Then it must be remembered that the class which makes the main difficulty elsewhere, scarcely, if at all, exists in America. It is the blessed privilege of the United Statesand it is one which goes very far to counterbalance any drawbacks at which I may have to hint-that they really have not, as a class, any poor among them. A real beggar is what you never see. On the other hand, over their immense tracts of territory the voluntary system has not sufficed to produce sufficient religious accommodation. It may, however, be truly questioned, whether any establishment would be equal to that function. This is one among the many questions which the republican experience of America has not yet solved. As matters stand at present, indifference to religion cannot fairly be laid to her charge. Probably, religious extremes are pushed further than elsewhere. There certainly is a breadth and universality of religious liberty which I do not regard without some degree of envy." From such an observer any opinion has its value, and one so carefully formed and expressed has a more eminent value. We add to it that of a man who, although not a member of an ecclesiastical establishment, can scarcely, from his connexion with the methodist body, be deemed an ardent friend of the voluntary principle, the Rev. Dr. Dixon. This gentleman visited America in 1848, and on the subject before us he says: : "There are no sects in America-no dissenters, no seceders, or whatever other term may be employed to designate the position and standing of a Christian society. They are alike considered as Christians; and adopting, according to the judgment of charity, with equal honesty the common charter of salvation, the Word of God, they are treated as equal, and as possessing similar and indefeasible rights. "This is certainly a new aspect of living and visible Christianity, and our business with it at present is to test its operation on society. Can perfect liberty and equality in religion work well, when favoured by circumstances as in the United States? Is Christianity itself, in its own revelations, its own glorious platform and basis, its own provisions and divinity, when made plain and put into the hands of a people, sufficient, without being formed and modified by the political society, to produce its legitimate fruits? Is this common Christianity, as taught and developed in Scripture, sufficient for a nation? May the people of a state be safely left, other things being favourable, to this simple process? This question is in course of solution in the United States. So far as it has been tested, it is believed to have answered." * The testimony of a non-clerical traveller shall be adduced, -that of Alexander Mackay, Esq., barrister-at-law. His words are these: "For the first time since its junction with the state, has Christianity been thrown upon its own imperishable resources, in the midst of a great people. And has it suffered from its novel position? Who accuses the Americans of being an irreligious people? Nay, rather, who can deny to them, as a people, a pre-eminence in religious fervour and devotion ? Taking the country as a whole, the religious sentiment is more extensively diffused, and more active in its operation, in America than in Great Britain. What, then, becomes of the sinister predictions of those who assert that a state connexion is necessary to the vigorous maintenance of Christianity? . Is proof of the vitality and energy of religion wanted? Look at the number of its churches, the extent and character of its congregations, the frequency of its religious assemblages, the fervour of its religious exercises, and the devotion of its religious community, testified by their large and multifarious donations for religious purposes, both at home and abroad." + * Dixon's Methodism in America, pp. 145, 147. The Rev. Drs. Reed and Matheson, whose opportunities of observation were extensive, speak in terms equally. strong. "All these results," says Dr. Reed, "are most striking; and, in truth, if they are admitted, they are overwhelming in evidence. And with such results before us, shall we still with blindness and prejudice refuse the lessons they imperatively convey? While such evidence is developing itself in favour of the voluntary principle, where alone it has found an open and fair field of probation, should not the dissenter be confirmed in his assurance of its power and efficiency, and be disposed to rest his cause on it with confidence and quiet? And should not the pious churchman, who regards an establishment only as it promotes the interests of religion among the people, be inclined, whatever may have been his original disinclination, to weigh such testimony with calm and dispassionate attention ?"* The Rev. Drs. Cox and Hoby, ministers of the baptist denomination, made a visit to the United States in 1835, and on their return published a volume, in which they give their judgment in the following terms : "We add our unhesitating testimony to that of our predecessors in favour of what is denominated the purely voluntary principle in support of religion. All the observations we were enabled to make during our widely-extended journey, confirmed our persuasion of its being incomparably more efficacious than the compulsory system."† Reed and Matheson's Narrative, vol. ii. p. 151. + The Baptists in America, Preface, p. 5. CHAPTER VI. ITS COLLATERAL RESULTS. IN preceding chapters we have directed our attention to what may be called the direct effects of the voluntary principle, or those which indicate its influence on religion itself, as manifested in the amount of church accommodation, in the number of communicants, in the number and qualifications of the ministerial body, and in the various modes of religious and benevolent exertion; we may now pay some regard to other influences of the voluntary principle, less direct, but by no means unimportant. The first topic we notice under this head, is the relation of the religious bodies in the United States one to another. Before we look more closely at this, however, and with a view to prepare ourselves for a just appreciation of it, we shall do well to call to our recollection the relation which the various religious bodies in our own country bear to one another. This is sufficiently marked to have left on the mind of every observant person a distinct impression, and we venture to say a painful one. Here, on the one hand, is a church established by law, enormously endowed with national property, the exclusive recipient of national honours, its higher functionaries being peers of the realm, its haughty prerogatives fenced round by acts of parliament, nonconformist religionists of every shade taxed for its support, while the worship they uphold (at a large cost to themselves) is tolerated () in return. Thus one sect is elevated above others; and, after the universal manner of poor human nature, it bears its supremacy in a jealous and tyrannical spirit. It denounces dissent as schism; that is, as a damnable sin. It reckons dissenters everywhere intruders, as though the whole nation were its manor, and every nonconformist a poacher, deserving, on the most lenient estimate, a summary ejection from the parish. It calls dissent on the great scale the curse of the country, and does everything in its power at once to mulct, insult, and destroy every community which bears the name. It is made of absolute selfishness, and has no bowels of compassion. It will distrain the poor man's household goods for a few pennyworth of church-rates. It will pursue a manly recusant to ruin in the ecclesiastical courts. It will leave a resolute opponent to perish in prison; and if it were not muzzledfor these are rather its growls than its bites-it would doubtless commit him to the flames. There are no restraints or mitigations of ecclesiastical despotism for which we are indebted to the established church. It is only as the state has made itself its gaoler, that the community enjoys even a measure of tranquillity. And this, like almost all social mischiefs, does not stand alone. It breeds a counterpart of evil. It gives to the action of the voluntary principle, in itself the most just and the most generous of sentiments, an aspect of strife and contention. In claiming what is just for ourselves, we are of necessity contradicting and endeavouring to thwart the unrighteous claims made by another. We ask for love in a tone of controversy, and to obtain peace we make war. It is not that the voluntary principle is essentially irate and irritating; but it is the infelicity of the circumstances in which it has to operate. To recover property which has been stolen, is of necessity to dispossess those who have wrongfully appropriated it. It is, however, a disadvantage. It prevents the voluntary principle from appearing in its |