course, on the demise of a Liberal, who had carried his return by a narrow, and even neck-and-neck, majority. And the case is not singular. There is a weariness and exhaustion of the public mind at present upon topics that but yesterday would have awakened the keenest enthusiasm; and we doubt if any other than the most sordid and selfish motives could seriously stir most of our constituencies. Where, for instance, is the potency of the cry for retrenchment? Where the demand for abolishing sinecures ? Where the Voluntary principle? And the plea for a reduction of existing Establishments? And the protest against the support of religions of all sorts out of the funds or property of the nation? And other watchwords that found a response in men's understandings and hearts once? The strangest apathy of mutual toleration has succeeded the fiercest warfare. Ultra-liberals were found, but lately, most complacently acquiescing in the strong government of a Conservative Premier; and now, returning the compliment, Conservatives desire to strengthen the hands of a Liberal minister. Churchmen are ready to affect the utmost wish for an indiscriminate endowment of all sects of Dissenters, equally with themselves; and Dissenters have shown themselves prepared to regard with similar equanimity the abuses of those Establishments, whose very existence was of late intolerable. Altogether, there is a disposition to rest in compromise and mutual concession; and the pretence is, that secular and ecclesiastical politics being suspended, a certain economical Utopia is about to bless the land, with its halcyon days of brotherhood-and of baths.

Of the two most vital questions now above ground, which may possibly be canvassed in Parliament before a dissolution comes, neither, as we believe, will be suffered, if our politicians of all parties can help it, to affect the ensuing election. The endow ment of Popery, or, to speak more correctly, the principle of an indiscriminate endowment of all opinions alike; and the provision of a national education; are undoubtedly the two great problems with which men in power

have now to deal; so far, at least, as domestic interests are concerned, Now, what is likely to be the treatment of these two topics during the ensuing Session of Parliament ?

As to the first-the endowment of Popery in Ireland-whether that measure is to be viewed, like the Maynooth affair, as a mere expedient of Irish statesmanship, or is to be placed on the broader footing of an avowed purpose to endow all sects indiscriminately-our conviction is that our rulers, including in that term men of all parties who have any voice in Parliament, have not yet definitively made up their minds. We mean as to the time and manner of effecting their object; the object itself is evidently fixed. Their wish, we believe, would be, to have the matter settled and disposed of before a general election comes. Let it be a 66 'fait accompli,” when members appeal to their constituencies, so that it shall be illmanners, as well as bigotry, to ask any questions about it, or to rake the ashes of a smothered fire. It is possible, with this view, that there may be some gentle feeling of the public and parliamentary pulse, on the reassembling of the representatives of the people; for it would undoubtedly be a relief to all political parties to have the annoyance of the pensioning of the Irish priesthood over; and if the country be only supine enough, and the

bray" of Exeter Hall not too troublesome, there may be a very general desire to steal a march upon the bigots, and by a coup d'etat, have the controversy settled and shelved. On the other hand, it is equally, perhaps more probable, that it may be found expedient to gain time. In that case, it will be the policy alike of Lord John and of Sir Robert, to maintain a cautious silence and reserve. A few escapades of the more zealous may be allowed, as straws to ascertain what way the wind blows. But pauca verba, "good worts," or good words, will be the maxim. And doubtless plausible enough apologies will be at hand, in the pressure of railway business, the state of Ireland, and so forth, to explain the melting away of the Session without decisive measures being taken ;—not

to speak of the convenient and reasonable diversion that may be made by the old country or Protectionist party, who, headed by the stable mind of Bentinck, and animated by the fiery zeal of Stanley, seem to be meditating a new assault upon the Malt-tax as their grand stalking-horse for the Session. Thus there will be plenty of topics for "the grand debate ;" and perhaps some ministerial crisis or two; and a vote against the Malt-tax one day, to be rescinded the next; and resignations and returns to office, and so forth. And, in such wise, the Session may be got rid of, or got over. Then comes the general election, in a convenient pause of party strife; no leading question-no exciting topic-no great principle, before the country. Suspicion is laid asleep; or, if in any quarter it is still alive, despair of getting any body of public men to act together for the evangelical cause, operates with a more deadening influence than all the wiles of the enemy; members are returned, with a little shuffling of the cards, precisely as they were before; and the exigency of an appeal to the constituencies being dexterously evaded, a seven years' Parliament is assembled, in which Popish endowments, and education without creed, and all the nostrums of modern political pharmacy, will be swallowed almost without the drawing of a breath.

