difficulty. To tell us of the sluggishness of man's spiritual appetite, is just to tell us nothing as to the comparative worth of different instrumentalities for inspiring him with a due sense of the religious interests belonging to him. It is a begging of the whole question to assume that a government ought directly to attempt any thing at all in the matter. There is one part of Mr. Noel's work, nearly connected with the remarks we have just made, to which we desire to direct especial attention. It relates to a comparison between voluntary zeal and State support of religion as to the number and the distribution of ministers produced by these influences respectively. The result of the comparison is entirely in favour of voluntaryism, and although we do not pledge ourselves to the correctness of all the details given, we believe that this result is fairly established. The summary of the statements as to the number of ministers provided for by the two systems is as follows: "From these figures it appears that, under all the disadvantages which the Establishments have thrown in their way, the Evangelical free churches of England have supplied 6000 ministers for 16,000,000, i. e. one minister to every 2666; the Evangelical free churches of Scotland supply one minister to every 1752 of the whole population: while in the United States, where no such obstructions exist, the Evangelical churches supply one minister to every 1133 of the whole population. These figures enable us further to judge how large a supply of ministers may be expected to be furnished by individual zeal when the advancement of sound views shall have dissolved the connection of the Anglican churches with the State. Since the Wesleyan body in England maintain one minister for every 336 members, since the Evangelical free churches of Scotland maintain one minister to each 876 hearers, and since the Evangelical churches of the United States maintain one minister to each 925 hearers, we may infer that every 1000 hearers throughout England and Wales will maintain their minister when the Anglican churches shall be also free. After the dissolution of the union, there would, in other words, be one pastor to every 1142 of the population-a number which surpasses by more than 1000 the present number of the working clergy; and though it would be less than the number now supplied by the Establishment and the free churches together, yet the increased efficiency of pastors chosen and maintained by the churches, and the better distribution through the country, would render the whole supply of religious instructors to the community far more effective than it is at present.” The distribution of ministers affords a more advantageous picture on the side of voluntaryism. After being presented with certain statistical facts, we are told,— "From a comparison of the first table with the second, we find that the State has appointed 1298 ministers for 4,066,513 of its subjects residing in certain parts of the kingdom, and 5634 for 4,048,482 residing in other parts of the kingdom. To the one body it assigns one pastor for every 3132 souls, and to the other body it assigns one minister for every 718; in other words, it supports four times as many pastors for the one body as for the other. From a comparison of the first table with the third, we learn that the State has provided 1298 ministers for 4,066,513 souls in three counties, and 1297 ministers for 739,563 souls in three other counties. The one population being five times greater than the other, the State has furnished each with the same number of ministers. If, therefore, it has provided a sufficient number for the greater * Pp. 335, 337. population, it has lavished four times too many on the smaller; if it has barely supplied the wants of the smaller, it has left the larger destitute of four-fifths of the number required. But these figures do not properly represent the unequal distribution of ministers throughout the country, because that inequality, arising chiefly from the disregard of the town population by the State, cannot be disclosed by the examination of any large portions of country which embrace both civic and agricultural districts: it is understood better by a comparison of a city with a district exclusively agricultural—a comparison, for instance, of London with Rutlandshire."* We pass by the comparison between London and Rutlandshire which immediately succeeds, to give the result of a more important comparison between three thinly-populated and three densely-populated counties: "The population in three agricultural counties is 705,756, while that in three manufacturing and civic counties is 4,066,513, which is five times greater than the former. The Anglican pastors provided for the former is 1250, for the latter 1298, which is nearly the same. The State provides one pastor for each 564 of the rural population, and one for each 3132 of the manufacturing; and as 5+ 564=2820, it provides 2820 of the manufacturers and citizens with one pastor, and 2820 of the peasants with five pastors. On the other hand, the pastors provided by three Evangelical churches for 705,756 persons in the three agricultural counties amount to 301, which affords one pastor to each 2344 of the population; and the ministers provided by them for 4,066,513 persons in the three populous counties is 1552, which affords one minister to each 2620. The proportion to numbers is in each case the same. As the population in the manufacturing counties is five times greater than that in the agricultural counties, so the number of free church pastors in the former counties is five times greater than that in the latter counties. The distribution of ministers by the State in these counties is wasteful and inconsiderate; their distribution by individual zeal is economical and wise.”