Mr. Dowling's own lecture has been read; and so has mine. With his facility of belief, or with his omnivorous mode of reading what passes for history, I have, I repeat it, no sort of quarrel, provided only he will allow me to sift history as well as to read it, and to plant my own belief upon severe examination of evidence, rather than upon mere prejudiced and inconsistent assertion. To which side the weight of cross-examined testimony inclines, the public, of course, must judge for themselves. G. S. FABER.

Sherburn House, Oct. 25, 1838.

MR. DOWLING'S REPLY TO MR. FABER ON THE PAULICIANS.

MY DEAR SIR,—I am not less indisposed than Mr. Faber to protract our controversy respecting the orthodoxy of the Paulicians. Enough has been already written to shew that it is not likely to be continued with advantage. In spite of a very sincere desire on my part to speak of my antagonist with the respect due to his reputation and station, I fear that an extended discussion might lead to very unedifying personalities. Mr. Faber, however, seems to expect a reply. I would not be discourteous, and will accordingly make a few remarks on his two letters.

But I beg leave to protest in the outset, that I do not regard myself as called upon to answer Mr. Faber at all. My case still remains as I stated it in my former letter. After disposing of remarks of a personal nature, which, of course, go for nothing, and penetrating the serious difficulties presented by Mr. Faber's affectation of logical reasoning, it will be found that he does but confess what I charged him with-namely, (1) that he was acquainted with only a part (a small part) of the contemporary evidence, (2) that he does not follow the authorities he consulted, and (3) that for what he regards as the most important evidence he was content to confide in a translation. To all and several of these counts Mr. Faber pleads guilty. Upon the ground of his own confession, I now crave judgment against his pretensions to be regarded as an accurate or trustworthy historian.

It is really amusing to observe Mr. Faber's anxiety to undervalue the work of Photius. As he has not seen it, he feels it necessary to disparage it; just as the cunning personage in the fable, when he could not get at the grapes, denounced them as sour. It would be mere pedantry to insist upon the value of this celebrated piece. And if this controversy should ever inspire him with a desire to inspect the materials of Paulician history, he will find it amply vindicated in the preface to the first volume of Wolf's Anecdota Græca. In the meantime, his anti-Photian zeal has been rather unfortunately ardent. tells us, that "Photius never visited the Paulicians;" that he " never visited them at all; at least, so far as he ever heard." Has he ever heard of the illustrious patriarch's Bibliotheca ?* That noble monu

He

In the letter in which he inscribes it to his brother Tarasius, he describes himself as τῷ κοινῷ τῆς πρεσβείας, καὶ τῷ βασιλείῳ ψήφω, πρεσβεύειν ἐπ ̓ Ασσυρίους aipetévrag. It is generally supposed to have been written while he was upon the embassy.-Fabr. Bibl. Græc. Tom. ix. p. 374.

ment of ancient learning was composed when its accomplished author was ambassador from the Emperor to the Caliph. While the Paulicians were infesting the frontiers of the two empires, and making incursions into the Roman provinces, it would not have been an easy matter for him to go from Constantinople to Bagdad without falling in their way, if he did not actually pass through their territory. The circumstances of the times render it highly probable that the proceedings of the warlike heretics formed the subject of his negotiation. And, at all events, the most sagacious man of the age, who, before he became an ecclesiastic, was notorious for his curiosity about everything connected with theology, was not likely to see anything of so remarkable a people in vain.

Mr. Faber inquires, whether I venture to impugn the accuracy of the "statement that, even according to Photius, the Paulicians expressed the utmost abhorrence of Manes and his doctrine ?"* I, too, must ask a question. Does Mr. Faber seriously think that the orthodoxy of the Paulicians can be established in this way? No one denies or doubts that they expressed their detestation of Manes, and the fables which had been adopted by his sect; or that they rejected the old Manichæan writings. To do so was the very characteristic of their system. All the authorities represent Constantine of Mananalis as a bold reformer, who from prudential motives rejected the absurd stuff which had hitherto been entertained by his sect. But as he retained a belief in dualism, and several other peculiarities common to all the dualistic sects, they naturally enough maintained that he was still a Manichæan; for though the doctrine of the two principles had existed in the east long before Manes was heard of, it had become by that time inseparably connected with his name. It is so still. If any one were to maintain that doctrine now, we should without hesitation call him a Manichæan, though he should express his abhorrence of Manes and the Gnostic mythology as loudly as Constantine. I repeat, therefore, that the reasoning of Mr. Faber "evidently proves nothing" -except a manifest ignoratio elenchi.