And here, we cannot but express our deep regret, that the enemies of corrupt establishments should be determined, as it would seem, still to fight at a disadvantage, and with divided and disordered ranks. Our solemn persuasion is, that there is no possible way of effectually resisting the proposal of new endowments, otherwise than by a calm and clear voice lifted up for the entire withdrawal of the old. And there are two principles, recently made prominent, in the providence of God, which might be translated into brief intelligible watchwords, of potency enough to rally all the friends of a pure and spiritual Christianity. The one is the principle, that, whether supported or not by the State, the church, under her great and only Head, must be free; free to be governed by his authority

alone, and to obey his laws, independently of any other jurisdiction or power whatsoever. The other is the principle, that, whether it be the duty of the State, as such, to own and support the true religion or not, it is a great sin to countenance anti-christian falsehood, and a sin scarcely less, to act as if there were no difference between truth and error, or as if the difference could not be ascertained. Rather no establishment than one that involves civil interference in spiritual affairs. Rather no endowment than the endowment of Rome, or of all sects alike. These are levers by which all the true friends of Protestantism might combine to lift the Church of Christ out of the mire and filth of secular connections and influences, in which she is now so much imbedded. They are maxims that commend themselves to every spiritual conscience and every renewed heart; and, however misrepresentation may for a time cast a cloud over them, we feel confident that they must advance and make way.

Nor, in these circumstances, can we see any reason for reviving at this juncture what is called the Voluntary controversy. That controversy respects what may be the duty of the State towards the church, when things are in such a position as to admit of both parties freely discharging the mutual obligations they owe to one another. The present position of things, however, is widely different. We have a strong conviction of the speculative unsoundness and the practical evil tendency of the Voluntary opinion; believing that it strikes deeper into the roots of social morality and religion than many of its advocates are aware. But that is not the point of view in which we regard it at present. We take much lower ground. We say to our Voluntary friends: Here are two vital and powerful principles which you and we hold together principles well fitted to move the world; for they are the principles that give body to the church of the Living God. Heart and hand, let us work these principles together; especially against the latitudinarian schemes of indiscriminate religious teaching that are now so rife. And let

there be no mistake. Let the demand for the removal of all existing establishments, on the ground of these two principles, be as clear and unequivocal as the cry for new or Popish miscellaneous endowments. Let statesmen of all parties know that they have to deal with a firm and compact body of men opposed to all establishments as now constituted, on religious considerations, and determined, on every occasion when new endowments are talked of, to move the previous question of the confiscating of the old, for public exigencies of State;—and we are persuaded the course of affairs might still take a sudden and salutary turn. But the Voluntary principle, in its more general or abstract form, divides those who are otherwise equally conscientious opponents of all existing establishments and equally zealous friends of the liberty and spirituality of the church. Hence, on the one hand, the strange paradox, and unworthy spectacle, of men opposed in theory to all endowments, yet practically supporting the endowment of Popish error; on some whim, as it might seem, of fair play being a virtue, even among thieves; and that, if there is to be spoil going, at the country's expense, Peter, as well as Martin and Jack, should have a share. And hence, on the other hand, the awkward position in which some ourselves for instance are often placed, when, honestly denying, as we do, the possibility of a right establishment, in the present state of the age and country, we yet seem to defend the same doctrinal foundation on which the State Churches now maintain themselves, and are forced to contend against a speculative error on the one side, in such a manner as to uphold, apparently, a present and practical wrong on the other. Now, why should not all these inconveniences be avoided, by simply attending to what Providence is so evidently pointing out as present duty? The kingdoms of the world have clearly avowed their ultimatum; which is this that if religion is to be supported, it must be secularized; and it must be supported, not as true, but as expedient. Let the loud voice of a faithful and una

nimous testimony be lifted up as a counter-cry; and there is hope for truth and liberty still.

But we have digressed. To return, and to resume our conjectural anticipations of the coming series of events— especially with reference to the approaching general election-we are persuaded our readers must now clearly see where, in our apprehension, the present danger lies.

