possible, and should not exclude any congregation whatever of earnest worshipping people. Congregations which desire to be Christian will naturally have liberty to be so; those which prefer a broader basis, whether Jewish, or any other form of monotheism, should have equal liberty to stand upon that. In either case there is a firm and definite foundation,—religious Faith in the one case, embodying itself in religious worship, which implies, even though it may not formulate, a Creed of a deep and comprehensive kind; and Christian Faith in the other case, which carries in it not only the same element of religion, but also the recognition of Christ with all that this involves; each worshipping assembly (or church) being free to define its religious and its Christian faith for itself, or also to hold it in its own way without precise definition, and that, too, without the permission or the control of any external power whatever.

And, surely, sentiments of faith and devotion towards God, of reverence and discipleship towards Christ, might be trusted to serve as a sufficient bond of communion, in each case. With Christian men loyalty to Christ is nearly akin to a personal affection. It is largely made up of admiration and sympathy for spiritual excellence felt to be exalted and high above us. And feelings of this character, are they not better, more persuasive, more constraining, than any verbal creed? Indeed, we know that, even where a verbal creed exists, it does not always produce a true accord either of thought or of sentiment. It may be repeated mechanically, without any real depth of living sympathy or conviction; so that, as compared with that spiritual bond just spoken of, it may be a feeble and superficial principle, too often serving but as a dead weight upon the soul, rather than as an elevating and inspiring influence to help and guide a man in the way of life.

It should not be forgotten by those who would build upon

the teaching of the Christian master, that no dogmatic creed has been laid down within the pages of the New Testament. Christ himself refrained from this, and taught that men should enter into the kingdom of heaven, not by saying, “Lord, Lord," but by practically doing the will of God. If then it be impracticable and "anarchical" to have a Church without dogmatic creeds, even such is the Church, as it is left to us by the Master's own will. Who, moreover, shall now undertake to do what He left undone ? to act as the dictator, and draw up or select the dogmas of faith which shall be essential? To let Parliaments, or Convocations, or Presbyteries, or ancient Church Fathers do this, in such a way as to constrain and do violence to the individual conscience, would only be as a going back to "weak and beggarly elements."

From such considerations as these it clearly follows that great room should exist within the Church of a nation for differences of belief, of teaching, and of administration. A true and sincere uniformity is impossible; it is precluded by the nature and the essential conditions of the case. Nor is it

even desirable. Men and congregations should be left, therefore, so far as teaching and belief are concerned, to group themselves round various centres, according to circumstance and sentiment, much as they do now. But in this there would be no real or permanent loss of power, but only gain. Freedom to think, and to speak out the results of honest thinking, could not fail to be advantageous to the Church and the country, in religion as in everything else. The mass of the people, too, would feel that their appointed teachers did not, at all events, hold the doctrines they taught merely in an official, imposed, or non-natural sense, but with real and earnest conviction; while the guidance of men who were really free to speak what they really thought, would be all the more gladly accepted by those who might feel themselves unable to inquire and judge for themselves.

I will now venture to add to the foregoing remarks the more distinct expression of my own belief that of the two methods of settling this great controversy, that by disestablishment, and that by a large and equitable comprehension, the latter is the better alternative-the better, at least, for a people which professes to be a religious people. In the long run, I cannot doubt, it would prove to be the wiser and the nobler policy, and the one, therefore, which is the most worthy of a great nation. What I mean to recommend may be stated very briefly, thus:-It is, that we should make the National Church co-extensive with the religious portion of the nation, leaving to each section of it, and indeed to each congregation, full liberty of thought and of confession. At the same time, retain existing endowments of every kind for the religious uses for which they have been instituted and handed down to us. Continue to employ the resources which we have, as they have hitherto been employed-supplementing them so far as necessary from and by the voluntary offerings of the congregations. The English people are, on the whole-must we not say?—a religious people, and are likely to remain so. They need, therefore, religious institutions and services, churches and chapels and colleges for the education of ministers. And the means of providing for these have, to a large extent, been left in our hands by our forefathers, voluntary gifts of their piety. They have been left, in the main, not for the use of a section only of the English people, but for the benefit of the entire nation. Why not continue to apply them to the ends for which they were intended?

Many will reply by telling us to trust to voluntary zeal, and to abandon the ancient endowments to other uses. I confess, I shrink from this, on the simple ground of prudent expediency; and when I think of the poorness of the results from this method in multitudes of cases, of the miserable pittances on which ministers have often to subsist,

and the difficulty there is, from time to time, in raising needed funds for necessary purposes, I think I see clearly that it will be a huge mistake to abandon, that is, to divert to other uses, the national means which have come down to us from the past, and to leave the support of religion in the country entirely to the goodwill, or the fitful zeal, of voluntary contributors. Voluntary help will still, indeed, be required, and largely required, to supplement existing funds; but it would clearly tend to the stability, the orderly working, and the general efficiency of the great institution of a Church truly National, if at least its foundations were laid in the continued employment of the considerable national resources which already exist and are available for the purpose.

To this proposal a special objection will be raised, of which I may be expected to take some notice. This plan of allowing all churches and sects to participate in national funds and privileges is tantamount to the endowment of Error, manifold error. Some of the religious bodies are manifestly wrong; they cannot all be right; yet all would alike and equally share in the advantages of national recognition.

This objection loses its force when it is remembered that freedom of thought, of speech, and of profession would be the legal right of every congregation and its ministers-the acceptance of this great privilege being assured to them, and even made an essential condition of participation in national funds and privileges. A true liberty of thought and speech, such as is not at present possessed by the churches, could only lead, as a great practical influence and tendency, to the destruction of error and the establishment of truth. Error

is indeed, without doubt, more or less present in every form of human teaching; but with freedom to think, to discuss, and to avow, carefully provided for, must it not be gradually detected and cast away? It is not men's interest, whether

as churches or as individuals, to rest in false doctrine, either in religion or anything else. Their evident interest, their natural right, is to find out the Truth, and hold it fast. This right and interest it would be that was permanently upheld and endowed, not the perishable element which must by its own nature fall away and disappear before the investigation of free and sincere minds. A real liberty, therefore, to think and to profess being assumed to exist, it is not Error that is endowed at all, but only Truth-the truth which is held in each given case, and which, being what it is, must in the end stand firm and abide. How can any one doubt this who is a devout man, and a believer in the sanctity and the power of all that is right and true?

Another important consequence would attend the change. above proposed. A man whose mind had been opened to the admission of new light would not on that account be liable to be displaced from his position in church or chapel, would not feel himself bound to resign his office, because, perchance, the Spirit from on high had touched his soul, and brought him to see some things otherwise than as they appear in established creeds and other ancient forms of doctrine. Such cases as these are not unknown to churches -or chapels either!—and under the prevailing systems they will not fail to recur from time to time. Would it not be a manifest gain to the world if their occurrence could now at last be rendered an impossibility?

In the foregoing remarks no attempt has been made to discuss the question of Disestablishment in detail, or to estimate the difference between the policy which it involves and that which is here proposed. The former subject has, however, been alluded to, and it may be permitted, therefore, in a few concluding words, to express a doubt as to the consequences of that course of policy, if carried out. Is it quite clear that disestablishment will lead to the religious equality For example, in the Huddersfield Chapel case, not many months ago.