ever plausible, that may be brought against it. Of the leading objections, however, I shall take a rapid survey. Among the writers to whom I have already alluded, Bishop Warburton, and after him Dr. Ranken, tell the opponents of Establishments that they have the common consent of mankind against them. They collect the suffrages of the world, of all ancient and modern nations, and they say they are all against us, with exceptions too trifling to be noticed. This, doubtless, is a formidable array. And as China, it seems, is rather a doubtful case, Dr. Ranken is at great pains to show, that what he calls "the Chinese Church," is really an Established Church! Be it so. Truth must not be determined by the multitude of suffrages in its favour. We trust we have Jesus Christ and his apostles with us. Beyond all dispute, the Christian Church for three centuries, was, in practice at least, as we are. And looking around us at this day, we do not feel that we are few. Be this, however, as it may. "The antiquity and extent of the practice only show the inveteracy of the prejudice." "But what say you to the Reformers?" We must confess with sorrow that we cannot claim them. We should have exulted in having had these great and good men on our side. But they are all against us— -LutherCalvin-Knox, every man of them. But, remember, they were against toleration too. They dismounted the old lady, it has somewhere been quaintly remarked, from the beast on which she rode; but they were too eager to leap into the saddle themselves. They were all against the" intolerable toleration of all religions," as keenly as they were for the establishment of the "true religion," and because they were for the latter, they were against the former. Let any one consult a well-known work in every theological library, the "Syntagma Confessionum, if he wishes proof of this. We must call no man on earth Master. "Dissenters have no right to intermeddle with the Church; she costs the country nothing; she has her own patrimony; and nobody has a right to it but herself." I believe the public have already overruled this objection, in all its parts, and after counsel has been heard on both sides. Who contribute to the funds that build and repair churches in Edinburgh, Glasgow, London, Liverpool, and every where? Churchmen and dissenters equally. Who replenish the treasury from which issue government grants, for building government churches, increasing small livings, paying troops for gathering tithes in Ireland, &c.? Then, as to nobody being injured because the Church has a tenth; would any body be injured if she had a half, or the whole? Why is a tenth so harmless? But private individual property! Let that never more be heard of, from the lips of Churchmen particularly! Hear a Layman on the subject." At the Reformation, the doctrine, that church property is public property, was established beyond any reasonable doubt, by the wealth despoiled from the Church of Rome being applied to the support of principles diametrically opposite to the superstition for whose maintenance these funds had been originally set apart. It would almost surpass belief, that a Protestant clergyman, subsisting on the residue of Popish benefices, could hesitate for a moment to admit that church property is public property, for otherwise what right has he to his present living? which, unless the state had the power to divert it from its original intention, must inalienably have belonged to the Popish priesthood, and he who appropriates their goods to his own use, except upon the principle that church property is public property, is, in terms of his own confession, a robber and spoiler of churches. But by every mite that a Protestant clergyman receives, he acknowledges this principle, that church property is public property, that the legislature has the right to withdraw it from its original purpose, and to assign it to objects diametrically opposite, provided these objects are supposed to coincide with the greatest possible amount of public good."* But, dissenters may still be asked, Do you, after all your noise, really wish a share of the property of the Church? No-but we wish exemption from paying any share of it to you-we wish you to do this fair thing, to support yourselves as we do we wish the state to dispose of its own property for the benefit of all its subjects, and not bestow it on a portion of the community who are not * Mr. Douglas's Address. paupers. Were its continued application to religious purposes determined on by the legislature, it ought to be equally distributed among all parties in the country, for it was originally held, not by a party but by a church which included the whole population. Two results would follow-the Church would have no more claim on the dissenters-and the dissenters giving up, on principle, their portion to the state, it could not be but that the present endowed minority would be forced to follow the example of the unendowed majority.—It is not thus, however, that matters will be adjusted. "But what would you do with the thinly populated parts of the country? Would you leave them in their poverty, destitute of religious instruction?"-First, if it is to be put on this issue, take the benefit of the objection for a season; renounce your Establishinent in the towns and populous districts, where the objection concedes it is not wanted-keep it, if you will, where you say it is needed.