truth to gather support from every fresh examination to which it is exposed; and instead of 'scepticism underlying' the convictions which are adopted in connexion with a determination to prove all things,' all that is 'good' in those convictions must be held' the faster by reason of such proof. About this charge of scepticism we need not, indeed, have said more than that one of the paragraphs on which it is grounded, pleads for 'decidedness of belief as compatible with the liberty for which it contends;' and that in another page of this 'English Review' we are told, that though it might be convenient to the slothful, were no ground afforded for the exercise of conscience or of reason, God has willed rather to allow of the possibility of evil through the medium of liberty, than to create a world in which knowledge and bliss should be perfect and universal.''English Review,' No. xix. p. 72.

Equally inapplicable is the assertion, that the professors of such doctrines as these, of the right and duty of private judgment, view truth as the production of the human mind, the material of which is taken from the Bible, but the fashion supplied by man himself.' The Bible is with them, as we have seen, the statute-book by which their decision' as to truth ' is to be regulated;' 'the standard' by which all church pretensions are to be tested.' It presents to the human mind,' according to them, the fashion,' as well as the material,' of truth, and it is the application only of that truth, which, in their estimation, should be supplied by the man himself.'

their theory of the matter, and it is not in any sense liable to the imputation here cast upon it. That imputation does, however, belong to the theory advocated by our reviewer. A system of churchism based upon creeds and forms of human device, which, though professing to rest for support upon the scriptures, insists upon other terms of subscription than those which the scriptures themselves afford, could hardly be more accurately described, than as 'taking the materials of its truth from the Bible, but suffering the fashion of that truth to be supplied by man himself? Nor is this our opinion only. It is an opinion advanced in the very publication in which the imputation we are examining is contained. Thus speaks this English Review' of the Articles of the Church of England:-The Christian faith is enshrined in the Holy Scriptures, but its expression and its form are capable of indefinite variety, consistently with the preservation of the substance of revealed truth.'- English Peview,' No. xix. p. 34.

Hamlet.-Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a

camel?

'Polonius. By the mass, and 'tis like a camel indeed.

Ham.-Methinks it is like a weasel.

'Pol.-It is backed like a weasel.

'Hum.-Or like a whale ?

'Pol. -Very like a whale.'

Before we dismiss this part of our subject, we have a word or two to say upon the relation really sustained toward faith in religion and Christianity, by the spiritual freedom which has occupied our attention. Such freedom we believe to be not only reconcileable with, but absolutely essential to faith. Wherever faith exists, freedom must exist in the same degree, and as far as freedom is repressed, the necessary conditions of faith are destroyed. It is a misnomer to call mere reliance upon authority, faith; for, though reliance itself is one of the results of faith, it is an exercise of intelligence as distinguished from submission to authority, which gives to it that character. Intelligence cannot be exercised apart from freedom. It ceases to be intelligence when it ceases to partake of the nature of personal choice. Just in proportion, then, to the interference suffered with regard to the principles on which this choice proceeds, is the injury done to the faith professed. In that proportion it loses the vital quality of faith. Instead, therefore, of conceding to our author the boastful sentiments in which he indulges about the reality, and life, and substance of the faith which his system promotes-instead of regarding that system as favourable to the discovery of anything like absolute and unfailing truth.'-' English Review,' No. xix, p. 135; we are prepared to contend, that what characterises the system is subversive of faith, and that it is only by partaking of the virtue of the opposite system, that faith is possible to it at all. One of the greatest evils attaching to the Church of England, has been the influence adverse to faith, which it has exerted. That influence has not only been extensively operative upon those without the pale of this church, but it has been scarcely less powerful upon those within that pale. It has substituted for faith that which has only the outward semblance of this principle, and that semblance is none the less destitute of the reality it endeavours to imitate, because the imitation involves an exaggerated display of the submission to which faith naturally leads. Every blessing is connected with responsibilities which expose to danger, and thus the free conditions on which faith must be obtained, require to be carefully guarded from abuses to which they are liable; but to repudiate such conditions is to forfeit the good, which cannot be secured but by their means. It is in this direction that the doctrines point, which we have been endeavouring to confute; and we would recommend to the advocates

of such doctrines the following judgment, passed upon the Roman Catholic portion of them, in this self-same 'English Review;' In reality, these complainers would know truth as truth, without the slightest effort, without the least responsibility. Christianity must be written for them in the stars, or they cannot believe it. They will not walk by faith.'- English Review,' No. xix. p. 71.

The observations we have just made are intimately connected with correct views of what is called the voluntary principle. That principle does not embrace one of the modes of religious action which we are at liberty to put aside, in favour of another mode of that action. It embraces the only mode of religious action recognised by Christianity; nay, it supplies the only mode of action which can with any propriety be called religious. To compare it with any other principle in this application, is sheer folly. There is no other principle which the subject does or can admit. This includes all the religion of the case with which it has to do; and whatsoever arises from any other principle, is essentially destitute of the religious element. If this fails, there is nothing else to succeed. But it cannot fail. To talk of its failure is an abuse of words. In its form of principle it comprehends every agency possible to the subject. The compulsory principle is limited by the external force which can be brought to bear upon men; but the voluntary principle engages on its side all the power of those whom it influences. There is no limit to its influence, but the limit of human ability. This is its character, as a principle, and whenever we hear it spoken against as such, we feel convinced that the speaker is ignorant of that whereof he affirms. He might, with just as much consistency, speak against the interest itself which he connects with voluntaryism, for the whole of the available resources bearing upon that interest, are covered by this principle. It is true that the principle is, in the present state of things, very often partially and unfaithfully acted upon. It does not, therefore, produce the fruit which it is capable of producing. But to say this, is to say nothing against the principle itself. If that be preserved in its integrity, we should but rejoice the more that the short-comings of its professed friends were severely dealt with. Toward those short-comings we do not bear the least favour; but we demand that they be not put down to the voluntary principle, but to the weakness of those by whom that principle is administered. If this simple justice were done, the argument of our opponents, as far as it had to do with principle at all, would cease to exist.