Were the Sovereign avowedly to appeal to the country, on the precise question of the pensioning of the priests, or the setting up, universally, of the indiscriminate system of endowments, -as was done in the passing of the Reform Bill-religious men among the electors would be upon their guard. We do not say that they would carry the elections, or return a majority of sound members to Parliament. But we venture to surmise, that pledges a little more explicit than some recently given, would be the order of the day; and of this we have little doubt, that the more Christian and common-sense alternative of the abolition of all establishments would have its due place and prominency assigned to it. Now, however, the misery is, that the small edge of the wedge having been got in, the country suffers unawares, stroke after stroke to descend, each driving the implement of ruin farther home, and fixing it more deeply in the vitals of the fated tree. And all arts of subtle reasoning and smooth statesmanship are tried, to persuade religious men to stand aloof, or to keep their distinctive religious principles, so far as this matter is concerned, in abeyance.

Upon this last topic, which we have now raised, we must be allowed a few words of plain remonstrance. It is not our purpose to argue the general question of the bearing of the Word of God on human politics generally,—and especially on the duty of political men in dealing with the Truth of Christ, which that word reveals, and the lying imposture of Antichrist which it both delineates and condemns. Nor need we condescend to inquire how far they who believe that word are at liberty to measure sin and duty, in public conduct, by a sort of sliding scale of in

ferential reasoning. Neither do we intend to make anything like an indiscriminate attack on the Government which is now on its trial before the country, or on those who would solicit for it a fair, and even a partial, probation. On the contrary, we think we can understand the position of the men of evangelical principles and predilections, who now find themselves in the ranks of the supporters of the present administration; and we are disposed to have considerable sympathy with them. The Whigs, in opposition, have very generally been the advocates of a sound and liberal policy, both in Church and State affairs. Before their first accession to power, in our day, this was eminently the case. Every high, and almost every holy, cause, found its most hearty advocates among the Whigs; and Toryism, genuine and unadulterated, was very much like another name for a bigotted defence of existing establishments, combined with an intense hatred of all reforming movements, and all really spiritualor evangelical sentiments. We never can forget that we owe to Pitt, or at least to his Tory friends, that hollow and hypocritical friendship for the slave, which postponed his emancipation for at least a quarter of a century; while it is to a Whig ministry that we are indebted, both for the abolition of the trade, and the suppression of the system of slavery. And it would be as great ingratitude to overlook the many services since rendered by the Whigs to the cause of religious, civil, and commercial freedom, as it would be folly to put any faith in the recent and reluctant liberalism of the Conservatives. We have no idea that if the present Ministry were going out of power tomorrow, a better, or even so good a one, would come in; and we have not a word to say against Christian men being friends and favourers of Lord John Russell's government, and believing that its continuance is at least the security of the country's present peace, if it be not the harbinger of its brighter prosperity.

But we must protest against implicit faith. We protest against it in religion; we must protest against it also

in politics. Lord John Russell's Government is before the country, asking for a fair trial, and holding out many promises of good; and it may seem handsome and generous to abstain from prematurely raising suspicions, and anticipating evil. Chivalry, if not charity, requires that we should suppress our fears; and stand aside at least, if we cannot applaud; and believe and hope all things. Nay, not chivalry; the age of chivalry is past; and it would seem as if some of our friends expected the sound and sagacious Christians of Scotland to become very Quixottes, in their polite deference to those who courteously solicit their sweet voices.

Two things, we confess, amaze, and almost provoke us, when such considerations are urged, as we sometimes find put forth, even by religious men, who would sopite and allay the apprehensions now so generally entertained of a new inroad on the Protestantism of the country; an inroad such as they themselves profess to deprecate and deplore. The first is, that the threatened evil is so plain; the second, that those who threaten it, of whatever party, are so plastic. Were it a doubtful thing, whether new endowments are to be proposed, to cover over the injustice of the old; or had we a dull, dogged, and inflexible bigot, like James the Second, to deal with— making indiscriminate favour for all sects a pretence for bringing in Rome

there might be some explanation of this laisser faire indifferentism; and we might comprehend that sort of easy and apathetic quietude with which some good men are seen oscillating between the two alternatives of the dilemma;-whispering gently to this aged alarmist, on the one side; Ah! perhaps there will be no proposal to endow Popery after all, and you have no occasion, and, with pardon, no right to put yourself and others in a passion about so uncertain a bugbear or chimera;—and, on the other side, representing warmly to that young enthusiast, that if after all the obnoxious bill, with a decent amount of petitioning against it, should become the law, and the endowment of Popery