† The value of such statements as those just quoted is indeed somewhat reduced by the consideration that an agricultural population is scattered over a much wider surface of country than a manufacturing one of the same amount. This consideration, however, will but partially account for the superabundant ministerial supply in the former case, while it will not at all account for the deficient supply in the latter. What is still more important-voluntaryism, according to these statements, acquits itself in a manner that will stand a fair comparison with the rival principle even on the agricultural field, where it has at present to contend with very peculiar disadvantages. It is a significant fact, that under its administration the proportion of ministers to population is in each of the two classes of population the same; and the favourable inference deducible from that fact might easily be strengthened by other facts upon which these statements do not touch. The comparison is next conducted with regard to the manufacturing districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire; and is thus summed up: "The foregoing tables shew that individual zeal in four Evangelical denominations has already furnished to the manufacturing districts three times more ministers, schools and school teachers, than those which are directly or indirectly supplied by the State; and when the Anglican churches shall be separated from the State, a very small part of the Evangelical instruction now given to those districts would be affected by it; and if all the ministers sup * P. 342. + P. 349. ported by the State were to vanish with the State salaries, three-fourths of the ministers of those four great Evangelical denominations would still remain to preach Christ to the people, of which 143, that is nearly one-fifth, would be ministers of free Anglican churches. But as 143 Anglican churches now maintain their ministers without aid of the State, there can be no doubt that the 224 churches whose ministers are now maintained by the State would, at the dissolution of the union, begin to maintain their ministers as the rest do. Already the number of Anglican ministers maintained by the people is 143, and the total number of ministers maintained by the people is 1328, while those maintained by the State are only 224. It is inconceivable that 224 Anglican congregations would disgrace themselves by remaining without ministers and without public worship, though probably the richest congregations in the manufacturing districts, while 1328 congregations, poorer than themselves, maintain their ministers and schools, and at the same time raise funds to send missionaries to the heathen. It is, on the contrary, probable, that as soon as the State's shackles are removed, a larger number of ministers than at present would be furnished to those important districts." A similar investigation is, with the like effect, entered into as to the means of religious instruction provided for the Metropolis; and the discussion is closed by a notice of the barriers and discouragements to voluntary effort which the Establishment not only creates within its own pale, but also brings to bear upon dissent. These things demand the particular notice of those who are favourable to the principle of an Establishment; for if the representations to which we have referred are at all true, they afford the clearest demonstration of the weakness of that principle. To us the moral character of voluntaryism is a sufficient argument for its strength, as well as for its exclusive lawfulness; but we rejoice to meet with this practical manifestation of the truth of our theory. A more pregnant instance of the secularity of the Church of England can hardly be imagined than that which the unequal distribution of its ministers supplies; for it must be evident upon the slightest reflection that the inequality arises from the attraction of the tithe-system overcoming the impulse to religious exertion. Where the carcase is, there are the eagles gathered together. We have a few observations to make upon the relation in which Unitarianism stands to the question mooted in the volume under our consideration. Were we only to take into account the direct opposition between Unitarianism and the doctrinal system of the Church of England, it would seem that Unitarians must naturally possess a stronger feeling of hostility to that Church than any other class of Dissenters do. Such, however, is not the fact. We believe that there is a greater leaning toward the Establishment on their part, than can be found among the orthodox nonconforming bodies, with the exception of the Wesleyans. Various reasons may be given for this state of things, but there is one much more powerful than the rest. There is a larger amount of freedom of opinion practically allowed to the members of the Church of England than to the members of any other orthodox community. By joining that Church, a man need not expose himself to interference on the subject of his belief; and the instances are very * P. 360. numerous indeed in which the pulpit preserves a neutrality as to the principal controversies with regard to Christianity. Being thus administered, the Church presents to an Unitarian a more conciliatory front than he meets with among the different forms of dissent; and he is tempted to support it as a shelter from the bigotry by which he is hunted on the part of the rest of the religious world. In yielding to this temptation, he forgets that the peace granted to him is the result of mere indifference, and that the indifference cannot be maintained without the practice of positive dishonesty. Now we are persuaded that the state of things we have just described, instead of being regarded with favour, ought to be treated as eminently dangerous both to Unitarians and Unitarianism. Its effect upon Unitarians themselves is dangerous. It produces among them the same indifference to their faith as exists in the Church that smiles upon them. With that Church they cannot connect themselves without encountering, in its formularies, doctrines which they hold to be erroneous, and submitting, in its worship, to practices which on their part are profane. They must commit violations of conscience of which orthodox Dissenters who might enter into the same connection cannot be guilty. The natural