have originated less in faith than in fear; the cause of the persecutor has not so much been maintained because it was felt to be true, as because it was believed to be endangered.

Still it ought to be observed, that the hostility is against systems. Instead of regarding this hostility as malignant, it ought to be viewed, if properly conducted, as an expression of Christian benevolence; and consequently, invective on the one side and recrimination on the other, are inapplicable and misplaced. The effort in argument, though it be even somewhat rude and vehement, when we believe our fellow Christian to be cherishing a serious error, resembles the zeal of him who should snatch and hurry a man from a precipice he did not perceive, or a quicksand on which he had ignorantly planted his foot. Whatever be the method adopted, the aim at least is kind; and though it should ultimately appear that the person who acted as a deliverer was himself suffering a delusion, charity should appreciate, as philanthropy must applaud his motive. But, unhappily, there are those, and often they are chiefs in this controversy, who can see nothing in the opposition offered to their nursed and dandled prejudices, but pure evil and bad passion. They view inquiry as an insult, and resistance to a favorite dogma or a well patronized scheme, as a treason against heaven. What is hoary with age is of course venerable; what is emblazoned with pomp, and patronage, and distinction, is unhesitatingly to be received; what is transmitted from distant times or comes sustained by the wisdom of our ancestors, is, necessarily, true. Thus men reason, or rather thus men think; till they are tempted to glory in the very shame of endeavoring to load with obloquy that which ought to be contemplated with esteem and hailed as an accessory of truth. In the controversialists upon this subject we often recognize a kind of sect of anthropomorphites, who imagine that essential divinity resides in the form and structure of their creed and system, and that to seek the demolition of their theological order or principle of discipline is to attempt an outrage upon the throne of God. No difficulty can exceed that of having to contend with such a state of mind; obstacles present themselves which seem all but insurmountable, at every step; for the discussion is, as it were, determined before it is begun. Instead of that calm inquiry which religion claims, and which can alone subserve its interests, the struggle is for victory or for show; it is an olympic game or a chivalrous tournament: the whole is settled by patronage or by dexterity. But it is surely high time to view the subject in its true light, to disentangle it from the perplexities of prejudice and personality, and to fix it on the basis of reason and revelation.

We now solicit the attention of our readers to the claims of The Evangelical Voluntary Church Association,' whose proceedings at a meeting appointed for its formation are recorded in

the pamphlet announced at the head of this article, and the title of whose first publication is also introduced. We propose to refer to its origin, its distinctive principle, and to what we have ascertained of its present plans and prospects.

With regard to the origin of this Association, it may, if we mistake not, be traced proximately to the lectures delivered by Dr. Chalmers, and, therefore, primarily to the hostile attitude against nonconformity assumed by the Christian Influence Society, to which it is in reality the plain and legitimate antagonist. After the delivery of Dr. Chalmers's lectures, a few individuals who were deeply impressed with the unfairness of the lecturer, and the unsophisticated rancor of the party that employed him to scatter fire-brands, arrows, and death, deemed it a duty which they owed to their fellow men, to adopt some measure which might be calculated to disabuse the public mind of the delusions conjured up by the magician's wand, and to establish some permanent method of awakening the religious feeling of the community, to a sense of the necessity of a more deliberate and dispassionate consideration of the general question of state establishments of religion. After some private conferences, a public meeting was called, and an association was formed, of which we have the account before us. To the special object of the society, as laid down in the rules and expounded by the speeches of Sir Culling Eardley Smith, Dr. Leifchild, Dr. Cox, Mr. Burnet, and others, we shall presently advert. In the mean time, we cannot but be struck with the fact that, some of the very persons who have been prominent in the support of those institutions which have assumed what has been termed the political ground of nonconformity, denouncing church-rates and other dissenting grievances, and appealing to parliament on the questions of civil and religious freedom-some of these very gentlemen are the leaders in this new movement which takes exclusively the religious ground, and in the language of the general title of their tracts, stands upon 'the advocacy of the Voluntary Principie on religious grounds 'only.' It may be asked, Have these gentlemen renounced their former principles, abandoned their former friends, or assumed for any party purposes a novel character? We believe no such thing; on the contrary, they are acting in perfect harmony with all their former declarations, and in unison with all their former associates. There is more than one road to the metropolis, and more than one method by which the same great end may be accomplished. They are no less voluntaries than they were, and no other in principle than they were-the steady friends of freedom-the steady opponents of a union of Church and State, in the promulgation of Christianity. Nor are they a whit the less inclined to sustain all the political bearings of the question, and the appeal to parliament if deemed necessary in other connexions

or aspects of the subject; but only here according to the terms of this particular union, they are more distinctly and solemnly pledged to the promotion of the voluntary principle by an advocacy specifically founded on the religious basis. It is the only instance in which this point has been so prominently exhibited, and it is calculated to help forward the general question, inasmuch as those who go to the greatest length in their views, and are most decided in their utterance, may feel an identification of interest and purpose with the principles of this Society, while others, who are afraid of reproach—afraid of being called political -may concur in operations which are primarily based in religion. The Society challenges cooperation by maintaining the axiom that the one thing ought to be done and the other not left undone.

