guor of sickness forbids even the thought of procuring an honourable maintenance by the labour of the body or the mind-and when the infirmities of an enfeebled frame demand those indulgences which money can procure, and which cannot be procured without it.

Should the declining health of a bishop unfit him for labour, his revenues suffer no diminution. The rector continues to receive the tithes of his parish when he is no longer able to discharge the duties of a parochial minister. The minister of a dissenting congregation is supported, in remuneration of past services, by the willing contributions of his flock; and the Methodists, out of their" deep poverty,” pay a yearly stipend to their superannuated preachers, while the Established Church not only allows no compensation to the worndown curate for past services, but his miserable salary is withdrawn from him, and he is cast on the capricious benevolence of a world not remarkable for its kindness to those who are wholly dependent on its bounty. But, Sir, the curate is not the only sufferer under this grievance; our people are also injured by it. A man who in the event of sickness sees nothing but beggary before him, may deem such a regard to health as must considerably check ministerial activity to be but prudent precaution, and the pernicious tendency of this evil is also manifested in the anxiety of individuals to retain a curacy after the decline of health prevents them from fulfilling its duties. In either case the parishioners are deprived of the service of a more efficient ministry. We can establish all which has been above stated by a reference to living examples; indeed what we have written has arisen entirely from facts which have come under our personal observation. You may ask us whom do we blame for this grievance? We answer, the blame does not so much attach itself to any individual as to the Established Church as a body. It is a foul blot on its character, and when we read the description of the constitution of the primitive Church in regard to its pecuniary concerns, after making all due allowance for change of circumstances, the contrast presented is in the extreme striking and awful. "And all that believed were together, and had all things common, and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men as every man had need."-Acts ii. 44, 45.

The remedy for this evil is simple.-A small annual per centage on the revenues of the Church in each diocese would create a fund for the payment of a stipend to disabled and superannuated curates. The overplus, if any, might go to increase the funds of the Board of First Fruits; and thus the Established Church would silence her enemies, serve her people, and relieve the suffering members of her own body.*

We do trust, Mr. Examiner, that some influential member of the Establishment will take this matter in hand, and have it brought in proper form before Parliament in the ensuing session.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

N.

* We are certainly inclined to prefer the unforced contributions of berevolence, and for this reason, among others, that the administration of the fund would then fall into the hands of those who from principle would bestow upon its care their unpurchased services-We, however, let our excellent friend's suggestion stand,-EDITOR.

Bible Controversy in Ireland --Infallibility not possible-Error not culpable; with some notice of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, in reply to Messrs. Pope and Maguire. In Letters to Irishmen in particular, and to Catholics and Protestants at large. By the author of "a Letter on the Immateriality of the human soul," in answer to" Remarks on Scepticism," by the late Rev. T. Rennell, Christian Advocate of Cambridge. 8vo. pp. viii.-212.-London, Hunter, 1828.

A volume with the above startling title-page has just been put into our hands, and we lose no time in informing our readers, in order to save both their time and their money, that if they have no inclination to peruse threadbare arguments against Popery, seasoned with the philosophy of Unitarianism, they will suffer the "Bible controversy in Ireland" to lie quietly on the booksellers' counters. We remember some excellent remarks in "the Discourses on Atonement and Sacrifice," on the indefatigable zeal with which modern Socinianism insinuates its principles in every shape and form, likely or unlikely to deceive. We have it in Reviews and Magazines, in Novels and Hymns, now deceiving in a spurious edition of Watts' Divine Songs, and now, gravely coming forth in the guise of an improved version of the Scriptures. In this country the Popish controversy possessed too absorbing an interest not to attract the apostles of Unitarianism; and lo, in the shape of a commentary on the late discussion, and a refutation of Infallibility, comes forth a goodly octavo, to ridicule the palpable absurdities of Athanasius-to overwhelm the puny advocates for the importance of faith in matters of religion, and by the long hailed apotheism of human reason, to set men free from the restraining fears of the culpability of error and the danger of mistake. The beginning of the title page is taking, and it is the only part likely to attract the public; and we fear many persons may be as much deceived as we ourselves have been, and fancied they had some original commentary on the Popish controversy, nor discovered until too late that it was but the crambe recocta of the discussions, with learning borrowed from Ben Mordecai, theology from the school of Dr. Drummond, a style affectedly imitated from the "Difficulties of Romanism," and reasoning we hope to be found no where but in the dregs of Gallic infidelity,

Our author's principle is partially announced in the title page, and the great truth that called forth this erudite writer's powers, is contain ed in one sentence, error involves no culpability.

"Whatever opinion a man holds, he has adopted it upon seeming or real evidence which is conclusive to his mind: and just as surely as the pupil of the eye will contract or dilate according to the greater or less access of light, so surely and necessarily will that evidence produce that effect. The opinion, it is true, may be perfectly erroneous; but, however his convictions may eventually change, the party thinks,—and with the existing evidence, CANNOT HELP thinking—otherwise, P. 179, 180,

"I do not incur one atom of guilt by any involuntary affection of the soul;—by that which is, in truth, no more a matter of my choice, than the colour or circulation of my blood." P. 181.