-Let this be tried; but if not, why may not the richer help the poorer? This is done in temporal things, why not in spiritual?-See what dissenters, poor as they are, have done in the poorest districts in Wales and in Orkney. And is not Christ's appointment, like that gospel which transmits it, applicable to all varieties of place and circumstance?-Thinly populated parts of the country! The less these are brought forward by the defenders of Establishments, the better for themselves. We are told by Dr. Chalmers, that men are not naturally inclined to receive the gospel, and if you do not anticipate their demands, they will live and die without it. Did Christ understand this unwillingness of men, or did he not? Did his appointment proceed on a miscalculation, which has at length been detected? "The wisdom of God is wiser than men." Yes, human depravity is opposed to the gospel; indolence will not arouse itself to examine it; prejudice misinterprets it; pride cannot brook its humbling doctrines; sin hates its purity. The gospel must be brought to men, otherwise they will not seek after it. But is it the most likely way to overcome this aversion, to compel men to pay for the gospel before that aversion is overcome? Then, if the state will form itself into a missionary society, and compel the supply of its treasury from its subjects of all parties, must it not either support missionaries from all the parties, by whom that treasury is replenished, (and in this case you are brought to the compulsory support of all, even the most conflicting creeds) or commit the injustice of compelling all to support one? Finally, it is objected, that our doctrine is at war with national schools, a national Sabbath, and, indeed, national religion itself. We deny all these.-There may be universal education, as in America, where there is no Established Church; and there may be the want of such education, as in England, where an Established Church has existed for centuries.-As an institution essential to the welfare of the nation, the Sabbath may be, and ought to be, set apart from secular labour; but it is not pretended that law can compel its religious observance.-Then, as to national religion, you cannot, without violence, without mockery, produce the appearance of religion, unless the people are religious. Rulers should do the following things in favour of religion-they should be religious themselves they never ought to do any thing inconsistent with religion in their public functions, but should rather relinquish their places, than violate its dictatesin their deliberations they should acknowledge God, who would thus direct their counsels, and favour their undertakings and, finally, by all appointed means, they should do what they can to promote true religion, in their own dwellings, in their country, and throughout the world. Then, indeed they would be nursing fathers to the Church. A nation blessed with such rulers, and walking in their footsteps, would, indeed, be a Christian nation; and by no other means do we conceive it possible that either rulers or their subjects, can justly attain this honourable name. These, however, are brief suggestions, which merit separate, and full consideration.* * I may refer for a more ample illustration of the above reply to the well-known writings of Mr. Marshall. Indeed, on what part of the preceding discussion might I not have referred to the productions of that powerful and intrepid writer. It cannot be too deeply impressed on the minds of dissenters, that, under God, the issue of this great question depends on themselves. They need not dream that their opponents will concede any thing of their own accord; or that the legislature, unasked, and uninfluenced, will renounce their hold of the national Churches. With themselves, therefore, the success of their cause rests; and I have no doubt they possess the means to ensure that success, sooner or later. They have every inducement to exert themselves. Wronged for centuries, without a cause-enduring their wrongs with a patience bordering on pusillanimity-the long-tried friends of this noblest temporal blessing with which a country can be enriched, civil and religious liberty, is it possible that a British legislature can always shut their ears to their prayers? They have still holier objects to animate their efforts. The buyers and sellers must be driven out of the temple of our God" the abomination that maketh desolate, standeth where it ought not," and must be expelled from his sacred territory-the foul treason against Sion's King, that she has another head than him, must cease for ever. For the spiritual welfare of their fellow-countrymen, for the influence of their religion, for the glory of their Divine Lord, the Church of Christ must be emancipated from the polluting slavery under which she has fallen, and must appear, as at the first, holy and free. With such objects in view, let British dissenters do what they can, and they shall prevail. Let them be united-let them be steadfast-let them be fearless-above all, let them be tranquil in spirit, possessed with the confidence which piety inspires. In repelling the attacks of their opponents, it is but due to truth, that they give things their proper names. Abuse, slander, scurrility, falsehood, must not be softened down from a squeamish fear of giving offence. But let no injury, past, present, or future, provoke retaliation. Such weapons |