But in discussions on the question of Church Reform in Ireland, and of the grant to Maynooth, we are told that the state ought not to abandon the cause of Protestantism, that true religion will be extinguished in Ireland without the assistance of the government, that no conscientious man can lend himself to the diffusion of a false creed: which arguments refer to the effects of Catholicism, not in this, but in the next world. Now it is much to be desired that the advocates of civil distinctions in ecclesiastical matters would distinctly state on which of these two grounds they proceed*: for if a person thinks that the members of a certain church are dangerous as subjects, it is unnecessary for civil governors to enter into the religious qnestion; while if he thinks that it is his duty as a ruler to promote by all means in his power the diffusion of his own faith, it is obviously in free governments a mere question of preponderance of numbers in the legislature, and all argument on the subject is nugatory and superfluous.

It is difficult to determine whether, upon the whole, the connexion between church and state is the more mischievous to the church or to the state; but it seems that, except on few and extraordinary occasions, this confusion of powers is extremely mischievous to both.

That it is mischievous to the state is obvious on many grounds. By deciding that one creed is true, it necessary entails on itself the ill-will and suspicion of those of its members whose creed it thus pronounces to be false; by selecting one persuasion as the object of

* Warburton, in his celebrated work on the Alliance of Church and State, distinctly adopts the civil ground: saying, that "the true end for which religion is established is not to provide for the true faith, but for civil utility."-See Parliamentary Talk, p. 47.

its exclusive favour, it creates a discord and jealousy among its subjects, which otherwise would not exist, at least to the same degree. It gratuitously inflicts on itself the evils of disunion and dissension, which otherwise might be altogether absent. So far, therefore, as dissension is created for the purpose of discountenancing a creed of which the moral effects in this world are not on the whole pernicious,-the present and temporal are sacrificed to what are assumed to be the spiritual and post-mortem interests of the community; the advantages of peace and concord in the civil union are foregone in order to afford a part of its members that which another part consider as a better chance of salvation. How far it may be right for a civil government to sacrifice the temporal happiness of its subjects in order to save their souls, we shall presently seek to determine : for the present we only wish it to be observed, that so far as men's worldly interests are sacrificed in order to promote their spiritual welfare, the connexion of the church and state is injurious, and manifestly and avowedly injurious, to the latter.

It is true that the mere abstinence of the state from pronouncing on the comparative merits of creeds will not put an end to religious discord. Under a system of the most entire equality, Protestants and Roman Catholics would still dispute about introducing the Bible into schools, and opening it without reserve to the laity *. The love of power, the love of truth, the

* The reason why Roman Catholics object to the reading of the Bible is very obvious, and it may be stated without giving them just cause of offence. They believe, it is true, everything which is in the Bible; but they also believe other things which are not in the Bible. Give an intelligent Chinese or Hindoo the Bible, and it is conceivable that he should form from it a creed identical with the Thirty-nine Articles, or the West

hatred of superstition, the wish to promote the eternal happiness of others, the love of propagating one's own opinions these, and other motives, will always prevent the weapons of religious controversy from becoming blunt or rusty. But it is very questionable whether simple theological hatred, not sharpened on the whetstone of temporal and worldly motives, ever prompts men to the active measures which we see caused by religious feelings in countries where the state undertakes to decide on the truth of creeds. It may be doubted whether large bodies of men have ever been animated by genuine religious animosity, as they have been by fear, by patriotism, by the love of revenge or plunder, or even by a sense of religious duty. Bigotry is not diffusive; it does not pervade masses of people; its head-quarters are the prominent leaders and instigators of the multitude, and to them it is for the most part confined. A man may be taught that persons of a different creed-Heretics, Dissenters, Infidels, Pagans, or whatever they may be called-are dangerous and unfit for association: but whenever he may be thrown in contact with any of the denounced class in the ordinary relations of life, as buyer or seller, fellowworkman, fellow-passenger or traveller, neighbour, &c., he begins to find that they are affected in the same way

minster Confession of Faith. But it is inconceivable that he should form it a creed identical with the Roman Catholic creed, inasmuch as that Church follows tradition as well as Scripture. If, therefore, the Bible is put in a child's hands without explanation; if it is unaccompanied with other religious instruction,-unless the child is told that he is to pray to the Virgin Mary, to believe in the good offices of saints, the sacrifice of the mass, confession, &c., it is clear that he can never be a Roman Catholic. Hobbes long ago said, that when reason is against a man, he is against reason. It is equally natural, that when the Bible is against a man, he should be against the Bible.

as himself; that they rejoice at what gives him joy, and complain at what causes him inconvenience; that they are equally liable to hunger, and thirst, and cold; in short, that they have everything in common with himself, except some not very tangible or obvious questions of speculative theology. Intercourse of this kind has a softening effect; people find that the impression which they had formed from the reports current among their own persuasion is more unfavourable than the reality, and thus their mutual distrust gradually wears off when it is discovered to be in a great measure unfounded *. If, indeed, an agitator or controversialist seizes hold of these persons, he may convert their intercourse into an opportunity for collision; but unless men's bad passions are purposely stimulated and turned into this current, it seems as if the healing influence of every-day intercourse predominated.

The Crusades may appear to afford an obvious contradiction to these remarks, as being an instance of religious animosity diffusing itself over large masses of people. But it was a sense of religious duty, not of personal, individual hatred, which led the Christians

* "It is impossible, I think (says Sir J. Mackintosh,) to look into the interior of any religious sect without thinking better of it. I ought, indeed, to confine myself to Christian Europe; but with that limitation it seems to me that the remark is true; whether I look at the Jansenists of Port Royal, or the Quakers in Clarkson, or the Methodists in these journals. All these sects which appear dangerous or ridiculous at a distance, assume a much more amiable character on nearer inspection. They all inculcate pure virtue and practise mutual kindness; and they exert great force of reason in rescuing their doctrines from the absurd or pernicious consequences which naturally flow from them. Much of this arises from the general nature of religious principle; much also from the genius of the gospel morality, so meek and affectionate, that it can soften barbarians, and warm even sophists themselves."-Life of Mackintosh, vol. ii., p. 54.

to the Holy Land; they were actuated by fanaticism, not by bigotry; by a wish to place Jerusalem under a Christian government, rather than by a thirst after Mahometan blood. The Christians," says Gibbon, "affirmed that their inalienable title to the promised land had been sealed by the blood of their Divine Saviour; it was their right and duty to rescue their inheritance from the unjust possessors, who profaned his sepulchre and oppressed the pilgrimage of his disciples." This feeling was not that of Charles IX., when he stood on the balcony of his palace, and glutted his eyes with the sight of the blood of his Protestant subjects. It is a feeling of general hostility, quite compatible with toleration, forbearance, or even kindness to individuals. Hence accounts have been preserved of attachments between Christian knights and native women, as in the romantic story of Thomas à Becket's father, who is said to have been followed to England by a Saracen woman, the daughter of a Mahometan chief, in whose household he had served as a slave. It is moreover to be remembered that the religious zeal which gave rise to the Crusades was by no means a spontaneous ebullition of popular feeling, but was most assiduously inculcated and fomented by persons in authority. The popes, looking forward to an extension of their spiritual empire, urged the temporal rulers to undertake expeditions to the Holy Land, and the latter led their subjects thither without consulting their wishes more than on other occasions.

During the hottest periods of the Reformation, and the persecution which attended it, the severities inflicted on heretics were never the result of a popular movement. No one can say that the people of France, the Nether