consequence of this is, that the indifference which first relates to Unitarianism, soon extends to Christianity itself; and the unholy compromise ends in a total disbelief. The circumstances on which we are remarking are no less dangerous to Unitarianism than they are to Unitarians. The concession made to heterodox opinion within the pale of the Church of England is dishonestly made. It is contrary to the solemn subscription of those who make it-subscription by which they profit. It has upon it an immoral taint, and the immorality becomes transferred to the opinions in whose favour it is perpetrated. They are stamped in the view of the world as opinions held by untruthful men who live upon the wages of dishonour. This cannot but tell to their discredit, and non tali auxilio expresses the indignant repudiation which ought to characterize their friends. We have long been convinced that Unitarianism has suffered as much by the defence, direct and indirect, which it has obtained from clergymen of the Establishment, as it has by any one cause. That defence has, among sincere and earnest believers in the gospel, fixed upon our faith the stigma which justly attaches to the character of the defenders, and has led multitudes, who might otherwise have respected it, to look upon that faith as a bastard Christianity, which best accords with the wishes of men who are unfaithful to a religious trust. As matters at present stand, then, Unitarianism, both in the persons of its adherents and the principles of its system, suffers great and irreparable loss by means of those very things in the Establishment which offer to it an inviting aspect. On the other hand, if the union between the Church and the State were dissolved, no form of Christianity would be more likely than Unitarianism to gain by the separation. The station in society generally occupied by Unitarians, exposes them more than other Dissenters to the temptation of joining the Church, and therefore to take away that temptation would be to put a stop, in their case, to a larger amount of defection. This would, however, be the least part of the gain. The destruction of Church supremacy would be the means of bringing to light much Unitarianism that is now con cealed, and fixing in that form much religious opinion that at present assumes no distinct shape. The effect of such a change as we are now anticipating, upon the interests of liberty, must, moreover, be eminently advantageous to a faith so nearly allied to those interests as Unitarianism has ever proved itself to be. We offer the remarks in which we have indulged, under the conviction that it is, at this time, the special duty of thinking men to adopt decided views on the question to which Mr. Noel's book is devoted. This question is rapidly approaching toward a settlement. It is involved in almost all the political movements of the day, and is pressed forward by the course of legislation which the Government has chosen to pursue. That course, though altogether in favour of the Establishment principle, is quite inconsistent with the arrangements under which the principle now operates among us. In this state of things, a collision, which will test the validity of the principle itself, must take place. Every active man will have to range himself on one side or other of the approaching contest; and the sooner men make up their minds as to which is the right side, the better it will be for them. We calmly and hopefully wait for the result of the contention, believing that it will be the commencement of a new era of religious truth and blessing. Our review has already stretched much beyond its intended limits; but we cannot resist the pleasure of quoting one other passage from Mr. Noel's volume, relating to the peculiar qualifications on the part of the Christian ministry which are required by the wants of the present age: “God has called his ministers in this country to an honourable but arduous work. It is their mission to maintain the doctrine of the Gospel in its purity, to elevate the piety of the churches, to direct their energies, and call Christians of all classes to combined and powerful action in the service of the Redeemer. They have to defend, in this day of mental activity and fearless research, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the truth of Christianity, and even the being of a God: not only must they invade the carelessness of the fashionable classes, and bring down the towering pride of nobles who scorn to hear that they are perishing sinners who without humble faith in Christ must lie under the wrath of God for ever, but they have to address the judgment and the conscience of men of literature and science, lawyers, physicians, engineers, and editors-Goliaths who scorn those that cannot grapple with them with a giant energy like their own, and who are not to be seduced to discipleship by any child's play. They have to recover to Christ, Chartists and Socialists, whose hatred of religion is embittered by their detestation of the political institutions with which it is allied. Mechanics and operatives—whose rude energy is no more to be drilled by authority, and who never again will be the tame human herds which in other days the pretenders to apostolical descent could drive to what theological pastures they pleased-now claim a brotherly, frank, and respectful attention; while the thronging myriads, who, in the cities and manufacturing districts of the kingdom, are totally disconnected with the churches of Christ, cannot be brought to listen to the Gospel without much self-denying assiduity. Never were such varied attainments needed in pastors and evangelists, because the world was never so well-informed, independent, and fearless. Sound criticism of scripture, extensive knowledge of men and things, authorship, preaching, and pastoral activity, are all requisite to them, if they are not to be despised as the stupid bonzes of Foh-Kien. Antiquated claims to an apostolic authority transmitted by descent, are now treated with merited contempt as absurd, if they are not repelled with indig |