Such is the great and important principle which is to regulate society; for the not perceiving which, Mr. Pope "surrendered the Protestant cause;" and to avoid which, the Romanist runs to infallibility, and Mr. Pope to our Author does not say what, but some

thing very like blasphemy. Error has no culpability; and a man is no more answerable for his opinions than he is for "the impossibility of seeing meadows and rivers while locked up in a dark chamber, or of not seeing the noon-day light, while no obstruction intervenes, and his eyes are wide open," p. 181. It may be so, but it is rather a prejudice against this doctrine, that it seems to have been altogether unknown to the inspired teachers of our religion, and having been concealed from the Pauls, and Peters, and Johns, was reserved for the discovery of the "Westminster Reviewer," and the Author of "the Letter on the Immateriality of the Human Soul." At least such is the only supposition that will secure the honesty of those Apostles, for in their discourses, exhortations, and sermons, instead of putting forward our author's great principle, we find such declarations as the following:-" This is his commandment, that we believe on his Son Jesus Christ.-He that believeth not shall be damned." The Holy Spirit will "convince the world of sin, because they believe not on me." He" that believeth not the Son shall not see life." He "shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe, (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.”—These and similar passages, (which might be multiplied to any extent,) if language has a meaning, prove that there is a something revealed, a testimony of God, which is to be believed, and that there is a connection, of what kind it matters not, between that belief and eternal life,— they evince further that that faith or belief must partake of a moral character, since such is essential to those dispositions and feelings that have God's approbation; and if so, that unbelief* of this testimony, whatever it may be, or error which would neutralize or overturn it must be CULPABLE.

Let us try our Author's principles. A man may examine the Scriptures and differ from Mr. Pope in his estimate of the evidence that goes to prove the divinity of the Redeemer. He is not, says the Essayist, culpable-it is impossible for him to ascribe more weight to the evidence than to him it seems to possess, and he is not answerable for its effect on his mind. Be it so. Another examining the same Scriptures and their evidence, may find that the world has been under a mistake in supposing them to be of divine authenticity, and may with perfect sincerity deny their authority, and profess himself a deist. A third following his example, and studying the evidence for the being of a God, may yield to the irresistible force of evidence, and in pure sincerity become an Atheist. Where is culpability to begin-or must we with our Author, in his consistency assuming the desert of sincerity in all this down-hill course of error, consider the extreme case as not excepted from the rule; but that the presumptuous individual who denies the very existence of the

* Our author may assert, that the essence of faith, and all its moral qualities, may be compatible with any degree of error. We shall presently examine the truth of this position, and shall now only remark, that this principle fairly pressed, leads to the intrepid conclusion of the Westminster Reviewer, lauded by our author, that an Atheist may possess true and Scriptural faith!!

Supreme, may be as acceptable in his sight as the penitent and contrite believer? There must be obviously some error in our Author's principles to lead to so monstrous a result, though we are not concerned to find it out. Again, error in faith invariably leads to error in practice; wrong notions of the Supreme Being must lead to wrong principles of conduct; and if we were to take the latitudinarian line of the poet for our motto, it should be with some alteration—" He can't be right whose faith is in the wrong." But this apart; if man be influenced by evidence, or what he deems to be evidence, to assume certain principles, how should any human being censure him for acting in conformity with them? If culpability be not attached to error of opinion, how can it be to its legitimate consequence, error of practice? With what face can our philosophical advocate for error, censure the blood-stained agents of St. Dominic, the booted Apostles of Simon de Montfort, Calvin for burning Servetus, or Ravilliac for stabbing Henry? All these were but the legitimate deductions from opinions which were not culpable, unless our Author will allow of no virtue but hypocrisy, and deny that principle should be reduced to practice. Nay; why does he in a magisterial tone censure Mr. Pope for declaring his conviction, that the denial of the divinity of Christ was a fatal error? The evidence of the truth, and the importance of that doctrine were so present to the mind of that Gentleman, that he could not hold otherwise; and estimating that truth and importance so highly, was he culpable, on our Author's own grounds, for stating them, and evincing by that statement the sincerity of his convictions? Is there to be no sincerity but in error, no humility but in hesitation, no virtue but in hypocrisy? To such absurdities and inconsistencies do we think we have fairly reduced our Author; there is not an opinion however monstrous, or a view however heinous, that may not be legitimately justified on this principle; and if there be any force in the argumentum ad absurdum, that principle must be unfounded. In our next we shall proceed to examine briefly the source of his marvellous and unscriptural opinions, and take advantage of his work to introduce to our readers a different author and a different critic, in the refutation of the Unitarian errors, by the Rev. Mr. Carlile.