuity, for the sake of the good of the souls of succeeding generations. "It is surely both reasonable and lawful," observes the reviewer, "that every man should be at liberty to do what he likes with his own." p. 536.—This alienated property, we are told, vests, under the name of tithes, in the existing incumbents of the Church of England, in virtue of the free gift of the original possessor; and the

church holds her share by the same title upon which the landlord holds the rest of the estate. It is not, according to this writer, a title derived from any legislative. act, which might subsequently be confirmed or revoked by another legislative act, but one originating in the spontaneous grant of the real owner of the property, with which no legislature can interfere in the slightest degree, without the most gross and shameful injustice. He protests against the opposite doctrine, as "revolutionary." Society, it would seem, could scarcely exist, nor any kind of property be secure, if legislators were permitted, for a moment, to tamper with rights so sacred and indefeasible as those by which the church holds her tithes. An act that should meddle with church property, otherwise than by the consent of the church, would, in the first place, be characterized by the most flagrant moral turpitude, and, in the next, lead to the most disastrous political consequences. "Between tithes and taxes," he says, "there are various and essential distinctions, which leave to parliament that authority over the one, which it cannot legally exercise over the other."-" To these" (tithes) "the government of the country has not, nor ever had, the least claim. They ever were, and still are, the inalienable right and property of a third party: no power, therefore, without an absolute subversion of the most sacred principle of equity, as well as of the British constitution-an uniform and inflexible maintenance of the private rights of individuals -can surrender the minutest portion of that property, which is not its own." (p. 538.) Such is the sacredness of a deed of gift!

Here, however, there arises a slight difficulty. The original possessor, now no more, the benevo

lent person whose spontaneous act created this peculiarly sacred property, unfortunately gave it, with all its sacredness, to the Catholic priesthood; and the legislature, which, according to the hypothesis, had no right to interfere at all with such property, has taken the liberty to oust the party to whom the grant was made, and has given the estate to the present Church of England incumbent. And it is this very Church of England incumbent, holding only in virtue of such legislative violence, who now puts in his claim to hold by the inviolability of the original gift; a gift which, if really held to be inviolable, would defeat the claimant who appeals to it, and restore the true, the Catholic heir. How does our reviewer deal with this difficulty? It might have been expected that he would say something curious upon the subject, if he meddled with it at all. And so, truly, he does; and our readers shall learn, from his own words, what it is that he says, lest the strangeness of it should lead them to doubt the accuracy of our statement.

"In looking over these grants," he says, 64 we are rather called upon to consider the purposes for which, than the persons to whom they were made; we are to collect, as far as we can judge from analogy, in what manner the founders of benefices, if they were at this moment alive, and in the actual enjoyment of their original estates, would dispose of that portion of their property which they conferred upon the church by endowment." Vol. xxix. p. 542.

He then assumes, in substance, that the original founders of benefices intended to promote Christianity, but established Popery by mistake, and that we, having discovered their error, are bound to get rid of this said popery, and to

employ the sacred bequest for the promotion of Christianity. And he then goes on as follows:

"The power of the public over this property cannot, under these circumstances, extend further than to regulate the instruction which the present holders of these endowments should be required to administer."

"The public, acting as trustees for the original grantors, has a right to say, • You shall not pray

for the souls of the dead; you shall not teach that wine may be converted into blood; but you shall comprise, in your public instructions, those doctrines alone, which, on a mature consideration of the Scriptures, the majority of the nation has sanctioned as correct."

"It appears to us, then, that the Protestant incumbents of English benefices have equitably, as well as legally, succeeded to any claim and right which the owners of land had conferred on their Catholic predecessors." Ib. p. 543.

We venture to call all this curious, very curious indeed. First, the property was too sacred to be meddled with, and the legislator could not alienate it without the most glaring injustice. But now, it seems, the legislator is "called upon" to look at the purpose of the original grantor, and has a right so to dispose of the property as to further that purpose. The object is the promotion of Christianity, or the communication of "Christian instruction;" and the legislator, having found out the difference between Popery and Christianity, has a right to eject the Catholic who taught Popery, and instal the Protestant who teaches Christianity, in sincere and honest furtherance of the design of the illustrious dead. The bequest is sacred, but the legislator may at any time take upon himself to presume its object, and so to deal with the pro