something little better than the deadly superstition of

the past.

The truth is, that we contend now, as our fathers did, for the free use of the scriptures, for the free interpretation of them, and for the setting up of a pure ministry amongst us. And to secure these blessings— the very blessings which our fathers sought, we call, not for the breaking up of the establishment; not for the alienation of her private wealth; but for the withdrawment of state patronage and state endowments. We claim not property, which is no more exclusively ours than it is by right exclusively hers; but we do claim the abrogation of every religious tax and of every religious prerogative; because in principle they violate the rights of conscience, hinder the progress of truth, and, if patiently allowed, will in time bring with them all the errors and injustice of that other superstition, which a past generation succeeded at so immense a cost in sweeping away. Indifference to national wrongs, if we may adopt, with some latitude, the sentiment of a great master of morals and eloquence, is generally found to end sooner or later in disregard for national character and national faith.*

* "Ipsa consuetudo," says Cicero, though in a somewhat different sense" ipsa consuetudo assentiendi periculosa esse videtur et lubrica."-Acad. Quest. lib. iv.

8. This controversy has been discussed, it must be confessed, throughout, in a spirit lamentably unchristian. Some, on either side, have displayed a bitterness and a want of candour far more likely to impede the advancement of truth than to promote it. They have violated most grievously the rules of charity. They have not hesitated to judge and condemn what can be known to God only, the untold purposes of the heart. They have ventured to stigmatize their opponents, on the one hand, as "lovers of pelf," and "of the honour of man ;" and on the other, as "haters of that which is good," as "impetuous and bustling agitators, in whose breasts politics have engrossed the place of piety; and who are prepared to welcome, with shouts of exultation, the overthrow of those altars which, in holier and better times, upheld the faith and devotion of their fathers." Far from us be such language! National ecclesiastical establishments are, in our estimation, unjust and unchristian; but many of the advocates of them are our "brethren in Christ," and all of them are our brethren in the bonds of our common nature. While, therefore, we "speak the truth," we would "speak it in love." Principles we condemn, not persons; measures, not men; and these solely because we deem them destructive of the highest interests of religion, and opposed to the soundest lessons of philosophy and

experience. We dare not thus denounce and unchristianize. "Another man's servant" we dare not thus judge; and when we are tempted to do it, the recollection of the first similar judgment on recorda judgment not the less impious because given in the form of a suggestion-" Doth Job serve God for nought?" and of the gentle rebuke of our Master"Forbid, condemn him not," silences our suspicions, and sends us away to "take heed to ourselves."

Nor is this censure of the spirit in which this controversy has been conducted founded solely on a reverence of Christian precept; it is founded not less on a regard for the interests of religion. Nothing, as both history and scripture testify, can be more injurious to the cause of knowledge and of love-holy love, sound knowledge-than the uncharitableness of their advocates. It annihilates the only element that truth can breathe, and live, and fills up the void with the worst passions; it surrounds the mind of inquirers with an atmosphere the very opposite of the calm, holy light in which the Spirit dwells. The time, we hope, is as yet far distant when an irreparable loss will consign the name of one whose language has been quoted to the page of history, and warrant his biographer in softening down the animosity which his spirit of partisan

ship may have awakened, by a reference to his private virtues; and in the meantime, let Christians, taught at length how little they can do by angry recrimination, try what may be done by the omnipotence of charity and Christian love.

CHAPTER II.

OF THE REAL QUESTION AT ISSUE BETWEEN THE ADVOCATES OF VOLUNTARYISM AND A STATE CHURCH.

"At idola fori omnium molestissima sunt, quæ ex fœdere verborum et nominum se insinuârunt in intellectum. Credunt enim homines, rationem suam verbis imperare; sed fit etiam ut verba vim suam super intellectum retorqueant et reflectant; quod philosophiam et scientias reddidit sophisticas et inactivas... Unde fit ut magnæ et solennes disputationes dominum doctorum sæpè in controversias circa verba et nomina desinant; a quibus (ex more et prudentiâ mathematicorum) incipere consultius foret easque per definitiones in ordinem redigere."-BACONIS Verulamii, Nov. Org. lix.

1. In all disputed questions, it is of the last moment that the advocates of opposite systems set down, at the very beginning, the meaning of their words and terms, or at least that they define clearly what notions each doubtful one is supposed to involve. We proceed, therefore, to describe what seem the distinctive features of the voluntary and state-establishment systems.

2. By the religion of the Bible is meant, the truths and feelings it has taught and sanctioned. The belief of the one and the exercise of the other make up the