sanne, may be found the following remarks: "Although the theory of government which I have adopted does imply the rejection of the theory of paternal jurisdiction, at least, in the strictest sense of the terms, I cannot think of forbidding to governments the exercise of paternal feelings and paternal virtues. I cannot consider the enterprises and improvements of civilization as outrages on justice and liberty. I am now desirous most explicitly to state, that whatever may be my views as to the ideal perfection of a community, I regard all governments actively engaged in breaking the bread of knowledge to their subjects, not the enemies, but as the friends, of liberty." Every reader must see incoherence and vacillation in these sentences. Some appear as truisms. If a government should act like a parent, not having the right to do so, the excellent author would approve! Why should it not as much give religion as education? What funds has it to accomplish this, but the revenues forced from the people? It is a most lame and impotent conclusion. It can only be explained by his fear of raising too great a controversy-the double question of Established Churches and Educational Impositions.

What, then, it may be asked, should a monarch do? We answer, what any other man ought to do; be himself religious, and preserve a domestic discipline of religion. Let him maintain a pious, holy, Let his example, and even his counsel, recom

court.

mend religion to his subjects.

But we have a precedent, and this we enforce. Would that all leaders and governors of nations might speak the language, and act upon the decision, of Joshua :-" If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!"*

It will be said, that the Church of the Country is the proper instructress of the people that it is its direct design. On the question of civil incorporations of Christianity, we do not touch. It belongs not to our argument. The argument leaves it open. It binds neither side of the dispute. Then, regarding any indefeasible claim of such a church, apart from its political establishment, as only of itself,-we ask, How has it acquired the right to control the education of the people? Has the State, which has adopted it, given it the right? Then will come the question, Is it a right which the people may allow? Is it in agreement with their rights? A state conscience is a strange argument for infringing the consciences of millions. The diversity of churches will perplex the peasant and the boor. Such diversity annuls the boast itself. There is education, it is to be administered under an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but what is that? It may be the Sorbonne of France, the Synod of Russia, the Inquisition of Spain, the Diet of Rationalistic Germany, the Consistory of Socinian

* Josh. xxiv. 15.

Geneva.

These cannot all be the fitting mediums and the aptest instruments. Let every favourable exception be conceded to the English Church. Allow its doctrinal purity and tolerant spirit. It is plain, that if the people be so lamentably ill-educated, as is charged upon them, here falls the censure. If it was the duty of that church to direct the discipline of the rising race, if it received “ the nation's trust, the nurture of her youth, her dearest pledge," *-then has it most unfortunately, or most guiltily, failed in it. The Universities it inexorably shuts against all dissidents from its doctrine, though surely they stand not less in need of lore. We fear that we must charge it with neglect, if not malversation. From a table of the funds appropriated to educational purposes, according to the Report of the Commissioners appointed to enquire into them, M'Culloch deduces the following facts: "It appears that, under the present defective and slovenly management, the income of endowed schools in these countries, exclusive of the sum appropriated for that purpose by the chartered companies of the metropolis, amounts to £180,309. But nine of the most opulent English counties, including Cheshire, Essex, Kent, and Lincoln, are omitted in the above abstract, not having been enquired into by the commissioners when it was published. Allowing for this deficiency, and supposing that the estates, and other property appropriated to educational purposes,

were reasonably and well managed, we believe that we shall be within the mark, if we lay down that a free income of from £400,000. to £450,000., is at present partly, and should be entirely, devoted in England and Wales to the support of school education." It is a munificent endowment: it is a mighty feoffment what a work would it have wrought had it been faithfully and assiduously administered! But the Church neglected the population: other guides arose and obtained a powerful influence over it: and society has long since been so divided into religious sections, that few will entertain the hope that the old ecclesiastical ascendancy can be recovered. If any imaginary right be retained by it, its power has passed from it. There are millions who will not submit to its instructions. It can impart no truly national education.

Special reasons may be found against the docent authority and right of any Established Church. Perfectly just as may be its position, scripturally pure as may be its doctrine, it does not follow that, therefore, its province is in the education of the youthful race. Its close and dependent connection with the State, must always create a tendency to take its part. This tendency becomes a temptation to lean to the side of power. Popular liberty is not likely to be its cherished vision, or warmest inculcation. There is no wrongful suspicion in this view. Whatever is a certain tendency becomes a law. But history justifies our

jealousy. Ecclesiastical corporations must have proper, if not selfish, interests. Can such corporations be expected to foster enquiry into their grounds of existence? May we divine that they will champion the progress of freedom and general knowledge? Will they be intent especially on the advancement of the people? They may have a useful place in a country, and yet be most disqualified for this particular service. Besides, an Established Church is a living community. Its standards and symbols may be irreproachable, but itself has prejudices and other party passions. If it teach, it must teach what its functionaries think and feel. It may be brought under the influence of most noxious errors. Its ministers and interpreters, for the time, may wrest and strain language, otherwise understood, to support them. Such errors may grow into fashion and become ascendant. Are these to be taught? A great portion of the actual clergy may favour them. Is the church to promulgate this corrupt doctrine ? What security has the nation that only Christian verity shall be imparted to its youth? Formularies and articles cannot be stamped upon the mind in their strictest and purposed meaning. There comes between the one and the other, individual and varying opinion. It cannot be doubted, that if this imagined duty were now committed to the English Hierarchy, many of its ministers would train the young to the most doting and abject superstitions. No small part of the opposition to the recent attempt