of God might live as they did under the Old Testament, when, as we read, they that served at the altar were made partakers of the altar."-Bingham, book v. chap. iv. § 15. The revenues of the early church were raised partly, and mainly, from the voluntary offerings of the people, and from bequests; afterwards from grants out of the imperial revenues; from the estates of martyrs and clergymen who died without heirs, and from heathen temples, which were sometimes given to the church. All disreputable means of augmenting its revenues, however, were forbidden. They always, says Bingham, observed the apostle's rule,—" Let their moderation, rès, their equity, be known unto all men; not doing any hard thing for lucre's sake; not taking advantages by rigour of law, when conscience and charity were against them.”

The following is a specimen of the authorities by which the statements of Bingham are supported :-" Modicum unus quisque stipem menstruâ die, vel quum velit, et si modò velit et si modò possit, apponit; nam nemo compellitur, sed sponte confert.”—Tertulliani Apol., chap. xxxix. No one can wish a clearer exposition of voluntaryism that is thus given.

Note D, p. 57.

Of the right and abuse of private judgment.

The right of private judgment has generally been regarded by protestants as one of the rights first exercised for centuries at the Reformation, and as one founded on the supremacy of the Scrip

tures.

Both these conclusions are mistakes. Private judgment has nothing to do either with the Scripture or with the Reformation, and has been lawfully exercised in Roman-catholic countries, where both are unknown.

Romanism is an assertion of the supremacy of the Romish church; protestantism is an assertion of the supremacy of the Bible. "The Romanist," as Dr. Wiseman explains, "is he who yields submission to the teaching and authority of his church;" the protestant, who yields submission to the teaching and authority of the Bible: the first exercising his judgment in interpreting the

language of his spiritual guides; the second, in interpreting immediately the language of God. By both the right of private judgment is allowed.

The abuse of private judgment is also identical in both systems. Private judgment is abused, in the opinion of the Romanist, when a Romanist rejects the decisions of the church because of their supposed unreasonableness; and in the opinion of the protestant, when a protestant, because of their supposed unreasonableness, rejects the statements of the Bible. Both believe their guides to be divine; and the right of private judgment is abused when authority, thus held to be divine and conclusive, is submitted to the decisions of imperfect reason. Both admit the right of reason to examine the evidences of the divine origin of each guide, and both deny the right of reason when once their evidences are admitted to sit in judgment on their authority.

By whom, then, it will be asked, is the right of private judgment denied, and by whom abused? This right is denied practically by the Romanist who inflicts penalties, temporal or spiritual, on such as reject the authority of the church, or on such as differ from him in their interpretation of her authority, which they still continue to acknowledge; and by the protestant, who claims for the church any authority to add to the Bible, or who inflicts penalties, directly or indirectly, on such as differ from him in their interpretations of it; and it is abused by the Romanist who compels the decisions of the church, and by the protestant who compels the decisions of the Bible, to defer to the fancied conclusions of his own reason. We repeat it; neither Romanism nor protestantism originated the right of private judgment, or denies it; they both allow an examination of the evidences and of the meaning of the highest authority; the only difference between the two systems being, that the one holds that the highest authority is the Bible, the other, that it is the church.

By whom, then, is this right denied? it is again asked; and we again answer, by the protestant, when the authority of the Bible, or any interpretation of the Bible, is supported by anything more than evidence; and by the Romanist, when he seeks to support, by any

thing more than evidence, the authority of the church, or any interpretation of the decisions of the church. The denial of this right, therefore, is involved in all the temporal sanctions which religion receives from the civil ruler. He says authoritatively to the subject, "You may examine the evidence of the authority of the church or of the Bible, (as the case may be,) and judge of the justness of my interpretations of their language; but if you reject either the one or the other, you know the result."

That we have stated accurately the prominent principles of Romanism and protestantism may be seen from Dr. Wiseman's Lectures on the Doctrines and Practices of the Roman-catholic Church, Lecture iii.; and from the first volume of D'Aubigné's History of the Reformation. Both Mr. Newman and Mr. Gladstone have misrepresented the opinions of dissenters on private judgment. They do not put reason above scripture, nor do they contemn the faith of the catholic church as of no moment in determining the meaning of scripture; they give it, on the contrary, all the weight which is due to the opinion of those who are likely on any point to be competent judges. Their reverence of the Bible, and their sense of individual responsibility, forbid them to give more.

