theless, at thy command, I will let down the net.' Nor did he lose by his prompt and unhesitating obedience, as the sequel shows. He learned a lesson, as a fisherman, which would be useful to him when he became a "fisher of men," and which all, of the like occupation, need to learn -that the measure of success is not Only let us to be the rule of duty. be sure-and let us be sure of thisthat we hear the Master's voice, and that we know what it says; and, then, whatever the difficulties in the way-whatever the sacrifices demanded, let us set ourselves resolutely and immediately to do his will. J. B. THE GOVERNMENT SCHEME OF EDUCATION AND THE FREE CHURCH. WE stated in a former article, that the course which the Free Church has followed in reference to the education question, has by no means met with the approbation of all her adherents, and that a respectable minority have entered their protest against the acceptance of the government grant. One of these objectors, the Rev. A. Moody Stuart, whose eminent piety and zeal entitle his opinion to great weight, has recently, in a somewhat bulky pamphlet, stated at full length the grounds of his objection to the line of policy which the Free Church has adopted. After laying down, in the first two chapters, the principles on which the subject ought to be discussed, he proceeds to show, that, in accepting the government grant for education, the Free Church has entered into a union with the state of a very close and intimate character-a union not of citizens, but of the church as a church of Christ; and he argues that this cooperation with the government is not, as has been alleged, merely congregational, but involves the whole church; because, first of all, their congregational schools form part of one great scholastic institution belonging to the church collective, which, by virtue of acts passed, or in progress, takes her own share, and that a large one, not simply in their superintendence, but in the erection of buildings, and the appointment, dismissal, and support of 66 ex teachers. And next, their general assembly has taken upon itself the responsibility of all that is involved in the union, by declaring that the grant may be lawfully accepted, and thus setting its solemn ecclesiastical authoritative sanction and seal to every individual application—by undertaking "negotiations" on the subject with the government-by pecting" the congregations, before applying to government, to consult the presbytery of the bounds and the committee on education-and by directly applying for the endowment of their normal school through their authorized educational committee. On these grounds Mr Stuart insists that the Free Church is ecclesiastically in covenant with the government-is again united to the state, and endowed by the state. "She is not endowed in her churches or her ministers, her missionaries abroad or her catechists at home; but she is endowed in her schools and her teachers, and in some of their higher pupils. With that state, against which she had protested, and does still protest, as having disowned the Lord Jesus Christ as king of Zion, she has now, after an interval of four brief years, commenced another, though more partial, union." In the fourth chapter Mr Stuart goes on to consider the peculiar position which the Free Church occupies as protesting against the sin of the state, and her particular duty arising from this position. He con tends that, in the acceptance of government aid to their schools, they had the same parties to transact with that were so recently guilty of the great sin involved in the disruption. That this educational alliance with them, has been formed without any token from them of repentance or reformation toward God in this or in any other respect, but with manifest tokens to the contrary-that in the state there has been no alteration for the better in any one respect during their four years of secession, but rapid alteration for the worse-and that, as the sin of cancelling the Free Church protest must turn mainly on the identity of the actors, both in their persons and their principles, that deeply cherished protest is already sunk, and can henceforth form no barrier whatever to a union between the government and the church in all her institutions. If the endowment of ministers were superadded, the difference would merely be in degree, and not in kind; for it would only be the church uniting herself to the state by means of another bond. In the succeeding chapter, Mr Stuart enters into a statement of what may be regarded as his main ground of objection to the acceptance of the benefits of the government scheme of education; viz., that such a connexion as at present exists between the Free Church and the government, is a union of believers with unbelievers-with unbelievers whose sin has the aggravation of apostasy-with them in an unbelieving and apostatizing measure. Arguing, as it will be observed, on the principles of the Reformed Presbyterians, he contends that the active support of infidelity or idolatry by an individual or a government, constitutes the party infidel or idolatrous, and constrains us to deal with them as such-that the British government is chargeable with sustaining Socinianism, which is infidelity, and is supporting and encouraging and avowing its intention to give increased support and encouragement to Popery, which is idolatry, and must therefore be held to be an infidel and idolatrous governmentthat the guilt of our rulers is aggravated by their apostasy from the system of doctrinal truth, once publicly recognised by the legislature of this country-and that, in spontaneously uniting with such a government, the Free Church are helping the ungodly, and loving them that hate the Lord,"-that this educational alliance is not only a union with unbelievers, but a union with them in an unbelieving and apostatizing scheme, in which truth and error are alike recognised and endowed, which embraces within its ample bosom both Popish idolatry and Socinian infidelity. Such an indiscriminate acknowledgment