PART II.

THE VOLUNTARY PRINCIPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.

CHAPTER I.

OPINIONS RESPECTING ITS INTRODUCTION.

ONE of the first elements by means of which it would seem that a just judgment might be formed of the great, and, in truth, the unprecedented, change effected in the American community by the introduction of the voluntary principle in religious matters, is the subsequent opinion of those among whom it has taken place. Let us inquire, therefore, what the Americans themselves have thought of it, and what they think of it now.

With respect to the Virginian group of colonies, or, as we have now to call them, states, there never was room for two opinions. The established church there-Church of England episcopacy-was at all times a hindrance rather than a help to true religion; and at the period of its abolition, it was so palpable and deplorable a mischief, that, although some persons might have been still disposed to contend for ecclesiastical property and domination, no one could anticipate from its overthrow anything but an immense advantage so far as vital godliness was concerned. Opinion upon this point has ever been one and unchanged.

In the New England states the case was different. Congregationalism, which was the dominant worship there, had possessed in the first instance a character of strict orthodoxy and earnest piety; and, although this had in some measure deteriorated, the established church contained to the last a large number of eminent and devoted men, and a most influential mass of living godliness. What might happen if the status and prerogatives of an establishment should be taken away from such a body, was a question on which good and wise men who had inherited such a position from their fathers, and had been all their lives accustomed to attach an indefinite importance to it, might well be excused for pondering with some uncertainty and anxiety; more especially, when they saw the infidel united with the tolerated religionists of all shades, in the assault, sometimes violent, on an institution in their eyes so sacred and venerable. Dr. Dwight, accordingly, and with him many ministers of eminence and standing, hesitated. A vague fear of change disturbed them, and they shrank from committing themselves to so serious and untried an issue.

Upon this point we cannot have a better authority than that of Dr. Baird, who speaks in the strongest terms of the subsequent opinions of these distinguished men. "It ought to be known," says he, "that not a single survivor at this day, of all who once wrote against the separation of church and state in Connecticut, who has not long since seen that he was mistaken, and has not now found to be a blessing what he once regarded as a calamity. Had not Dr. Dwight died just as the change came into operation, no doubt he too would have changed his opinion."

To this may be added the evidence of Dr. Reed, which is wholly to the same purport.

"Dr. Dwight," says Dr. Reed, "has not survived, to look back calmly on the consequences of the change, but many of his contemporaries have. I have sought them out;

* Baird, p. 252.

I have communed with them at large upon the subject. In every instance they have acknowledged that they were wrong; that their fears were groundless; that the transition has brought with it only good, and good in a degree for which they could not have hoped."

If such was the testimony of this class of witnesses, it may naturally be expected that the general sentiment would be concurrent with it. And that it was so, will satisfactorily appear by another extract from the work just quoted.

"Testimony," says Dr. Reed, speaking of this subject, "is universally in its favour. Let me not be mistaken. Some may carp at the term universal, and endeavour to muster some few voices in favour of the standing order. Such voices are doubtless to be heard but it is truly marvellous that they are so few. Of course, he transition so lately effected from one system to the other, must have disturbed many interests, and have brought loss to some. It was to be expected that some, under the old system, would be incompetent; and these would naturally incline to an allowance from the state, rather than from the people, who would be too wise to grant it. Some who had become grey and infirm under that system, might be supposed to cling to it, even though every advantage were with the change. Harvey showed his skill in metaphysics, as well as in physics, when he observed, that none of his profession above forty years of age received his theory, or were to be expected to receive it.

"But, in truth, though every reasonable mind would be ready to make considerable allowance for the influence of such causes, it was never less necessary; and they are only referred to, to prevent captious and unfair objection. After having invited the most candid opinion on the subject; after having sincerely sought for the truth, whether favourable or unfavourable to the voluntary system; and after * Reed and Matheson, vol. ii. p. 140.

having sought this in every quarter, and chiefly where state provision had been enjoyed,-I certainly did not find halfa-dozen men who would give their suffrages for the old method! The ministers, as a body, who might be supposed to have, professionally, strong preferences for a fixed and compulsory stipend, were united in their attachment to the voluntary principle. The brethren in Massachusetts, where the change had been so recently completed, rejoiced in it, and anticipated from it a decided advance in pure religion. Those of New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine, with whom we had an opportunity of meeting and conferring, were unanimous in the same judgment, and referred, gratefully, the renovated state of their churches and of the ministry to its benign influence. The brethren of Connecticut, whom we met in large numbers, decidedly concurred in the same opinion. The episcopalian of Virginia, and the congregationalist of New England, who had been indulged and protected to the utmost, were equally in favour of the new principle. Men of every denomination-the methodist, the baptist, the presbyterian, the reformed, the Lutheran, the churchman, and the independent-all deprecate state interference and state allowance. Men of every region-the east, the west, the north, the south-and who are most deeply concerned for the interests of religion, agree in coming to the same conclusion. Indeed, such unanimity of opinion on a practical question, involving the interests of so many parties, and to be determined mostly by those whose habits and thoughts had been associated only with the old system, is what I never expected to find.”*

Drs. Reed and Matheson were in the United States in 1835; Dr. Lang visited them in 1840, and in his work we may trace the course of public opinion on the matter before us, through the intervening five years. We give an extract

or two :

"We are not of two opinions on these subjects here,' Reed and Matheson, vol. ii. p. 137.

observed his honor, Judge Jones, of Philadelphia, who did me the honour to invite me to reside with him during my stay in that city; 'we are all agreed that religion requires no support from the state, and can derive no benefit from a connexion with the civil power.'

"But the clergyman who expressed himself the most decidedly on this subject, and who, moreover, from his age and experience, as well as from his high character, his acknowledged talents, and his valuable researches into the history of the church, was doubtless the best qualified to offer an opinion on the subject, was the Rev. Dr. Miller, Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the Theological Seminary of the American Presbyterian Church at Princeton, New Jersey. On requesting Dr. Miller to inform me what were the general sentiments of the presbyterian clergy of the United States in regard to a civil establishment of religion, 'Why, sir,' he replied, with some degree of surprise at the question, if the government of the United States were to propose to the presbyterian clergy of this country, that they must either become an established church, or be persecuted by the state, I am sure, from what I know of their opinions on this subject, that they would prefer even a persecution to a civil establishment.’”*

We may pursue the current of opinion somewhat farther, by referring again to the work of Dr. Baird, which was written in 1843, and published in the following year. His language is as follows:

66

Although I have been much in Connecticut during the last fifteen years, know many of the clergy, and have conversed much with them on the subject, out of the two hundred or three hundred once established ministers of that state, I am not aware of there being more than one congregational minister in the state who would like to see the union of church and state restored in it. Indeed, the exception