The distinctive principle, then, of the 'Evangelical Voluntary Church Association' is thus declared in one of its fundamental rules- This society shall not take part in any appeals to the 'legislature of the country; but its business shall simply be to 'advocate and extend by means of public lectures, through the 'press, and in every other practicable way, the principle of Voluntary Churches; in the spirit of meekness and charity towards those of our Christian brethren, whether in or out of the Esta'blishment, who dissent from its object, and with the view of 'convincing and persuading their minds.' Some of the avowed opponents of church exactions and church establishments were at first a little apprehensive that this institution wore an unfavorable aspect towards them, and contained in it a tacit objection to their measures and objects; but they did not perhaps observe that without any expressed or implied reflection on them, it was only resolved that (not they), but this society should not take part in any appeals to the legislature of the country. Beside the great practical proof not only that this jealousy does not now exist, but that there is a general conviction that the Evangelical Voluntary Church Association is concurrent with the principle of all others which advocate the removal of the great grievance of a national church establishment, is, that both the Scotch and English ministers who represent other institutions, have united with this as corresponding agents to the number already, as we are given to understand, of between four and five hundred.

If the religious view of the question regarding a church establishment be not the only one that may be taken, it is at least among the most important; and not having before been brought forward with sufficient prominence, the Christian public must feel indebted to those who have united in this pious confederation. The sentiments expressed at the public meeting were worthy of the parties who gave them utterance; and we should be glad to extract largely from these speeches if our space permitted. But

other claims crowd upon us, and we must, therefore, restrict ourselves to the following remarks of the chairman.

'I feel,' observes Sir Culling Eardley Smith, that the grand obstacle to what I conceive to be scripturally constituted societies, is the Establishment. I am not now speaking of the vast number of places where there are ministers (so called) who do not feel the love of Christ, and therefore cannot explain it. But I speak of the generality of parishes where the gospel is preached. Every person who attends Church, imagines that as a member of the National Church, he has a certain status as a Christian. Much more, every communicant is induced to regard himself as a person fully complying with the ordinances of Christ. There is, therefore, an utter want of corporate love and corporate action in the bodies which assemble round the communion table. I think if any Churchman were to be brought to feel that such sympathy as I have described is an indispensable condition of rightly constituted bodies of communicants, he would be the first to acknowledge that there is but little of the sort in the Establishment. I know what it was to me, for several years after I became interested about religion. The sacrament was a very awful and impressive ceremony to my mind, and I hope it reminded me of the love of Christ; but there was such a contradiction in its being administered by a man of the world, and partaken in by people who made no profession of loving Christ (one or both, as might be), that I never knew the delight of it till recently.

The great feeling, then, which I have is, that the machinery of a national establishment neutralizes the machinery of Jesus Christ. This last is a machinery so potent, that I believe if it was left to itself, it would soon send the gospel all over the world. Societies, really Christian, would have a silent eloquence, which would be worth all the professional missionaries in the world. Very much less money than is now spent, whether at home or abroad, would produce ten thousand times the effect, if all professing Christians were seen to love one another. But the consequence of establishments is, that persons who have no Christian love in their character, are deceived into thinking themselves Christians. Missionaries abroad, and pious ministers at home, have sad up-hill work, from this contradiction between the precepts of Chistianity and the practices of professed Christians. If the State would but leave religion to its own unassisted energies, Christians would soon find each other out, and the loveliness and happiness of the system would soon commend themselves to every impartial conscience. The mass of talent, too, which is now shut up into small spheres, would then be set at liberty, for the promulgation of the gospel among the thoughtless and ungodly. A large proportion of pastors would be turned into evangelists. The mountain of the Lord's house would be established on the top of the mountains, and all nations would flow unto it.

I cannot descend from this interesting view of the question to dwell upon the injustice of establishments. I feel their injustice most strongly. They unduly elevate one set of men, and unduly depress

another, not because they are better or worse men, or better or worse citizens, but because they give, or do not give, their formal adhesion to a certain form of words. Establishments also involve taxation of one man for the spread of another man's opinions. They stand in the way of Christian co-operation. They have taken the Bible Society and the Tract Society in England, by the voluntary retirement of individuals, out of the hands and the advocacy of Episcopalians, and placed them chiefly in the hands of Voluntaries. They occasion all sorts of jealousies. If I attend a voluntary chapel in a parish, the pious clergyman of the place threatens me with the loss of his friendship. If I wish to employ a Scripture reader in a godless village, even my pious friends wonder at my audacity. I feel that the Establishment is at the root of the whole evil, and now is the time to endeavor to convince people that it is so.'

This extract may suffice, though we wish we had space to introduce portions of the other speeches, in order to exhibit still more fully the principles of this new society, and the spirit by which its supporters are prompted. They have chosen the path of conciliation, and attempt, not only to convince by argument, but to win by persuasion. Alas, how vainly! If any thing could bespeak honesty of purpose, and kindness of heart, it would be surely to say, as this association in effect says, let us calmly examine the points of difference; let us lay aside every reproachful epithet, and every suspicious feeling, and with the common standard of faith, the Bible, in our hands, let us prayerfully and perseveringly investigate the claims of the voluntary principle; let us endeavor to ascertain whether the union of church and state is compatible with the laws of our common Lord; whether he countenanced or not the principle of religious establishments, and aim to conform at once to his authority, whether our particular predilections are or are not sustained; let us lay aside selfishness, hatred, and all party politics, and take the mind of Christ as the polar star of our future course. One would have thought that, persons influenced by these sentiments, avowed publicly and with evident sincerity, would at least have gained respect, and have been exempted from opprobrium. But what was the fact? Instantly after the holding of this assembly, the wide mouth of calumny was opened, and poured forth unwonted scurrility in endless vociferations. The pious Record, and the impious Times, alike cursed. The former was so enamored of its own production, that nothing less would suffice than to issue it in a separate penny publication; and the latter bestowed three long and leading articles upon the egregious sinners who had dared to attempt to persuade their fellow-countrymen and fellow-christians to investigate the whole subject of church establishments on religious grounds. They tried to disparage the men; but that would not do. They tried to denounce the legi