ed, has never yet obtained a fair trial. If the primitive Church ever entertained the idea of evangelising the world under the plan of voluntary association, she certainly did not adhere to it; for no sooner did an opportunity occur, than it was entirely abandoned. The Churches of the Reformation never had the most distant intention of adhering to it; for their great object was, to be connected with the State; and most of our present voluntary Churches were, till very lately, merely supplements to the State religion, and quietly worshipped God in their own way, without attempting any efficient scheme for instructing the mass of the people. The Independents, if we mistake not, afford the only considerable exception to these remarks; and their mode of procedure seems rather too disjointed for an undertaking which obviously requires the most systematic and persevering energy.

The voluntary system can obviously succeed to a very considerable extent. In this observation, we pay very little heed, either to the deductions of theory or the records of ancient history, but to what is entitled to far more confidence-existing realities. It is useless to allege, that not one of the present denominations of Free Churches could give instruction to the whole population. There is no reason that it should; nor, until more correct views of the principles, and laws, and constitution of the Church shall generally prevail, would it be even desirable that it should. In the progress of society, and the advancement of ecclesiastical knowledge, the Free Churches that are substantially in the wrong, if they will not reform, will gradually die out; those that are substantially in the right, will gradually improve, and become more and more assimilated to each other, till, at last, they unite together. And then will be the time for one party-if party it may be called—to instruct the whole population. In the mean time, we have not to inquire, what one party can do, but what they can all do, taken together; and though it is not a century since any considerable number of them had a being, (for, a century ago, there were, comparatively speaking, but few Free Churches,) though none of them set out with any preconcerted plan to instruct the whole population, and though they have all along very seriously opposed one another; yet, by the mere vitality of the spirit which animates them, they have already advanced so far as to be able to give instruction to at least one third or one fourth of the whole population. This does not look like great want of efficiency.' Ballantyne, pp. 257-260.

The admissions comprised in this Writer's fervent culogy upon the voluntary system, are certainly of an extraordinary kind, and, had they appeared in our pages, could not have failed to draw down upon our devoted heads the thunders of the Ecclesiastical Society. That the voluntary system can succeed to a considerable extent, that it possesses very high efficiency as far as it goes, is what few of the advocates of Establishments would think of disputing the facts are so plain, that it would be pure absurdity to contest the position. That it would have been adequate to the wants, and capable of adapting itself to the varying circumstances of society, in all past ages, neither the records of history nor the

dictates of common sense allow us to suppose. As the principle has never yet obtained a fair trial,' experience can supply no certain criterion. To infer from its partial success, its universal efficiency in a regenerated state of society, is not unreasonable; but, though this may be a true hypothesis, it stands in the condition of those truths which have yet to become facts, and which, till then, remain probable, and not proved.

But what is meant by the voluntary system? Mr. Ballantyne seems in some places to identify it exclusively with Dissenting 'Churches,' although it is the system which equally maintains the Romish orders and the hierarchy of the Romish Church, in countries where Popery is not established. The efficiency of the voluntary system was shewn, in the fourteenth century, in raising up and supporting the Mendicant orders; and it is now marvellously displaying its vital energies in maintaining the Irish priesthood, whose ascendancy is so much dreaded by the endowed and opulent order of established clergy. Even the Established Churches themselves, this Writer justly remarks, act partially ' under the principles of the voluntary system, and always with success. Their chapels of ease are all supported on the prin'ciple of voluntary contribution, and yet they seldom fail.'* But, while this fact illustrates the efficiency and prevalence of the voluntary system, it proves at the same time, that it is not so contrary to the principle of Establishments, as may at first sight appear, since it is thus capable of coalescing and blending with it.

The principle of voluntary contribution is (strictly speaking) opposed, not simply to State Establishments, but to private endowments; and those are at least consistent reasoners, who deprecate all endowments whatsoever for the support of religion, as positively or inevitably mischievous. And yet, what but the same voluntary system is the origin of all endowments not immediately emanating from the State? That voluntary endowments may be injurious at once to religion and to the interests of the body politic, by their disproportionate magnitude or accumulation, and that the pious, but misguided beneficence of individuals may require to be brought under legislative regulation, the Statutes of Mortmain testify, which were designed to prevent the friars from receiving landed property. Endowed charities, en

In the neighbourhood of Edinburgh', Mr. Ballantyne says, two chapels of ease were lately erected in one parish, and with such decisive results, that the rate of about 2000l. annually was obtained for their sittings in the course of a few weeks. In eleven Established Churches in Edinburgh, more than 5000l. were obtained the other year for sittings-a sum so completely beyond their needs, that the magistrates are said to have employed the surplus in paving the

streets.'

dowed colleges, and endowed churches are all equally liable to be perverted by corrupt management into sources of snug monopoly and private advantage, unless the abuse of trust is prevented by the most vigilant exercise of public opinion, the only efficient executor of bequests to posterity. An endowed church may, or may not be allied to the State by exclusive privileges. Were the political alliance between the Church and the State in this country dissolved, the right of the Church to retain all its endowments would remain the same, including among its endowments the Tithes themselves. That is to say, it would have all the legal right that a public corporation can have to retain the revenues bequeathed to it; and which is considered as not only a legal, but an equitable right, till abuse of trust has vitiated the tenure, or some paramount necessity calls for the sovereign interference of the highest national authorities. Church property has nothing in it that distinguishes it from other corporate property, except this; that other corporations are sometimes voluntary associations of men for their own benefit; whereas a church is a corporation endowed, whether by the State or by individuals, for the benefit of others. The property of the Goldsmiths' or the Drapers' Company, that of Dulwich College, that of Guy's Hospital, that of the Wesleyan Conference, or of any Dissenting Academy, is as sacred, neither more nor less, as the tithes or other revenues of the Church. To maintain, on the one hand, that the Church of England has, as an ecclesiastical corporation, no collective right of property, appears to us a most untenable and monstrous assertion. On the other hand, to contend, that that right is absolute, independent on the Crown, the sovereign proprietor in the eye of the law, of whom all property is held, so as not to be controllable by either the jurisdiction of royal prerogative, or the conservative power of the legislature,-is to set up a claim, not to property, but to sovereignty: it is to make the Church imperium in imperio,-an independent power in the midst of the nation, greater than the nation itself. The best comment on such romantic claims, is supplied by History.

