TO AN ATHEIST.

"I had rather believe all the fables and legends of the Talmud or the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind."-Lord Bacon.

OH! tell me of the classic dreams,

Of strange and vagrant Deity

Place gods in mountains, vales, and streams,

On ev'ry hearth, in ev'ry tree:
Lend me the Koran's coarser creed,

Of paradise and houries' eyes;

The warrior believers' meed,

The sensual heav'n for which he dies.

Hindostan's wilder faith be mine,

Of monstrous gods and demons dread;
The high triangle's mystic sign

And the dim Eblis of the dead.
Give me some sense of higher power,
Beyond the grosser views of clay-
Some faith, some hope, some spirit dower,
The weak, but yearning soul to stay.

Aye! any creed I'd rather take,

Than for one single hour believe

Blind Chance this glorious world could make,
And of a God that world bereave.
Cling, Christian! closer, firmer, cling,

To thy religion's lightest word;

And ponder on the blighted thing

Thou wer't, without thy Saviour Lord.

SELF-SUFFICIENCY OF NONCONFORMITY.
DR. WARDLAW'S SOPHISTRIES.

To Dr. Wardlaw's fifth lecture, the following title is prefixed"Objects of the Voluntaries, and means by which they seek their attainment:" and this title is altogether a misnomer. Had the title stood thus-" Objects of the Voluntaries, and means by which they ought to seek their attainment," it might pass; as it at present stands we cannot allow it to pass. Whatever objects the Dissenters of former times might have had in view, and by whatever means they may have sought their attainment, it is very certain that they must have differed materially from the objects of Dissenters in our own day. And it is equally certain that all scrupulosity and consistency, as to the means by which the present race of Dissenters seek the attainment of their objects, are abandoned; and both in theory and practice they declare to the world that they esteem any means and every means to be correct and legal to the attainment of the end; and doubtless the means and the end are well worthy of one another.

The Doctor commences this lecture by complaining of what he is pleased to call the extravagant absurdities that have been uttered and printed on the subject of which it treats: to wit, that he and his allies have been represented as the sworn enemies of the Church, seeking, perfas aut nefas, its destruction-the demolition of its sanctuaries, the impoverishing of its ministers, the dividing and scattering of its people; and all this, too, from a pitiful and selfish principle of eagerness for sectarian aggrandizement. "It had been little (he continues) if such imputations had come only from the underlings of the Church, from the lips and the pens of some weak and empty declaimers, more desirous to vituperate an adversary than to ascertain and circulate the truth. But it has by no means been to such alone that we have been indebted for our heavy indictment."

Now, although the writer of these articles is not prepared to subscribe to the opinion that his lips and pen are those of a weak and empty declaimer, being, as in duty bound, to harbour a good opinion of himself, he is not too proud to plead guilty of being an underling, insomuch so, that having been obliged to part from a mean-spirited and malevolent incumbent, a pluralist, too, through the chicanery of lay patronage, though brought up at a Welsh grammar school, from which he must have departed amazingly honest, he is destitute even of a curacy. Being therefore an underling, he will not venture to reiterate the obnoxious indictment. Still it is commonly supposed that the forefathers of Dissent were a better generation than their children; yet they actually committed the outrages referred to by the lecturer.

It is very wrong to doubt a man's sincerity unless the most positive evidence have been afforded of his insincerity; but oftentimes sincerity is a very meagre virtue. Let the Doctor kick against what he is pleased to call "extravagant absurdities and insinuations" till he becomes tired. What, we would ask, does he intend to signify by certain expressions found in his first lecture, which, although we have already quoted, we must again refer to? The expressions are as follows:

"The creed, which as the creed of the endowed Church, Acts of Parliament ratified, Acts of Parliament can alter, and Acts of Parliament alone; and Acts of Parliament ought to alter, whenever to the legislature of the country it shall appear that alteration promises to be conducive to the country's benefit, to the greatest good of the greatest number-the grand end of all the authority with which governors are invested." Again, "The establishment that has been rightfully made by an act of the national legislature, can, by an act of the same legislature, be as rightfully unmade. The power of choice remains where it was when first exercised, and it may be exercised again by the transference of the bounty to another system, on the very same principle on which its first exercise proceeded."

