means of its destruction, Stretch your view a little further; and through the whole of that space in which Christianity has prevailed on the earth, there is not one church which has grown rich in property entailed, and which has not rotted in its own corruption.' pp. 34-35.

That there is much truth mingled with Mr. Stovel's too declamatory representations, we readily admit; but it is not the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The liability of trusts to be abused or diverted from their proper object, is not peculiar to charitable bequests and religious endowments. The complicated laws relating to property, both precautionary and remedial, the very existence of courts of legal redress and equitable administration, the whole apparatus of the statute-book presuppose such liability; and we must get rid, not merely of endowments and entailed property of all kinds, but of property itself, before the crimes connected with its misapplication can be wholly prevented. Property is the poison' that often destroys individuals as well as communities. The love of money is the root of all evil. And Mr. Stovel, who knows how hardly they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God, should, in order to be quite consistent, enjoin upon all Christian ministers the vow of voluntary and perpetual poverty.

Mr. Stovel declaims well, although he reasons badly, His pamphlet is eloquently written, and gives promise (if he is, as we presume, a young man,) of better things. It is adapted to make even a powerful impression upon those whose passions are stronger than their judgement, and to procure him more reputation with his own party, by its uncompromising boldness, than if his reasoning had gone a little deeper than the surface. It is the privilege of a young writer to have no misgivings. If he is so fortunate as to get hold of a train of thought connected with a proposition in itself true, he is not apt to suspect that it can be pushed too far, or stated too absolutely, or that that train of considerations can be crossed by other trains and modes of thought equally true. A young writer has chiefly in view to convince himself, which is a much shorter and easier task than to convince those who differ from him; and having no doubt that truth is on his side, he is confident of sharing in her triumph.

But if it be our object to persuade others, a scrupulous regard to facts will be more effective than the most brilliant oratory. Mr. Stovel, we regret to say, has not been very careful in this respect; and his statement, that our Poor-laws were "invented to relieve the clergy from those acts of charity, in consideration of "which the tithes were granted them," is but a specimen of that inventive kind of argument to which Mr. S. has unconsciously had recourse, and the effect of which upon an opponent, it is not difficult to estimate.

It is strange that Dissenters of the school which Mr. Stovel re

presents, including many acute as well as excellent men, should fail to perceive the great disadvantage which is sustained by the cause they advocate, when it is removed from the impregnable ground of religious duty, to the debateable region of abstract principles and political speculations. Upon the palpable grievances connected with the present Establishment, we are all agreed. What purpose can it serve, at such a time, to raise a debate respecting the comparative efficiency and advantages of the voluntary principle and of endowments? A question, strictly, of political economy, applicable to religious institutions, only in common with others of a secular nature; and respecting which all reasoning must be, to a great extent, hypothetical. If, indeed, it could be proved, that the Scriptures clearly forbid any other provision for the maintenance of the ministers of religion, than the voluntary contributions of their hearers,--that all endowments are morally wrong, then, to argue about their expediency or inexpediency, would be quite superfluous. The voluntary principle would, in that case, rank among articles of faith; and the rule must be equally applicable to all ages and countries, and all states of society. This would involve, however, in most countries, one of two things; mendicity, like that of the Romish orders and the Burmese priests, or, the necessity of ministers' supporting themselves by their own industry. The Quakers alone are consistent in following out what they deem a Scriptural principle to its fair consequence. Their sentiments are thus stated in the Concise History of Tithes,' by Joseph Storrs Fry.

6

"We believe, "That God raises up his Own ministers. That these are to give their spiritual labours freely; eating such things as are set before them,' and, having food and raiment, to be therewith content;' (which things they deserve, while in the exercise of their calling, as much as the labourer his hire ;) but that no bargains are to be made about religion. That ministers of the Gospel are not authorized to demand, consequently not to force, a maintenance from others; or to take away any thing from those who are unwilling to receive them; but that in such case they are to go their ways, and to shake the dust off their feet against those who reject them; or, in other words, to declare that they have done their own duty in going with the word of exhortation, and that the fault lies with those who refuse to hear it. That when they are not occupied in the work of the ministry, they are to support themselves, if necessity require it, by their own industry, using their own scrips, purses, and clothes. That any constrained payment on account of religion, as it is contrary to the intention of Jesus Christ, is an infringement of the great Christian tenet, that, Christ's kingdom being of a spiritual nature, the magistrate has no right to dictate a religion to any one, nor to enforce payment for the same; and that therefore any legal interference in these matters, which are solely between God and man, is an act of legislation BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF MAN'S

JURISDICTION, and is neither more nor less than a uSURPATION OF THE PREROGATIVE OF GOD."

pp. 11-12.

6

In accordance with this belief, when their ministers travel from home in the service of the Gospel,' they are supported by pecuniary contributions.

When at home, they provide for their own maintenance, following the example of the Apostle Paul, Acts xviii. 3. And should it so happen, that the family of a minister thus abroad stand in need of assistance during his absence, it is cheerfully provided for; as all the necessitous in this Society are, whether preachers or hearers, without suffering them to become chargeable to other societies or to the public. This we conceive to be the true Gospel order; and to be the extent of every thing that is enjoined by Our Lord and his Apostles on this subject. Fry, pp. 4, 5.