It will be observed, that throughout it has been implied that the submission of human reason and of human passions is the grand object of religion; its very purpose is restraint and government; only what we maintain is, that all temporal sanctions—all establishments, in fact, Romanist and protestant-seek to subdue reason to the authority of force, not to the authority of truth; to govern the will otherwise than by means of the will; to induce men to act, not consistently with their better reason, but (so long as they dissent) against it; and hence they fail in their object. The following extract from Guizot is a beautiful explanation of the rule of the apostle, that the church should judge and rule all who willingly acknowledge her authority, but should leave "them without, unjudged :-"Quand elles (les religions) agissent par des moyens extérieurs, par la force, la séduction, par les moyens, en un mot, étrangers au libre concours de l'homme, elles le traitent comme on

traite l'eau, le vent, comme une force toute matérielle; elles ne vont point à leur but; elles n'atteignent et ne gouvernent point la volonté. Pour que les religions accomplissent réellement leur tâche, il faut que l'homme se soumette, mais volontairement, librement, et qu'il conserve sa liberté au sein de sa soumission. C'est là le double problême que les religions sont appelées à résoudre.

"Elles l'ont trop souvent méconnu; elles ont considéré la liberté comme obstacle et non comme moyen; elles ont oublié la nature de la force à laquelle elles s'addressaient, et se sont conduites avec l'âme humaine comme avec une force materielle. . . . . Si les religions s'étaient bien rendu compte de leurs moyens d'action, si elles ne s'étaient pas laissé entrâiner à une pente naturelle, mais trompeuse, elles auraient vu qu'il faut garantir la liberté pour la régler moralement; que la religion ne peut, ne doit, agir que par des moyens moraux; elles auraient respecté la volonté de l'homme en s'appliquant à la gouverner. Elles l'ont trop oublié et le pouvoir religieux a fini par en souffrir lui même aussi bien que la liberté."-VIe Leçon.

Note E, p. 61.

The whole income of the English church it is impossible to ascertain at present with any degree of certainty; the annual worth of livings in the diocese of Norwich alone is not less than 265,000l.; while as much as 665,000l. is received for church-rates in England and Wales. In Ireland, the income of the church is, according to the lowest return, 800,000l.; or, according to other calculations, all of them by churchmen, nearly 2,000,000l. In England, the lowest estimate is 3,500,000l. ; or, according to other calculations, also by churchmen, 9,000,000l.

The history of this wealth is curious: it is most of it of popish origin, and intended for popish purposes. Into these details, however, there is no occasion to enter, as the reasonings of voluntaryism are altogether independent of them. What it takes as granted is,

that whatever has been given by the state is given still; that national tithes are merely another form of an annual parliamentary grant.

Note F, p. 91.

No claim is more ridiculous than that which arrogates for establishments the advantages of unity of faith: of all churches, the established have ever exhibited a diversity of religious opinions, the more injurious that it has been kept up under shew of subscription to professedly the same creed. The truth of the following statements from the paper of no unfavourable judge is too notorious to require any lengthened illustration :-

"To what extent does the church of England allow of the right of private judgment? What degree of authority does she claim for herself in virtue of the apostolical succession of her ministers ? Mr. Gladstone, a very able and honest man, takes a view of this matter widely differing from the view taken by others, whom he will admit to be as able and as honest as himself. People, who altogether dissent from him on this subject, eat the bread of the church, preach in her pulpits, dispense her sacraments, confer her orders, and carry on that apostolical succession, the nature and importance of which, according to him, they do not comprehend. Is this unity? is this truth?

"It will be observed, we are not putting cases of dishonest men, who, for the sake of lucre, falsely pretend to believe in the doctrines of an establishment. We are putting cases of men as upright as ever lived, who, differing on theological questions of the highest importance, and avowing that difference, are yet priests and prelates of the same church. We therefore say, that on some points which Mr. Gladstone himself thinks of vital importance, the church has either not spoken at all, or, what is for all practical purposes the same thing, has not spoken in language to be understood even by honest and sagacious divines. The religion of the church of England is so far from exhibiting that unity of doctrine which Mr. Gladstone represents as her distinguishing glory, that it is, in