of the true faith and of many deadly errors, he concludes, "is unbelief-the scheme that embodies it, is an unbelieving schemethe men who frame it, are to us unbelieving men-and we who co-operate with them in it, are unequally yoked together with unbelievers by means of an unbelieving measure." In the three succeeding chapters, Mr Stuart endeavours to show that such a union as he has been considering, is not defensible on historical grounds-points out the natural and civil connexions with unbelievers which are sanctioned by the word of God-and affirms that the magistrate is the civil guardian of both tables of the law, but not lord over the conscience. In the ninth chapter, he attempts to prove that the educational alliance between the government and the Free Church is a religious union. "There can be no doubt," he affirms, "that the education, which the Free Church contemplates, is a religious education-as a church they could not contemplate any other, and an educational scheme they never would have instituted except on a religious basis, and for a religious end. Go vernment also are professedly pro ceeding on similar principles; for their whole scheme has not only an avowedly religious basis, but expressly requires religious instruction to be communicated, and religious qualifications to be constantly attested. Here, then," he adds, "is a union with unbelievers in a religious matter, and for a religious end. Our end is religious, and they assist us in it be cause it is religious; their end is religious, and we assist them in it though it is religious." Now we apprehend that, in laying down these positions, Mr Stuart has fallen into error, in consequence of not adverting to the changes which the government scheme has undergone. When that scheme was first promulgated, it no doubt "required religious instruction to be communicated, and religious qualifications to be attested, in all the schools aided by public grants," and in this way the government made themselves responsible for the schools aided by them being religious, and gave their sanction to the principle of indiscriminate religious endow ment. But this stumbling-block has now been taken out of the way. Dr Vaughan, and other leaders of that portion of the English dissenters who still adhere to their old faith respect ing national education, made known the fact, that the regulation respecting religious instruction in the schools aided by public grant, constituted their greatest objection to the minutes of council, and that the alteration of this rule would be to them "the removal of a conscientious difficulty." The same view of the subject was taken by the lamented Dr Chalmers, who, in the last composition on any public matter which emanated from his pen, thus expresses his "dying thoughts" in reference to this point. "It were the best state of things, that we had a parliament sufficiently theological to discriminate between the right and the wrong in religion, and to encourage or endow accord ingly. But, failing this, it seems to us the next best thing, that, in any public measure for helping on the edu cation of the people, government were to abstain from introducing the ele ment of religion at all into their part of the scheme, and this not because they held the matter to be insignificant-the contrary might be strongly expressed in the preamble of their act; but on the ground that, in the present divided state of the christian world, they would take no cognizance of, just because they would attempt no control over, the religion of applicants for aid, leaving this matter entire to the parties who had to do with the erection and management of the schools, which they had been called upon to assist. A grant by the state upon this footing, might be regarded as being appropriately and exclusively the expression of their value for a good secular education; and meanwhile, let that education in religion, which the legislature abstains from providing for, be provided for as freely and as amply as they will by those who have undertaken the charge of them. Religion would, under such a system, be the immediate product, not of legislation, but of the christian and philanthropic zeal which obtained throughout society at large." The recommendation thus given was promptly and spontaneously acted upon by the government, and the objectionable regulation was withdrawn as far as regards all schools not connected with the Church of England. A certificate of satisfaction with the religious progress of the scholars, is not now required from the managers of these schools in order to their receiving government aid; the government refuse to take any cognizance of this matter, and the scheme has thus been freed from the guilt involved in an indiscriminate endowment of truth and error. But it will be said that nothing is gained by this refusal of the government to interfere with the religious yet appeared; but the subject was dis cussed at great length in the Free Church Presbytery of Edinburgh; and Dr Candlish, on whom the defence of the policy attacked seems to have principally devolved, touched upon most of the arguments which Mr Stuart brought forward. In the first place, the Doctor denies that this educational connexion is in any proper sense an alliance between the Church and the State, and affirms that the Free Church has not in this matter entered into any sort of alliance, good, bad, or indifferent, with the State, and that the steps she has taken have not been taken in her character as a church, but rather as a corporate body in the exercise of her rights of citizenship. To this Mr Stuart triumphantly rejoins by quoting the resolution of the Free Church, which expressly declares, "That it is the duty of this church, as a church of Christ, to be willing to co-operate with the government, and to avail herself of the means which may be placed at her disposal, by grants of public money, for increasing the extent and efficiency of her own educational institutions." instruction given, as religion may, and probably will still be, taught in the schools