There is an attempt made, toward the close of the paper on which we are commenting, to defend the Church of England

against the attacks to which its anti-voluntary character exposes it. The defence consists of three statements-that state-endowment does not exclude the principle of voluntary support—that those who oppose this mode of endowment, act inconsistently when they attempt to secure toward their objects steady and unfailing funds'-and that voluntaryism does not sufficiently prosper in the hands of its most zealous adherents.

6

The second of these statements we put on one side, as pure nonsense. If our reviewer is really at a loss to understand the difference between an endowment and the securing of a steady and unfailing fund.'- English Review,' No. xix p. 162; we cannot further instruct his simplicity than by saying, that such a fund may be raised without the aid of any endowment, and that steady and unfailing,' is a phrase expressive of the moral calculation applicable to the subject, not of the amount of money lodged in legal securities. This part of the case, however, we willingly pass by, as almost beneath notice.

As to the first and third of the statements to which we have just alluded, they may be taken together, and thus replied to. If the voluntary principle is not carried out by the persons who adopt it, to the extent to which they ought to carry it out, its operation among them is nevertheless more extensive and beneficial than that of any other principle would be; and if state support does not altogether preclude the working of that principle, it so far impedes it as to present the lowest and weakest manifestations of its power. We deny, in the most emphatic terms, the assertion here made, that if returns could be obtained of the voluntary contributions of churchmen toward the support of the clergy of the establishment, the amount of them would be found quite equal to, if not considerably exceeding, the contributions levied upon the voluntary principle, among all the dissenting sects put together.'- English Review,' No. xix. p. 160. This is notoriously opposed to facts, and was, we believe, merely said at random, to serve the purpose of the moment. The truth of the matter is, that with all its defects of application, voluntaryism has vindicated, and continues more and more to vindicate, in this country, its title to be the one great means of religious action, which answers at once to the Christian and the philosophical requirements of the subject; and that the condition of the Church of England supports that vindication, by its inability to fulfil the religious purposes which its numbers and its power offer to its hand. Fettered as it is by its political alliance, the great body of its people are an inert mass, as far as religion is concerned, and the efforts here and there made by some of its members are convulsive struggles against the pres

sure of its chains, rather than indications of the healthy and universal vigour which freedom would call forth.

The political opinions expressed by this English Reviewer are, if anything, more objectionable than even his religious ones. Their expression is occasioned by some sentiments published by Mr. Miall, in a tract entitled, Religious Establishments incompatible with the Rights of Citizenship.' Those sentiments relate to the duty toward God, in consistency with which a citizen ought to exercise the political power assigned to him. It will be unnecessary for us to quote the paragraph containing them; inasmuch as not only its general import, but its most distinctive phrases, may be easily gathered from the adverse remarks upon it, which we proceed to give :

'Mr. Miall admits, that there is such a thing as the powers that be,' an authority which is held from God.' And how does he conceive that this authority should be exercised? In the utmost plenitude of its power, is the answer. He who is invested with that authority held from God,' must not commit suicide upon it.' If he fails to wield it to the full, for the repression of all that would oppose its salutary and consecrated action, he is reminded that he throws into the treasury of unrighteousness the whole amount of power which he surrenders.' What, again, is, according to Mr. Miall, included within the legitimate scope of the exercise of that authority? Is it to be a merely temporal authority, confining itself to the supervision of the material interests of the state, the nation; or is it to extend its care to the furtherance of true religion? is it to concern itself about the spiritual welfare of its subjects, about the salvation of their souls? Most assuredly it is to do the latter, and that under the most solemn responsibility to Him from whom the authority is derived, and who will call upon those whom he has entrusted with it, to' give up an account of their stewardship.' If there be,' quoth Mr. Miall, anything religiously offensive, anything displeasing to our Lord and Master, anything subversive of Christian purity, peace, or power,' the trustee of political sovereignty,' holding his office. 'from God,' is, by his position, and by his studied neglect of the duties of it, an open party to its continuance.' Mr. Miall has a word of kind, and withal stringent admonition for trustees of political sovereignty,' if they should chance to be remiss in removing whatever is religiously offensive, displeasing to our Lord and Master, subversive of Christian purity, peace, or power.' He thus apostrophises such unfaithful stewards: God has introduced you into one of the highest relationships of temporal life, and you tell him that you will attend to none of the obliga tions of your trust. He has made you rulers, and you leave the people to perish through your indifference.'-English Review,' No. xix. p. 137.

Now, we confess our amazement at the degree of assurance possessed by the man who could forge this misrepresentation of the views of his opponent, lying as those views did, at the time, plainly before him. The main point of the description we have