With regard to Mr. Faber's reply to my exposure of his misrepresentation of the circumstances under which Constantine adopted his new system, I have only to say that I am quite unsatisfied, as I should think most people must be, with his attempt to explain away that misrepresentation as "a mere piece of banter." I am far from being insensible to seasonable mirth; but I readily confess that I see no joke here. I am sincerely grieved that a person of Mr. Faber's character should write so. It is lamentable; yea, I must add, pitiful. It is an odd way of justifying such a misrepresentation as that

It may be observed by the way that, by slipping the word doctrine into this question, Mr. Faber contrives to involve in it a petitio principii. Mosheim certainly says, "Illi, quod ipse Photius refert, Manetem, ejusque disciplinam detestabantur." But he does not mean by the word “ disciplina" what is called in common parlance Manichæism; i. e., dualism. Mosheim was not the man to assert that. In the very first passage cited in the note referred to Mr. Faber, (Vallenses and Albigenses, p. 54, note,) Photius says, δύο μὲν ἀρχὰς ὁμολογοῦσιν, ὡς οἱ Μανιχαῖοι, "they admit two principles, as the Manichæans do."

which I laid to his charge, to allege that he gave the true version of the story in a dead language, in a note. This seems to me rather an aggravation than an apology, as shewing at least most extraordinary carelessness. But this is a delicate point. I will not press it. It has already made Mr. Faber very angry. It is in the spirit of a disputant of the seventeenth, rather than of the nineteenth century, that he describes this part of my letter as a "gross perversion, to serve a turn in controversy."

I can assure him, however, very confidently that I have no "turn" to serve. I have not taken up this subject with a view "to manufacture a community of Manichæns," or a community of protestants, but in the hope of contributing in my poor measure to purify history from the mischiefs introduced into it by persons who meddle with it for mere party purposes. I certainly sympathize in none of Mr. Faber's terrors with regard to the advantages which my view of the subject may afford to the Romanists. I beg leave to inform him most emphatically, that in my historical studies I only inquire for truth; and should feel ashamed to think for a moment that the discovery of truth could in any way injure the Anglican church.

"The modern speculatists," of whom Mr. Faber speaks so contemptuously, are, it should be remembered, all the scholars, of every language and every communion, who have during the last century given us the result of an examination of the documents which contain the history of the Paulicians. My own views were, as I stated in my former letter, originally formed upon the study of the sources. But a severe examination of evidence" has in this instance uniformly had the same result, and I was proud to adduce the most illustrious disciples of the rival schools of Mosheim and Semler as maintaining substantially the same opinion. I gladly embrace the present opportunity of supplying an omission, by adding to the list our accomplished countryman, Mr. Hallam. Indeed, the orthodoxy of the Paulicians can be maintained only by such a writer as Mr. Faber, who does not hesitate to avow his "thorough incredulity" with regard to the testimony of the authorities, nor scruple to abuse the simplicity of confiding readers by serving up "banter" and conjecture for authentic history. I am, my dear Sir, yours very truly, J. G. DOWLING.

Gloucester, Nov. 6, 1838.

RATING TITHES.--MR. METCALFE IN REPLY TO MR. AUSTEN.

DEAR SIR, Although I entirely concur in the opinion which you have expressed respecting the Rev. Mr. Austen's letter, I cannot assent to your decision, that there is no necessity for a reply to appear in the "British Magazine." Mr. Jones's valuable pamphlet will be read by comparatively few. His views are also assailed in other journals; and Mr. Austen's are extolled by "A Clergyman and Tithe-owner," in the last number of your own. Most willingly, however, shall I leave the following remarks upon the subject at your disposal.

Mr. Austen charges the clergy with being "hasty and unguarded in complaining of Mr. Shaw Lefevre's Bill, for making the tithe commutation rent-charge rateable to the net amount ;" and asserts, that "of the bill itself, as affecting the rating of tithes, the clergy have no cause to complain." I heartily adopt one passage in the reverend gentleman's letter, that "it is a very important consideration for the clergy whether or not their complaints and demands are just and reasonable;" and I trust that he will agree with me, that they do not generally lose sight either of justice or reason when they complain. Whether their complaints against Mr. Shaw Lefevre's Bill be, or be not, well founded is the subject at issue. Mr. Austen views the contemplated measure as just and reasonable, excepting the little bit of dishonesty in the title, and declares that he has "never known tithes rated more favourably than upon the net value, as compared with the rack-rent of farms." My own experience-which is pretty extensive in the county wherein I reside-would lead me to a directly opposite conclusion. The mode, however, of rating tithes and tithe compositions has been much too various to afford any criterion of the true principle of assessing such property. For that principle we must have recourse to the 43d of Elizabeth, and the adjudged cases upon the subject. Your "correspondent" in July stated the mode of rating tithes as settled by the King v. Joddrell, and contended, that if the occupier of a farm were exempted from rates upon one-half of the whole profits, the tithe-owner should be rated only upon one-half of his composition. Mr. Austen, somewhat unceremoniously, says, "he mistakes the matter altogether; it is not the individual that is rated or rateable;" that "the Joddrell decision was entirely a new thing." Admitting, for the sake of argument, that that case was decided on a novel principle, it was indisputably the law of rating at the passing of the 6 and 7 William IV. c. 71, and its continuance pledged to the commuting tithe-owner, under the 69th clause of the act, as the rule by which his rent-charge should be hereafter assessed. And the sinister attempt to repeal it, under colour of a declaratory bill, would of itself justify the complaints of the clergy against Mr. Shaw Lefevre's contemplated measure. This ground of justification I shall, however, pass over, and enter into the merits of the case, by endeavouring to shew that R. v. Joddrell was decided in strict conformity with the principle of the law of rating; in perfect harmony with previously adjudged cases; and was recognised as sound law, and referred to by the Court of King's Bench in a more recent decision touching the rule of rating.