supported by government aid. Undoubtedly this may be the case, but not at the public expense. It must not be forgotten that the government contributes only its quota towards the support of any school which may be aided by public grants. Two thirds, at least, of the money requisite for that purpose must be contributed by its supporters, who may surely, without offence, devote their own funds to the teaching of their own opinions. The government comes into the market simply as a purchaser of secular instruction. It proclaims its willingness to buy the article from any individual or society, religious or secular, without distinction of sect or creed. It asks no questions respecting the religious instruction which may be given, at their own expense, by the parties who are concerned in the management of the school; its inspection and superintendence are limited to the general instruction communicated, and its aid is given exclusively, as Dr Chalmers recommends, as an expression of its value for a good secular education. The objection, therefore, that to accept aid Secondly, Dr Candlish affirms, that from government for schools in which "whether endowed or not, the church religion may be taught, would be to cannot get out of that relation to the accept government money in aid of state which involves an alliance". religious teaching, is shown to be al- that the existence of the church in together groundless. "The money, any land, involves, on her part, such which comes from the community is a relation with the government, that more than returned to it again, in the she is not only entitled, but bound if general instruction which is thus possible, to co-operate with the gothrown open to it, free from all sec- vernment in any good work which tarian appendage. While the very that government may propose to carry condition on which the money is received, recognizing, as it does, the right of the state to inspect the general instruction of the school, but denying its right to interfere, in the slightest degree, with its religious teaching, is a practical avowal, rather than a virtual abandonment, of our great dissenting principle." As far as we are aware, no formal answer to Mr Stuart's pamphlet has on. Passing over the very obvious fallacy involved in the assumption on which this argument is founded, we remark, that if this mode of reasoning be of any weight in justifying the educational alliance between the Free Church and the government, it must follow, as a matter of course, that the church, instead of being a spiritual body, organized by spiritual authority for the promotion of spiritual pur Σ poses, is to be regarded as a sort of politico-religious corporation, entitled to intermeddle with every thing religious or secular, and bound actively to co-operate with the government in carrying out every good work, civil or sacred, from the teaching of a school to the cleansing of a street, which the government may prescribe, or the church have it in their power to promote. If it be indeed the case, that the church of Christ, by virtue of its mere existence in any country, is allied to the government of that country by an indissoluble union, in virtue of which it is bound to co-operate with it in all lawful enterprises, without considering either their nature, or its character and designs; then, instead of being "a most free kingdom, yea, as free as any kingdom under heaven," it is in a state of abject slavery, and is, indeed, properly not a separate kingdom at all, but only a conjoined part of the kingdom of this world. In the third place, Dr Candlish denies that the educational alliance between the Free Church and the government is an alliance in a religious matter. "I take my stand here," he says, "upon the broad principle, that education is a secular matterjust as secular a matter as the clothing of my child or the feeding him. No doubt, we insist upon education being sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, just as we insist on our common meals being sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, and in no other sense and to no other extent. A quibble may be raised here. Education may be applied, in a wide sense, to comprehend the whole of parental culture, or the whole of ministerial culture. The education I am, however, contending for, is what is given in the Free Church education scheme. The schoolmaster, as a schoolmaster, is simply a secular person, and the business in which he is engaged is simply a secular business." Now, in the accuracy of these statements we most cordially concur; but the fact which Dr Candlish so strenuously asserts, that education is not a religious but a secular matter, serves only the more clearly to show the impropriety of the cause which he defends. The education in question is avowedly a secular affair; and yet the church, as a church of Christ, has not merely countenanced or recommended, but has taken the entire management of it throughout. The whole scheme, in its origin and progress-in its principles and details-the erection of the schoolsthe mode of raising the necessary funds-the appointment, superintendence, dismissal, and support of the teachers, as well as the terms of the alliance with government,-have all been arranged by ecclesiastical authority, and involve ecclesiastical responsibility. Now, if a church of Christ may lawfully act in this manner with regard to one purely secular matter, why may it not take charge of all the secular affairs of her members? It must be expediency alone, not principle, which prevents her from doing so. Whatever may be plausibly alleged in behalf of such policy, it can certainly claim no countenance from any thing said in the New Testament respecting the character and constitution of the church of Christ. ROMAN CATHOLIC ENDOWMENT. HAD we a trumpet loud enough to reach every sequestered hamlet, and the furthest shores of Britain, we would this day set it to our mouth, Verily it is a season to blow an alarm. We have, indeed, no proof that a measure of Roman Catholic endowment has been already con |