of the Emerald Isle will the tidings fly, fleet as the news of "a tithe-process," and "over a' braid Scotland" be borne, quicker than the flash of the beacon blaze, that in days of yore summoned the Chieftains and their clans"All plaided and plumed in their battle array,"

to haste to the meeting spot. Eighteen months have elapsed since the publication of Dr. Cooke's Speeches, and yet none so hardy as to attempt an exposition of their fallacy. We did deem that the Voluntary spirit was sick, and its heart faint, and that, amid all its embattled ranks, none were so covetous of immortal honour as voluntarily to undertake the "forlorn hope" of the cause. At the eleventh hour, Mr. Dixon has volunteered his services, but with what success, an impartial public will decide. "Dr. Cooke answered!!" Yes, as the booming of a can. non is answered by the cracking of a child's pop-gun! We really would have thought, that the feat of " answer. ing" Dr. Cooke, was sufficient to have secured celebrity for any "rising genius" of the present day, and to have procured a fame which might have slaked the thirst of even "ambition's strongest longing;" but Mr. Dixon is not content with attempting to attain near to

"The vera tapmost towerin' height"

of controversial distinction, but adopting, as his motto"In great attempts 'tis glorious even to fail,"

he has attacked the "Incomparable Chalmers" at the same time. After both are routed, and have retired vanquished from the field, he must "break a spear" with a layman, who seems to accompany them as their 'squire, and soon before his puissant arm he is laid low, and the victory is won. We hope that, after all, Mr. Dixon is an humble, modest man, and sincerely trust, that his titlepage has been manufactured for him by the booksellers, who are adepts in the trade, well knowing that an imposing title is as necessary to the success of a book as the de. vice on a sign-board is to the popularity of a tavern.

After severely castigating those pigmy personages, the reviewers, for the very liberal praise they have bestowed on Dr. Cooke's defence of Establishments, and a very honourable insinuation, that the Rev. Doctor is under no small obligation to the Reporter, he proceeds to shew the fallacy of the propositions defended "then and there ;" but hear himself:

་

"Now the Doctor maintains, in a quotation which he extracts from that true blue,' the Covenanter, and which he adopts as his own, that, divested of all extraneous matter, the question is, 'Ought nations, or their rulers or representatives, when favoured with supernatural revelation, to establish the church, by granting her special favour and counte nance; even so far as to make provision for the ministers and ordinances of religion ?? or, as he elsewhere has it, 'the true religion.' And he maintains the affirmative of the question he has thus stated. "Now, the first difficulty which presents itself, and which meets us at every turn, is, who shall decide what is and what is not the 'true religion?' If I consult Dr. Cooke, I suppose he will tell me Presbyterianism; if Dr. Whately, the answer will be, Protestant Episcopalianism; if Dr. Murray, Catholicism; and if Dr. Urwick, Independency; while many millions of the people of England differ again from all these, as regards either modes of faith or of Church government; and yet all profess Christianity under one modification or another; nor will it, I suppose, be contended by Dr. Cooke, that the minority should support the religion of the majority, for then 'red Papacy' would in this country demand his contributions. I therefore again inquire, who shall decide, when so many Doctors disagree, each of whom will argue from June till January, that the system which he has embraced is in perfect accordance with that Book, from which there lies no appeal ?"

Those

This seems to be the rallying point of the Voluntaries. The difficulty, the impossibility of discovering the true religion, or the doctrines of Christianity, is held forth as perfectly conclusive, against the doctrine of Establishments. We confess the objection is plausible, and will pass current with a great portion of mankind. who, like Pilate, ask "what is truth," but have no desire to know it, may easily excuse their ignorance, and foster their self-complacency with the reflection, that, amidst the many expounders of truth, there is such a variety of opinions on the subject as altogether to exclude the possibility of ever attaining a satisfactory answer to their inquiries. The simple answer to all this taunting tirade is, that the true religion can be discovered, and that the doctrines of Christianity can be defined; and we can further state, that both in the standards of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, they are detailed, with great per spicuity. The objection taken to Establishments, on this ground, savours much of rank infidelity. Jehovah has favoured his creatures with a direct revelation on the subject. Jesus, who spake as never man spake, delivered sermons to elucidate the same; and his Apostles, speak. ing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did promulgate, explain, and enforce those very doctrines which, according to our author, and other Voluntary advocates, are so far

left in dim obscurity as to be beyond the reach of any palpable definition. The carnal mind may reject them -ungodly men may wrest them-heretics may strive to corrupt them-sceptics may deny them-and Voluntaries may etherialize them-so that, like a spirit, they can "neither be seen, felt, nor die ;" but the doctrines of the Gospel shine as clearly forth, from the volume of revela tion, as the sun shines at noonday. The eye may be shut by prejudice, that it will not behold them; error may strive to cloud their brightness, but there they are, ever bright and beautiful; and the sincere heart and truth-seeking eye will find them, plain as the lips of mercy, speaking with the language of man, could make them. The forms of Church government may be different, and may not be so capable of definition; but the "true religion,” or, in other words, "the doctrines of the Gospel," present no obstacle to the principle of Establishments, either from their ambiguity, or the manner in which they have been treated. As Dr. Cooke did not enter into the discussion of "forms," which, though they may differ, do not invalidate his argument, we may leave our author to console himself with the reflection, that he has discovered darkness in heaven's own clearest light, and has encouraged doubt where the Spirit of God has inculcated decision.

Again, our author has, by one mighty and masterly stroke, entirely overturned the whole superstructure which Dr. