raise their double protest against the Erastianism of the former and the Voluntaryism of the latter, may all be expected, more or less decidedly, to speak out. What the Scotch Estab lishment and its friends may do or say, we are not very careful to enquire. Time was, when they who now sway the Educational councils of that corporation vehemently objected to the Government's right of inspection, and indignantly denounced the majority who then carried an acknowledgment of that right-an act, however, of which it is understood they have themselves, since the Disruption, assumed the merit. Whether or not any of their number, who used to be loud in support of our Protestant constitution, may be found raising an alarm, in the prospect of Popish schools being made part and parcel of that constitution, time will show. Then, as to the Scottish Voluntaries, we presume we do them no more than justice when we reckon, as a matter of course, upon their ranging themselves beside their brethren in England, and making common cause with them in their opposition to all endowments of any kind, whether Educational or ecclesiastical, which imply support being given to religion, or to religious sects. But the position of the Free Church and of Free Church men is peculiar; and she does well to avoid anything like a premature or precipitate judgment. She has a deeper practical stake in the question than any other portion of the community; having embarked in a large and comprehensive Educational enterprize of her own, which cannot fail to be affected by the issue, in whatever way it may be settled. She has a right, also, to expect, that the opinions that may go out from her will have no inconsiderable weight and influence, as being the opinions of men whose Educational zeal and experience are not of yesterday, but who have long been actively engaged, both in investigating the statistics of the educational destitution that exists, and in devising means for remedying it; and this conbisideration may well suggest deliberation and an enhanced feeling of responsibility. Nor can those who hold the views of the Free Church in regard to National Establishments, and the claim which, on behalf of his Church, God has upon the property as well as the power of the nation, find it so easy, as some others do, to solve an intricate question of complicated principle and expediency, by a single summary formula. At the same time, their position, from its very peculiarity as free alike from the embarrassment of an actual State-connection, and from the license of expatiating without a compass altogether on too wide a sea of mere State-indiffer. entism, and as having the benefit, moreover, of recent and present experimental trials of different alternatives places them on very advantageous ground for coming to a right conclusion; and our confident hope is, that no long time will elapse before conference and consultation, with, it may be, some little friendly controversy, bring the usual result of a clear sight and a clear utterance of duty,wa Meanwhile, we are chiefly anxious that the real state of the question should be kept before the minds of men. Unhappily, we fear it has got somewhat entangled, and, as is not uncommon when there are two steps in a practical argument, mutually dependent upon one another, the last has been put first, and the first last. We have been apt to put the case of such a scheme as that now proposed being carried, whether we will or not, and becoming the settled law, or the great fact of the age; and we have begun to ask, what then shall we do? Supposing that annual government grants to schools and schoolmasters, apprentices, pupilteachers and so forth, are to be freely and extensively given to all of every sect who apply for them and that no condition of an unwarrantable nature is imposed-no condition whatever, in fact, but the already conceded right of inspection-no interference of any sort with the management or with the instruction-ought we then to ask and receive such grants? Would it, in point of principle, be lawful? - Or, if lawful, would it be expedient and safe? Now, in reference to these questions, we are ready to admit that much may be said on both sides. We have, indeed, for our own part, a strong impression that in the circumstances supposed, the completeness and consistency of our testimony against the infidel principle of indiscriminate endownients would best appear Tin our keeping ourselves clear of any participation in its benefits. We have a great dread of our protest, in such a case, appearing to be a mere washing of our hands before consenting to profit by the guilty deed. Having a deep sense of the sin of supporting either schools or churches in which false religion is taught, we fear lest we should be "partakers of other men's guilt," if, under whatever shelter of a previous dissent, we yet received, what on no other principle than that involving this very sin, would ever have been offered to us.* And there are other considerations such as the fear of being dragged again into doubtful dealings with the governments of this world, when it is notorious to all men that they are becoming more and more unwilling to own any distinction between truth and error-the vague feeling of there being something, at least, very unpleasant and unsatisfactory in resuming our dependence, in any form and to any extent, upon the resources of the State, without any progress whatever being made towards a recognition of our distinctive principles, on account of which we so recently separated from it the apprehension of our being drawn on insensibly, should future governments modify or enlarge their plans, into concessions and compliances that might end in leaving all, or nearly all, in their hands-there are considerations such as these, together with the manifest danger of new breaches in the Protestant ranks, the risk of many among us becoming unfaithful through silent acquiescence in national wrong, and the possibility of our being straitened in that very spirit of clear and bold reliance on God and on his good people alone, which has hitherto made the course of Scotland's Free Church so open and so true which may well, as it seems to us, occasion anxiety, in looking forward to the discussion of the question as to accepting Government aid, under such a plan as the present, and may make us rather lean to the side of wishing that the plan itself may be defeated, rather than that we should be plunged into the vexed sea of doult, into which, if it be carried into effect, it may launch us. This is the only feeling which would incline us somewhat to anticipate that ulterior question, in seeking to ascertain what is our present duty. It is a feeling in which some of our friends do not sympathize; and accordingly, we are not surprised that they should approach the subject with an inclination rather to let the measure pass, or to hold it as virtually passed already, than to engage in any agitation regarding it. With them, it is not a very serious evil that a plan of National Education like the present should be established; or, at any rate, it is an inevitable necessity that it must; what remains therefore is, not to dispute about it, but to make the best of it. Our own apprehension, on the other hand, that we can make nothing of it, and get nothing by it, but only evil, may possibly increase both our persuasion that it should be, and our hope that it may be, upon its own merits, thwarted and defeated. But let it by all means be upon its own merits, and apart from possible consequences and contingencies, that it is dealt with : It might seem scarcely necessary to say, that this view is in no degree identical with what is called the Covenanting or Cameronian principle, which would prevent us, as a Church, from co-operating with any government, in one department. unless we were satisfied as to the religious conduct of that government in others. If, indeed, to serve a government in the department of education, were the same thing as serving it in the army, or navy, or excise,-or, in other words, if education were as merely secular an affair as these are, then we might be charged with holding the Cameronian scruple, in hesitating to fall in with the educational movement of the State. Or if we were even making the State's misconduct, in the matter of Church Establishments, a reason for refusing to go along with it In a right educational movement, there might be some colour for representing us as leaning in that direction. But how stands the fact! In the first place, it is not merely secular education that the State is proposing to support: nor can we consent to regard such an educational institute as it would set up in the light of its ordinary secular functions of war or revenue. And in the second place, we hesitate about consenting and co-operating, not on account of what is objectionable, on religious grunds, in other parts of the State's procedure, as in its ecclesiastical arrangements, for instance,but solely on account of what is oi jectionable in the principle of the very measure in which we are asked to acquiesce. this is what we chiefly desire. Let the question, what may be our duty in regard it, should it go forward, be kept en. tirely in abeyance and in suspense; let us reserve our opinions upon that point altogether. And, just that we may reserve them, with a clear conscience and without hazard of reflection or reproach afterwards, let us take up the Government plan by itself, and form our judgment of it, and move accordingly, either in support of it or in opposition to it; for really neutrality would seem here to be both a folly and a sin. principle of the measure should be ascertained and tried. Nor do we, in the very least, take up voluntary ground. We avow our conviction that the State ought to educate the people; that is, to provide the means of education for the young, just as it ought to provide the means of grace--of religious instruction and pastoral superintendence-for the old. We avow, moreover, our conviction, that neither of these works can be well or thoroughly done, except by the State. We have no faith in the power of the Voluntary principle to make either the training of the youth or the teaching of the adult population national and universal. We believe, indeed, that in both departments, voluntary liberality will do a great deal more than men once thought it could, or than men eren now think it can. But we do not expect to see either the ecclesiastical or the educational wants of the country adequately provided for, until it shall please God so to turn the hearts of rulers and people, as to make a thorough National Establishment of schools and churches possible. We