The treaty of Westphalia secularized many of the most opulent benefices of Germany, under the mediation and guarantee of the first Catholic powers in Europe. In our own island, on the abolition of Episcopacy in Scotland at the Revolution, the revenues of the Church peaceably devolved on the Sovereign, and he devoted a portion of them to the support of the new Establishment. When, at a still later period, the Jesuits were suppressed in most Catholic monarchies, the wealth of that formidable and opulent body was every where seized by the Sovereign. Appeal, &c., p. 153.

We do not say, with the Writer from whom the above paragraph is cited, that, in these memorable examples, no traces are

'to be discovered of the pretended property of the Church.' As reasonably might it be affirmed, that, in the confiscation of the estates of an attainted peer, no trace is discoverable of the right of hereditary property. But these examples ought to stop the mouths of Papists exclaiming against Protestant spoliation on the one hand; while they admonish those churchmen, on the other hand, who talk of the sacred and indefeasible rights of the clergy, that the precedents of history, the most solemn acts of Catholic powers, the original claims of the Crown, the theory of the British Constitution, all ancient law, as well as all modern philosophy, concur in disproving such lofty pretensions.

It is, however, equally fallacious, to talk of the Church property as being vested in the Legislature. Dissenters who hold this language, expose themselves to the charge of being either very ignorant or guilty of wilful and malicious misrepresentation. The tithes are no more vested in the Legislature, than are the Irish estates of a London Company, or the endowments of our Dissenting academies and meeting-houses. The manner in which the abolition of tithes by a simple act of parliament is sometimes spoken of, as a thing quite feasible, legal, and desirable, might have suited a French constituent assembly. But that British Christians-nay, ministers of the Gospel-nay, individuals enjoying the benefit of endowments-should be so far misled by party zeal, as to join in the unprincipled clamour against church property, raised by the advocates of uncompensated spoliation,-forgetful alike of consistency, the decencies of their sacred office, and the plain dictates of common honesty,-this, we must avow it, has filled us with amazement and shame. The cause of Dissent is under small obligations to those who have brought down upon it this deep disgrace *.

The Tithe system is open to so many political objections, that its conversion into some other species of property will ere long be found the only expedient for preserving the endowments of the Church. Dismissing, then, from present consideration, the specific nature of Church property, the question resolves itself into this: Whether all endowments having for their object the maintenance of the Christian ministry, are inexpedient and prejudicial,

* We have reason to know, that the two Numbers of the Library of Ecclesiastical Knowledge on Tithes', which have afforded the British Critic so fair a handle for vituperating the Dissenters, have been very generally disapproved for the spirit which pervades them. Indeed, some respectable individuals who originally joined in the Society with the purest intentions, have seceded from it in disappointment and disgust, on finding themselves committed as the patrons of a publication so little creditable to the learning, good taste, discretion, or temper of the body.

VOL. VII.-N.S.

-or only, when they are either excessive in amount, or unequally distributed, or when connected with a certain ecclesiastical polity, or with a State Establishment? This is a fair and most important subject for dispassionate inquiry; and we should be glad to see the question cleared from all the mystification and angry declamation by which it has been obscured. Establishments and endowments, though often confounded, are not inseparably connected with each other; and the advocates of the voluntary principle and the congregational system take the most disadvantageous position imaginable, when they undertake to prove, that were the Establishments cleared away, the free churches' would be adequate, by the mere native vitality of 'the spirit which animates them,' to provide for the instruction of the whole home population, and even to evangelize the world. It may be so-the Millennium is approaching; but we have no notion of being called upon to subscribe to a theory like this, as ' a principle of Dissent', denying, as we do, all human authority in matters of faith. Had we no fears or doubts of our own to surmount, the remarks of such a man as Mr. Douglas upon this subject would give us pause. The utility of religious establishments,' says that truly philosophical Christian writer, is a ' question of considerable nicety."'

6

The arguments against them are numerous and cogent, and again, the arguments in their favour are far from being inconsiderable. The balance, if we might speak as neutral persons, seems rather to incline against them in theory. On the other hand, the experience we have of the inadequacy of Dissenters to supply fit teachers over a large extent of country, pleads strongly in favour of establishments, as useful auxiliaries at least, especially when they are divested of circumstances not essential to them. There is great injustice in making any individual pay for the support of opinions which he deems to be erroneous; and equal injustice in making one man more eligible than another to civil situations, not on account of his aptitude for office, but on account of the peculiarity of his opinions. Neither of these two circumstances is in any way essential to a religious establishment. All Christians, and it is to be hoped soon all men, will be eligible to offices in Britain; and by the composition of tithes, and their transformation into land or other property, we should have a church establishment without any contribution from those who deem that establishment erroneous. An establishment, in its simple form, would merely be the endowment of a certain class of teachers, and would only differ from other denominations in the source from which the salaries of these teachers were derived. If tithes were converted into land, the established clergy would be a class of elective landowners, holding their lands on the tenure of giving lectures on religion.

Much may be said against establishments, and perhaps justly, for they have not yet received their best form; but the truth is, that all denominations of religion, that are permanent, become establishments.