cerned, far less regard with a malignant eye-as some of our opponents with equal charity and modesty, not only surmise, but assert-the suppression of flagrant abuses, or the growth of vital Christianity within the pale of the established churches. We regard such events with deep interest; we hail them with cordial satisfaction. We hear with delight that the number of faithful ministers is increasing, in both the established churches-and, though we more ardently wish, than sanguinely hope, for the abolition of lay patronage, pluralities, and other abuses, while the alliance between church and state continues, we rejoice in every thing that looks like improvement, even when the circumstances in which it takes place, may induce a suspicion, that a sense of necessity, fully as much as a conviction of duty, may have produced it.

We are as fully persuaded, as we well can be, with respect to any future event, that a dissolution of the connexion between church and state must take place at no very distant period: and we congratulate the two ecclesiastical bodies, at present encumbered with secular patronage and support, on every change which is calculated to prepare them for acting usefully their part, when raised to a level with their sister denominations, and required like them, in order to obtain public support, to deserve it by public service. The greater the reform which takes place in these churches, previously to what they may think their disfranchisement, but which we know to be their emancipation, the easier will be the transition into their new and higher state; and the better fitted will they be for

exercising their new functions, and performing their new duties. At the same time, we cannot help thinking, that it is deep degradation, for a church to have to ask leave from secular authorities, to reform themselves; still deeper degradation, to have reformation obtruded on them by these authorities; and that there is much greater probability of a thorough change to the better, following, than preceding the liberation of these bodies, from the paralysing influence of a state connexion.

While the transactions of this evening are well calculated, to disabuse the public mind of the mistakes, produced by those false representations, which have been so sedulously made of the objects of the Voluntary Church Association, they appear to me equally fitted to communicate just conceptions, as to what the design of that institution really is, and what are the motives which urge its supporters to seek its attainment.

We unequivocally avow, what we are prepared satisfactorily to prove, that the civil establishment of religion, under the New Testament economy, is unjust, impolitic, unscriptural, and mischievous; and that therefore our object is to obtain, not a less objectionable form of the connexion between church and state, but the complete dissolution of that connexion-the putting an entire end to all interference on the part of the civil authorities, with regard to religion, in the way of sanctioning creeds, appointing ministers, and providing for their support. In other words; our object is to induce civil governments to let religion

alone, and to allow every man, and every body of men, while they conduct themselves as good citizens, to manage their own religious concerns, in the way they think to be most agreeable to the will of God, "with whom" alone, in such matters, they have to do." This is the object-the sole object-of the Voluntary Church Association.*

66

In endeavouring to obtain this object, we are influenced by various motives, none of which we are either afraid or ashamed to avow: some of these having a direct reference to our own convictions and interests as individuals, and others having a reference to the great interests of our common country, and common Christianity. As occupying a high place among these motives, we have no wish to conceal, that our desire of the extinction of the civil establishments of Christianity, partly originates in our unwillingness to give a portion of our property, for a purpose which, in our conscience, we believe to be not only useless, but mischievous.

Let me not be misunderstood. I do not say that either of the churches established in this country, is either a useless or a mischievous institution. I believe both have done incalculable good, though I am persuaded they have done this good, not because they were established, but notwithstanding their being established and I believe much more good would have been done had they not been established at all. But I do most distinctly assert, that the compulsory support of these churches, by a tax levied from multitudes * Vide Note II.

who conscientiously disapprove of some of the principles of these churches, and from multitudes more, who disapprove of the principle on which they are supported, is at once useless and mischievous: USELESS—because surely the members of these churches, including the greater part of the wealth of the country, are able, and ought not to be unwilling, to support them: MISCHIEVOUS-in as much as it destroys the natural connexion established between the measure of labour and reward-of work and wages; supersedes entirely the operation of the only authentic financial law of the church of Christ, and prevents all the advantages flowing from its unobstructed operation; excites jealousies and contention among the citizens of the same commonwealth, and tends to engender dissatisfaction with a government which, however unintentionally, tampers with the rights of property and of conscience.

It has indeed been frequently of late, distinctly stated, that there is no such thing as a compulsory support of religious institutions, in this our land; and the amazing assertion has been hazarded, that, with some trifling exceptions, not worth mentioning in so great a question, the established churches do not cost dissenters do not cost the country—a farthing.*

In reference to the first of these assertions, nothing is so wonderful as the temerity of him who made it, if it be not his simplicity in supposing it possible that it could be credited, at a time when every newspaper * Vide Note III.

brings accounts of sales in a neighbouring country, under the protection of the military, of corn and cattle distrained for tithes refused to be paid; and in a city where it is no very uncommon sight to witness the sale of household furniture, poinded in consequence of the refusal to pay ministers' stipend.

The second assertion may require, if it do not deserve, a little more attention. It is the opinion of some of the best informed political economists, that tithes and teinds are in reality, a tax on produce, which, like every other tax of the same kind, is paid by the consumer, so that every consumer of agricultural produce, pays his share of all the expense of our ecclesiastical establishments.*

But whatever there may be in this, there is another view of the subject, which makes it evident that these establishments are supported by public property, and that of course, every one of that public, to whom that property belongs, pays his share of the expenses; and were this portion of public property otherwise employed, would be relieved, to a certain extent, from the burdens under which he labours.Whatever may be considered as the nature of the tenure by which the Roman Catholic church held her property, there can be no doubt, that that property, whether justly or not, was confiscated by the public authorities, at the time of the Reformatiou, and thus

"Tithes are a burden which falls equally on every individual in the kingdom, on the poorest beggar as well as the richest lord, in proportion to their respective consumption of the articles from which a tithe is levied."-M‘CULLOCH-Encyc. Edin. Art. Taxation.