would hail therefore with joy, on the part of any Government, any symptoms of a desire to assist in upholding churches and schools for the people, provided this were done upon a system consistent with the truth of God and the doctrine of his word. The present question, then, is simply as to the merits of the Government plan, considered as a proposal still to be discussed, and apart from what may turn out to be the best way of dealing with it, should it ultimately become a reality. This is the only point upon which present duty requires us to de. cide. And upon this point, still farther to narrow the inquiry and to concentrate attention on what alone is essential, we would be disposed to cast aside all the details of the measure,which we still regard as of such a character, that the practical working of it, through Government patronage and Church influence, must be dangerous to liberty and to spiritual religion,—and to try it on the bare and naked ground of abstract principle alone. We would raise no argument, ad invidiam, founded on the enormous resources of the English Establishment, which enters on the competition, however fair its terms otherwise may be, with the overwhelming advantage on its side of having its ecclesiastical apparatus largely provided for, and its command over the highest and wealthiest classes of the community secured by its position as the National Church. Nor would we lay much stress on the practical exclusion of by far the larger proportion of the Evangelical body, whether in or out of the Establishment, who may have scruple's good; we would rather be showples about availing themselves of the grants that are to be made; although this is a material element to be taken into account, in estimating the plausible impartiality of the plan in theory, and its actual tendency in practice. But, apart from all such plead ings, we are anxious that the essential Nay more, in regard to education, in particular, we frankly admit that we might not feel ourselves bound to take such high ground as we do in the matter of an Ecclesiastical Establishment, or, at least, we would be glad to see our way to some national provision for schools, even in circumstances in which we must condemn the existing national provision for churches. We dislike, if we could avoid it, the attitude of mere opposition to what Governments may be devising for the peo ing them some more excellent way; and if any security could be obtained for the instruction given in the schools being neither Popish nor Socinian, but simply scriptural, according to the avowed profession of our common Protestantism; or if we could be satisfied that the bare elements of intellectual training could be safely or warrantably communicated apart from religion altogether, and without any responsibility being incurred on that head, such is our impression of the educational necessities of the country, that we would be tempted to view with a favourable eye, any comprehensive plan for meeting them. But if neither of these conditions can be held to be complied with in any such scheme as our rulers, with their present views, are likely to submit to us, we must come to the same conclusion in the educational department that has been forced upon us in the ecclesiastical, that to withhold endowments is a less violation of principle, and a less practical evil, than to grant them. In regard to the present measure, and the judgment which may be formed concerning it, there are two mistakes into which, as it seems to us, some of our friends, in their zeal for popular education, are apt to fall. The first is, an exaggeration of the benefits of mere secular instruction for the masses of mankind, apart from the moral and spiritual bearing of that instruction. We greatly fear that even religious persons are liable to this snare. We have an appalling picture of popular ignorance spread out before us, and we are ready to exclaim, Better any sort of teaching, that opens the mind at all, than none. Of course, this is not really the fair alternative, so long as Christian philanthropy has any means at its disposal; but we sometimes feel as if it were. Even when it is thus put, however, the conclusion is by no means clear; and this, at least, is worthy of consideration, whether, if by hastily providing, all at once, an education of a questionable religious character, the State interferes with the slower and more limited advances of a better system, it does not injure, in the long run, instead of benefitting the country? It is not enough that a strong case be made out for an educational movement, or that it be shown, by the example of other countries, how quick ly secular instruction, with any religion or none, can be supplied at the public expense. However important and essential such instruction may be, surely there is no reason why religious men should so over-estimate it, as to believe that it will of itself counter balance and correct the very influences for evil that are mixed up with it. There is no virtue in mere reading, writing, and arithmetic, to secure either happiness or virtue. The educational enthusiasts look themselves far beyond these, to the thorough mental and moral training of the young; and they are right. Then why should religious men be in such haste to grasp at any instruction provided by the State, irrespective of its religious