These melancholy statistics account too well for the moral debasement of a portion of the population in England and America; and in both countries, wherever true religion prevails,—and to a great extent, we rejoice to say it does prevail,-its proper fruits are manifested, in strong contrast with the surrounding corruption and degeneracy.

cacy

M. De Tocqueville's decisive testimony to the effiof religion, as a social curb, is very valuable and very striking. He says, "If the minds of the Americans were free from all trammels, they would very shortly become the most daring innovators and the most implacable disputants in the world. But the revolutionists of America are obliged to profess an outward respect for Christian morality and equity, which does not easily permit them to violate the laws that oppose their designs; nor would they find it easy to surmount the scruples of their partisans, even if they were able to get over their own. Hitherto, no one in the United States has dared to advance the maxim, that every thing may be permitted with a view to the interests of society;an impious sentiment, which seems to have been invented in an age of freedom, to shelter all future tyrants. Thus whilst the law permits the Americans to do what they please, religion prevents them from conceiving and forbids them from committing what is rash and unjust.......... How is it possible that society should escape destruction, if the moral tie be not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? And what can be done with a nation which is its own master, if it be not submissive to the Divine Ruler ?"

Thus religion constitutes the grand counterpoise to the evils of a democratic government; and without that holy bond, the people would break loose in wildest anarchy.

The fluctuating nature of their institutions renders

it scarcely possible to found an established church in the United States. With us the question is not whether we shall found a national church, but whether we shall abandon the sacred institutions handed down to us by our forefathers, in intimate union with our monarchical government, and thus dislocate and rend asunder the whole constitutional fabric.

The churches of England and Scotland have their tithes and endowments secured to them by law as property; rates are levied for the repair of the ecclesiastical edifices, and, according to the argument of Dr. Chalmers, already quoted, this is not for the purpose of giving pre-eminence to any sect, but to maintain and propagate amongst us the Christian religion. In England a protestant episcopal church, and in Scotland a protestant presbyterian church,-in both the creed of the majority, have been chosen by the state, as the channels through which the blessings of Christianity may be communicated to all ranks of the people, by means of the influence and wealth which the government can command for any great national object.

Confining our view to this part of the United Kingdom, and bearing in mind the religious and moral statistics already adverted to, their result is thus stated, in an important official document-the Second Report of the Ecclesiastical Commission, of which Lord Melbourne and Lord John Russell were members. "The growth of the population has been so rapid, as to outrun the means possessed by the establishment of meeting its spiritual wants: and the result has been, that a vast proportion of the people are left destitute of the opportunities of public worship and Christian instruction, even when every allowance is made for the exertions of those religious bodies which are not in connexion with the established church."

The preceding argument has not been given as em

bracing all the points of this much agitated question, but as that which appears the most proper and essential to be stated on this occasion, and it stands thus.-As Christians and as protestants, we agree that the people ought all to be instructed in the great truths of Christianity. In England, where there is a national church, not supplied by the government with adequate resources to provide for the spiritual wants of a numerous and often poor population, multitudes are without the means of religious instruction. In America, where there is little poverty, but no national church, the want of religious instruction is still more striking.

A great nation can only be thoroughly Christianized, by a system of parochial visitation and instruction pervading the unenlightened masses of the people.

It would not only be unconstitutional, it would also be impracticable for the British government to attempt to encourage with equal endowments, Christians and Jews, protestants and Roman catholics, pure Christianity and its grossest corruptions, primitive Christianity and the heresies and fanaticism of yesterday.

One denomination of protestant Christians is rightly employed to impart to the people generally the inestimable blessings of our common religion.

To this a dissenter may object-it is all very well for you, a member of the church of England, thus to argue; but why should I be required to contribute to the extension of Christianity, by means of a church from which I dissent ?

If the government of England, instead of having chosen the episcopalian, which is the creed of the majority, had selected the independent, or the baptist, or the Wesleyan denomination, as the national church of England, although as an episcopalian I should more or less differ from each of those sects theologically, yet, as a British subject, I should still concur in the pro

priety and necessity of a national church, to instruct the multitudes who would otherwise be neglected. According to my particular views, the government might not have made the best selection, but according to the present argument, they would have done far better than if they had made no selection at all. For truly the question is not whether the church of England should prevail over dissent, but whether Christianity should prevail over error, irreligion, and vice.

You object to episcopacy and a liturgy; do you likewise object to the improvement of public morals, and the salvation of your fellow countrymen ?

In this free country, and with a protestant church, we all have liberty of conscience. But our Christian liberty surely does not require that millions of our weak and ignorant brethren should perish.

When we learn how abundantly the missionary labours of the church societies have been blessed in our colonies and elsewhere, and how wonderfully those of that admirable and devoted man, the martyred Williams, were prospered among the savage islanders of the South Seas, is there a Christian who does not rejoice in such triumphs? Is there a Christian who would deliberately utter such a sentiment as the following: "Doubtless these South Sea islanders have been converted to Christianity, but they are baptists or independents, and I am a churchman; therefore I had rather that the South Sea islanders had continued in their idolatry ?" or such a sentiment as this, "The New Zealanders have embraced Christianity, but they have joined the church of England; I am a dissenter, and would therefore have preferred that they had remained heathen?"

If such were our Christianity, surely we should deserve the rebuke of our Divine Lord and Master, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." How dif

ferent were such a spirit from that of the zealous and devoted apostle who said, "Some indeed preach Christ of envy and strife, and some also of good-will. What then? Notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached, and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." (Phil. i.) And are the thousands who are living or dying around us, ignorant or regardless of the merciful invitations of the gospel,— are they less to be pitied by their fellow-countrymen and neighbours than the far distant heathen? Have we indeed resolved to leave them in the depths of their native ignorance and depravity unheeded, and so to let them perish, because we, who do agree in those grand and most essential truths whereby they might be saved, are disputing the while about points and varieties of doctrine, and discipline, and ceremony, that are relatively less important?

If this be a correct view of the matter, does not the question present itself to every Christian in this solemn form-shall I, a British subject and a professed believer in the infinite value of the Christian religion, help to overthrow the established church, which if duly upheld, might bring that religion to every poor and ignorant man's door? Shall I venture to place obstacles in the way of those general and public arrangements, by which religious knowledge may be spread throughout the British isles, and fancy that I am doing God service? What scruples of mine, regarding the worship and the pastoral instruction of the church, can justify me in acting as if her ministrations were a greater curse than ignorance and unbelief? Is not her liturgy, are not her articles scriptural ? and if the teaching of all her ministers be not so, they are but men; and where, O where, shall we find perfection? The variegated forms and hues of dissent show too plainly how prone our frail humanity is to depart from a perfect rule of doctrine