These expressions imply the legality of, not to say encourage the attempt at, ecclesiastical spoliation; the heavy indictment of which Dr. Wardlaw complains, is therefore not so extravagant an absurdity as he would wish us to believe. If, indeed, the lecturer has been

incautious in the language he has used, he is entitled to our consideration; if not, he cannot blame our suspicion.

Dr. Chalmers had applauded the conduct of the old reformers, in that they had the sound discretion to keep the machinery of the establishment of the Church, and only to change the working of it, placing it in other and better hands, to be wrought upon new principles; whereas the modern reformers, the headlong innovators of the present day, as he calls them, labour with all their might to destroy the framework itself. Whereto Dr. Wardlaw thus rejoins: "Supposing him simply to mean, that the old reformers thought good to retain the machinery of an establishment, while the modern reformers aim at its removal, it is very obvious that the question between them resolves itself into a previous one, namely, whether the machinery be good."

Without stopping to comment upon the difference in the character and position of the two classes of reformers, the one class being reformers in the Church, the other reformers upon an opposition interest-the former preserving the establishment of a Church, of which they were ministers and members, the latter seeking to overthrow that establishment, at the same time that they contemn that Church of which it is the establishment; we say that the question, whether or not the old reformers did right in retaining the machinery of the establishment of the Church, not only resolves itself into a previous question-namely, whether that machinery be good-but that the question, whether the machinery be good, also resolves itself into a previous question-namely, whether that institution, of which it is the machinery, be good. The settlement of the last question will go far to settle the other two. The institution (the Church) is an intrinsically good one; therefore no collateral circumstances can make it intrinsically bad. Hence the establishment of an intrinsic good must be an intrinsic benefit. And the question, whether the old reformers acted rightly in retaining the machinery of the establishment, is a question, not of speculation, but of fact-a fact, we do not mean merely a fact of statistics, population, or church room, but a fact concerning the constitution of human nature, its desires and necessity. So far as we are able to see, the arguments against the existence of an establishment of the Church are quite as cogent against the existence of the Church itself, except so far as human volition chooses it to exist.

Dr. Wardlaw puts the following query, which, we confess, does not appear to be singularly sagacious-"Was the machinery of an establishment the original machinery for the working out of the great ends of the world's instruction and salvation?" To a question of this sort it is not possible to reply, but by putting other questions, and questions that would be just as sagacious as the one which would prompt them. The great ends of the world's instruction and salvation are to be worked out by the Church; but as the lecturer must well know, the Church is a community of those who are instructed, and are in a state of salvation-that is, of those who are not of the world, but are called out of it. How then are the

instruction and salvation of the world, of such as are not yet within the Church, to be worked out, unless the Church use means which, however they may differ in their development, must partake of the nature of an establishment. What are the education and appointment of ministers, the appropriation of funds, the building of sanctuaries, public worship, ceremonies, ordinances, but machinery? The Church does not spontaneously grow up without the use and erection of such machinery; still this machinery is not the Church, for the Church is a "congregation of faithful men." As then the Church, that is to work out the instruction and salvation of the world, needs the erection of machinery by which to work, the chief question is, whether the nature and utility of the Church are destroyed by its establishment? Dr. Wardlaw assumes throughout that they are, but assumption is not proof.