character? especially since all experience might show that a sound scriptural education, even of limited extent and slow progress, comparatively, will more surely and universally bless the community in the end, than the widest possible diffusion of mere human and worldly knowledge. The other mistake we dread is the idea that the support of Popish teaching in schools, is a less violation of principle in the State, than the support of it in churches; or, in other words, that in elementary education, governments may, for reasons of expediency, lawfully act upon the very principle of indiscriminate endowments, which is admitted to be sinful if carried out in the higher walk of academic preparation, and the ministrations of the pulpit and the parish. We can see no shadow of reason for the difference. To endow a school in which antichristian error is avowedly to be taught, seems to us as manifest a breach of the law of truth, as to endow a college or a church. We deprecate above all things the creeping in of latitudinarianism here. Let religious men once become familiar with the notion that elementary schools may be endowed by Government,-no matter what, or whether any, religion be taught in them; and soon they will be prepared to acquiesce in the public payment of the entire priesthood of Ireland, and the wholesale iniquity of a miscellaneous pensioning and patronising of all opinions under the sun. We have sometimes asked ourselves what Knox would have said to any proposal in his day to realize his dar ling scheme of a thorough national education, by putting Popish and Protestant seminaries on the same footing, and having them all equally owned and countenanced by the State? There would have been more than one blast of the trumpet, we are persuaded; and even the tardy and defective establishment of the parochial system in the distance, would have seemed to him preferable to the most tempting bribe of that nature at hand. We now can better afford to work and wait than he could. Scotland has, in the hearts of her godly people, better resources for "a godly upbringing of the young," than were ever wrung from the reluctant hands of the nobles whom the spoils of the Romish Church had enriched; and, by God's blessing, if a little more slowly, yet far more surely, will a highly intellectual and highly spiritual style of instruction be provided for all her children, by the efforts of those who seek to tread in the steps of her Reformers, than by any new devices of state policy or of mere educational philanthropy. NOTES OF THE MONTH. FOR the third time, the subject of sites for places of worship in connection with the Free Church of Scotland, has been brought before the attention of the Legislature. It is a ludicrous, but still more a saddening spectacle, to witness the flounderings of statesmen who have entangled themselves in a great ecclesiastical movement. Having but one scale of measurement, they apply it indifferently to all things human and divine, and they gauge a beer act or a Church principle by the same portable foot-rule. Such has been the case in the whole of their proceedings with the Protesting Church of Scotland. They would rather have had, it Episcopal in the first instance, for Presbyterianism, they opine, is not a religion for gentlemen; but finding such a change impracticable, they were content to tolerate Presbytery, as long as it would keep quiet and give them no annoyance. In their eyes it was a vulgar nondescript negative, from whose humble livings and republican parity of the clergy, no element of political influence could be extracted; and with a smile, half of condescending patronage, half of contemptuous pity, they hied them onward to the high places of the synagogue. It was not long, however, before the calm was interrupted. Events occurred of such a character, that a large portion of the Church was obliged to complain of ecclesiastical rights trampled under foot, and religious princi ples given to the winds. Here was a riot, a revolt if you will, and statesmen accordingly hurried to the scene. And they brought to it their one idea, and their one remedy. When they heard of the rights of conscience, they talked of the rights of the crown; and when the Bible was produced against them, they called for the statute-book. The demands of these presbyters might theologically be all very just; but they militated sorely against political expediency. What class of priests could be retained in vassalage to the State, if they did homage to an authority superior to that of the State? Here was the old quarrel once more revived, the great question of contest again at issue. And, untaught by past experience, politicians again imagined that all might be suppressed by force and violence. They therefore tried vexatious pains and penalties; but still the recusants would not succumb. Nay, they even protested that rather than obey, their consciences would compel them to forego their livings, and throw themselves loose to every hazard. This, however, was called a political impossibility, and statesmen acted upon the faith that there were not even twenty righteous men capable of such a sacrifice. Such would indeed have been the case, had the question been the holding of a snug secularity at the sacrifice of a political principle, for with such profitable conversions they were well acquainted |