The only statutory provision which describes the persons and property to be included in the poor-rates is the 43d of Elizabeth, c. 2, which enacts, that "sums shall be raised by taxation of every inhabitant, parson, vicar, and other, and of every occupier of lands, houses, tithes impropriate, propriation of tithes, coal mines, or saleable underwoods in the said parish. . . according to the ability of the said parish." Upon this clause Mr. Nolan, no mean authority, observes (vol. i. p. 67) :—“The tax is levied upon the person, in respect of some particular property possessed or occupied by him." And if this were

otherwise, the tithes of the parson and vicar would escape, as only "tithes impropriate, and propriations of tithes," are mentioned in the statute. Ever since the case of Sir Anthony Earby, thirty-three years after the passing of the act, not the property, but the occupier, has been rated; and whenever there has been no occupier, and the owner was not an inhabitant, the property could not be assessed. From the words of the statute of Elizabeth, it is evident that every inhabitant and occupier in a parish is to be rated, not according to the value of his property to let, or to the rent which he pays, but according to his "ability;" in other words, the profits of his farm, or of his trade. In Theed v. Starkey and Case v. Stephens, 1 Bott, 118, the poor-rate was decided to be a personal charge, and not on the land. And the general rateability of stock in trade is confirmed by numerous adjudged cases; and examples of such rating are still to be found. Nolan says, "A clother, a draper, or shopkeeper, and a merchant, are rateable for their stock in trade; a butcher and brewer for the capital employed in their business; and the owners of ships for their profits." vol. i. p. 144. See R. v. Canterbury, 1 Bott, pl. 167; R. v. Witney, pl. 170; R. v. Mast, pl. 210; R. v. Barking, Ld. Ray. 1280; and R. v. Ambleside, 16 East. 380. In which case Lord Ellenborough said—“ As to the rateability of stock in trade, that has been decided in R. v. Darlington, 6 T. R. 468, if it be ascertained to be profitable." In a very recent case, the general rateability of stock in trade was also fully recognised. In R. v. the Hull Dock Company, Michaelmas Term, 1824, 2d D. and R. 464, Chief Justice Abbott laid down the distinction of rating such property under the 43rd of Elizabeth; and under a local act, the 9 and 10 William, c. 3, for regulating the rating in the town of Hull, the words "stocks and estates" are introduced into the local act, whilst the word "inhabitant" only is found in the general statute. "The 43 Elizabeth uses," says he, "language applicable to the kingdom in general; the 9 and 10 William has in its view the town of Hull only;" and the distinction he draws is, that in Hull, from the insertion of "stocks and estates," the profits of trade and ships belonging to non-residents, are rateable; whilst the absence. of these words from the general act leaves the rating of such profits in all other parishes to depend upon the residence of the parties to whom they belong. But the necessary stock upon a farm is not rateable. The reason for this exemption is given by Mr. Nolan, in his chapter on "double rating." "Personal property," he says, " is also exempted, where it has been taxed in another shape. Thus, the stock necessary for cultivating and rendering a farm productive is not rateable, because, the annual profits of the land being rated, the profits of the stock are assessed in those of the land."-Vol. i. 179. In R. v. Brown, 8 East. 528, the farmers let their cows to dairymen, and Brown appealed against the rate, because they were not assessed for the profit of the milk. Lord Ellenborough said, "The appellant complains of the rate without any grievance; because, the farmer having been rated, as we must presume, upon the full profits of the farm, it matters not to the appellant whether or not the rate in respect of that farm could have been better distributed, by levying one portion of it on the farmer VOL. XIV.-Dec. 1838. 4 P