The lecturer resolutely maintains that the machinery of an establishment is a human invention; but it does not follow that every object which is of human invention is a sinful object. An object, though of human invention, may be good, useful, and lawful; and if it be Dr. Wardlaw's purpose to remove from the Church every thing that is of human invention, it will be a desperate remove indeed. However, he professes his design to be to re-substitute the divine for the human, which conveys a heavy indictment against the friends of the Church establishment-even that they have cast out the divine, to insert in its place the human. The Doctor cries out most lustily when charges are brought against him and his denomination; does he suppose that we have no feeling?

A little further on, the following bit of human invention appears : "I speak not in reference to the details of the New Testament constitution of the Christian Church. Respecting these there are diversities of opinion both among the advocates and the opponents of establishments. I speak not of the comparative claims to Scripture sanction of Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, or Independency." What a lamentable begging of the question, and unsatisfactory arguing in circles is here! A person professes to allow no other model but that of the Scriptures, and has more than once assured us that the constitution of the Christian Church is fixed and settled in the Scriptures, who now talks of the comparative sanction of their diverse constitutions in the Scriptures. The lecturer speaks of a Church, without having taken any pains to define what it is; and this omission continually vitiates the performance. He goes on to say, "I speak simply of the voluntary support and propagation of the interests of the spiritual kingdom of Christ by the subjects of that kingdom themselves in opposition to the principle of State support, and of the alliance for the sake of such support, of that kingdom with the kingdoms of this world-with earthly governments.'

In this passage the lecturer speaks of one thing, while it is clear that he intends another: he speaks of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, while he must intend the visible; as he alludes to visible support. A spiritual kingdom, as such, requires only spiritual support, and therefore is not in need of the visible support either of the State

or of individuals; its support will partake of its nature, as will the support of a visible kingdom partake of its nature.

If the Doctor means to intimate that the visible kingdom of Christ ought to receive its support from those, and those only, who belong to the spiritual kingdom of Christ, this would be all very well, provided a whole nation, or the whole world, belonged to the spiritual kingdom, which, if there could be such a case, it is one which shortsighted man could never surely ascertain; but while multitudes who belong to the visible kingdom of Christ, do not belong to the spiritual, and while there are multitudes again who belong to neither, such a doctrine as this seems to offer a premium for irreligion.

But when he speaks of voluntary support, he makes an unjustifiable implication-viz., that State support is necessarily not voluntary; whereas if State support be voluntary, it surely is as lawful for the Church to accept it, as to accept the voluntary support of individuals. Let us take two collateral examples-that of the Regium donum, which is a voluntary support on the part of the State towards Congregational Dissenters. Are Dissenters justified in accepting that support? Undoubtedly they are; and their belief in voluntaryism does not in the least degree oppose their acceptance thereof; but if they not only believe that the religion of Christ ought to be supported by voluntary contributions, but that under any circumstances, State support is unlawful, they are condemned, and their acceptance of the support is a sacrifice of their principles to their interests. Again, the grant to Maynooth College. Are the Roman Catholics justified in accepting this grant? Assuredly they are. But setting aside the particular circumstances under which these two donations were made, and the contracts which they involve, whether it be prudent for the State to uphold them, is another question.

So far, then, as the voluntary nature of the support of the religion of Christ is concerned, both Dissenters and Churchmen may join issue; unless, as was before hinted, there are reasons against its reception among those to whom it is tendered. Support may be perfectly voluntary, though it may not arise in or from the body which it helps to support. This is a question totally distinct from those of tithes and church-rates.

The State supports the Church, because as a State it is a part of the Church as a Church visible, and, in common consistency, it must visibly support a visible institution, just as an individual member of the visible Church must visibly support that Church. The reason why the State supports the Church in preference to a sect, is because it is the Church, and not a sect. If the State were a member of a sect, it would naturally support the sect of which it was a member. Dr. Wardlaw is unfair in representing the alliance of the Church with the State as having been concocted for no other purpose than that the former should receive support from the latter. It would have been more consistent with history, as well as with charity, had the Doctor assumed that, on the part of the Church at least, there were some motives for this alliance more worthy of her high calling than mere pecuniary aid.