to write for experienced men, I do not know that I could say more than in simple phrase I have tried to say to you. The task has been a pleasant one; for every sentence has been written as if in the light of young, beaming eyes, and quickbounding hearts, winged with pure aspirations, and toned to noble aims; with faith unfeigned, and conscience unstained; ready fearlessly to go whereever truth leads, and faithfully to do whatever truth bids.

To relieve the strain of discussion, I have thrown it into the form of dialogue; but as this, if too free, would have broken up the argument into fragments, I have allowed one of the interlocutors the lion's share in the conversation, which is, therefore, after all, very much of a monologue. This ecclesiastical Mentor you may, if you please, set down as a Nonconformist minister, presiding in his vestry, class-room, or parlour, over a company of inquisitive youths, only a few of whom do the talking, but all of whom want to have settled to their satisfaction the vexed question of Church and State.

THE AUTHOR.

CONVERSATION I.

INTRODUCTORY.

The Question-Its importance-The ground clearedDuty and mission of the young in regard to the question.

The Rev. Freeman Fairfield.-You have expressed the desire, my young friends, to devote this and future interviews to an examination of the question touching the relations of Church and State. What, may I ask, has led to this desire?

Ernest.-Well, sir, we are getting to that age when we ought to decide to join some section of the Christian Church; and as this step is so important, and views are so different, we should like to begin with the question of Church or Dissent.

Henry. And I was told, sir, the other day, that Dissent was doomed, and could never keep its own; for the Established Church had all the wealth, all the nobility, all the learning, and therefore all the influence of the nation, and that all this it was sure to retain.

Mr. Fairfield. My dear young friend, had this been. all true (which it is not), the great question would have still remained, Has it the truth on its side? If not, those other things are mere cyphers: multiply them as you may, they still come to nothing.

Charles. And then, sir, I find that in some dissenting families, when they get rich, the sons go off to Church. How is this?

Mr. Fairfield.-Because some of them, it is to be feared, like Demas, love the present world; and because there have been too few meetings, throughout our Churches, like this of ours to-day, and too little desire to know and follow the truth. Now, then, for our subject. Where shall I begin ?

All.--Let us first, if you please, have a clear idea of the question.

Mr. Fairfield.-Certainly. It is only thus that we can know what we are about.

THE QUESTION.

Briefly stated, the question is this: Ought the Christian Church, or any section of it, to be constituted by the Civil Government the Church of the nation, so as to have its faith and its forms fixed by State authority, its ministers paid out of State funds, and its affairs subjected to State control? Churchmen, of course, answer, Yes. Most Dissenters emphatically

answer, No!

Charles. That is the question in the abstract. But I have heard some Churchmen distinguish this from what they call the question in the "concrete." Pray, can you tell us what they mean by that?

Mr. Fairfield. They mean that they hold the principle that the civil establishment of the true religion is right, and binding on the State; but they protest against being thereby held answerable for any existing State-Church in particular, especially in its details.

Edward. I know they do; for I remember once hearing a lecturer say, "I believe that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. I have studied many theories of inspiration, however, and am not perfectly satisfied with any one of them. Perhaps the true theory has never yet been brought out. Perhaps it is in the future. But not the less for that do I believe that the Bible is inspired." And then he went on to argue that he might, in like manner, consistently believe that State-Churchism was right, without holding to any existing State-Church in particular, and that perhaps the model State-Church was yet in the future.

Mr. Fairfield.-True, some do so argue, and they are welcome to take that cautious ground, if they will. It is not unreasonable; but it is, in fact, a practical, and rather ignominious, confession that existing State Churches are not defensible. It declares that, though the Civil Establishment of religion be a duty both to Church and State, it has never yet been properly discharged for these eighteen hundred years. We need not, however, concern ourselves further with this class; for, with all their caution, our arguments, I expect, will reach them, and sweep their little guarded corner of ground as clean as that taken by the manlier champions of State-Churches as they are.

Henry. It is to be hoped they will; and if that model State-Church is still in the future, it is almost a pity its defenders were not in the future, too.

Mr. Fairfield.-Your caustic remark, Henry, may well be pardoned; for surely it is with existing Establishments that we have to do. We live in a real, not an ideal world. We are under the shadow of actual,

not abstract Establishments, whose evils are tangible, not imaginary evils, and whose proper defenders, therefore, ought to stand forth from among their actual and earnest adherents. These Establishments are, the United Church of England and Ireland, and the Church of Scotland, or "the Kirk." The latter is simpler and less corrupt than the former; but in principle they are both the same. We shall see, as we examine them more closely, that each is bound to the State by the golden chain of State-pay, and is free to move only as the State says to it, "Thus far shalt thou go, but no farther.”

Charles. You have already given us a clear statement of the question. Perhaps, to make the case more definite, you will kindly say what the essential elements of a State-Church are.

Mr. Fairfield.-I will; and to make the matter sure, I will state these as they are defined by two confessedly high authorities-one belonging to the English Establishment, the other to the Scottish. "A religious Establishment," says Paley, " is no part of Christianity: it is only the means of inculcating it." And shortly after this, he goes on to say: "The notion of a religious Establishment comprehends three things,-a clergy, or an order of men secluded from other professions to attend upon the offices of religion; a legal provision for the maintenance of the clergy; and the confining of that provision to the teachers of a particular sect of Christianity." This definition may be accepted as simple and complete. The core of it, you will readily discern, is State-pay. That is the golden thread that runs through it all. Turn now to the Scottish divine, and

you will