It would be difficult, assuredly, to prove that more than this is authoritatively enjoined upon Christians; and the practice of the Quakers in this respect, must be admitted to come the nearest to what prevailed in the apostolic age. We admire and applaud their consistency; and if we thought, with them, that the voluntary principle' was thus religiously binding, we do not see at what point we could make our stand, short of their practical conclusions.

Without going this length, we can maintain the superior efficiency of the voluntary system to any other, its practicability to a very considerable extent, and its superiority, so far as practicable. We can and do maintain, that this system is most in accordance with the spirit of the Gospel; that it can never be superseded by endowments and the compulsory provision, without entailing the certain corruption and decline of the Church; that it excites a vital energy which is never found to inhere in endowed corporations; that it is the conservative principle of Establishments themselves; and that to this principle we are indebted for the whole amount of that zeal, and combination, and benevolent exertion, which so remarkably distinguish the present times. Mr. Stovel does not overstate the fact, when he says:

The result of voluntary benevolence has actually outstripped the very largest imaginations of our forefathers. In point of practical energy, it has, in many cases, perfectly superseded the labour of the endowed clergy: so that they would have no official employment whatever, were it not for the conflict they determine to maintain with the Dissenters. Hence, the schools of the Dissenters have produced the schools of the Church; the colleges of the Dissenters have wakened the universities; the missionary societies of Dissenters have produced similar institutions in the Establishment; and the improved tone of religious instruction among the clergy has been produced by the energy and success of those whom they constantly affect to despise

The Dissenters will be glad to see the Church roused up from her slumber, and using her mighty strength; but they hope she will not ↓ scorn and run over them, as though their existence were unworthy of notice, and their interests were to be disregarded in the arrangements of Government.' Stovel, pp. 53, 4.

The greatest objection against the utility of Endowments and Establishments, is, that they have too generally swamped the voluntary principle, to which they should rather have been auxiliary. The consequence has been, that the curate, to whom the voluntary contributions of the parishioners would otherwise have furnished a competency, has starved upon a scanty stipend. 'Where property is to be obtained without labour, and without ' regard to character,' Mr. Stovel justly remarks, men who have no character will be the first to get it.' The benefices of the Church have been engrossed by sinecurists: the ministers who have chiefly sustained the character and done the work of the Establishment, have not been the receivers of Tithes. All church reform will be a mockery, that does not apply a remedy to this crying grievance.

6

6

With this, however, Dissenters, as such, have no concern. The practical grounds upon which they have reason to object against them, may be stated in the words of Mr. Douglas. 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.** But the learned Writer adds: Neither of these two circumstances is in any way essential to a religious establishment.' The abolition of the testlaw, so long considered as the very bond and cement of the alliance between Church and State, has redressed the one species of injustice. The other must and will find redress also.

But the point upon which Mr. Douglas and Mr. Stovel, with those who respectively think with them, separate and take different directions, is this. The former maintains, that this species of injustice is not essential to a religious establishment: the latter that it is, and therefore, that Dissenters wish to see the Establishment removed. Mr. Douglas states, that, by the composition of tithes, and their transformation into land or other property, we should have a church-establishment without any contri'bution from those who deem that Establishment erroneous.' Mr. Stovel would contend, that the tithe is a tax, and that all taxes are contributions; and that the conversion of the tax into fixed property, would not alter the case, as the Church would still be supported at the national expense. We have before us,

certain Resolutions passed by the Board of Baptist Ministers in London, specially convened, Nov. 6, 1832, the fourth of which runs as follows:

That they therefore feel it a matter of injustice to be compelled by law to support a religion from which they conscientiously dissent, convinced as they are, that the expenses attending the support of Christian Ministers, the celebration of Christian worship, and the extension of the Redeemer's kingdom, should not be compulsory, but free; and that the most honourable maintenance any man can enjoy, is that of the Christian Minister, when, like his Saviour, he derives it from the spontaneous, liberal, and affectionate contributions of those who receive spiritual advantages from his instructions.'

This Re

"The Son of Man had not where to lay his head.” solution is not intended to advocate reducing the Ministers of the Gospel to a state of mendicity and vagrancy; but precisely the same argument, drawn from the poverty of Christ and his apostles, was the strong-hold of the mendicant friars with whom Wiclif maintained so long and strenuous a controversy. This is, in fact, the Quaker theory, except that their ministers work with their own hands, and provide for their own maintenance, when not itinerating. For our own parts, we deem that to be the most honourable maintenance, which is fairly and honourably earned, whether it results from voluntary contributions, or endowment, fees, rent, or salary.

In the same Paper from which we copy the above Resolution, we find an account of a public meeting at Glasgow, (the Rev. Dr. Dick in the chair,) at which still stronger language was employed. Every church ought to be left to the voluntary support of its own members; and thus Christians of all classes be put on the same level.' The Scriptures require all payments made in the service of Christ to be voluntary.' The 'church as by law established is a burden on the nation, of 'which it ought to be immediately relieved.' The immediate confiscation of all church property, as property of which the nation has been defrauded, appears to have been considered by the reverend gentlemen who addressed this meeting, as a righteous, feasible, and most desirable consummation.

6

We

We shall not now enter upon the question, how far the seizure of the whole Church property would be a public benefit. must confess that, although we have not a very large stake in the country, we have a sort of nervousness, or pusillanimity, or old English prejudice, which disqualifies us for coolly and philosophically discussing the expediency of setting aside all the laws that protect alike personal and corporate property, by an act of Par

* Patriot Newspaper, Nov. 21.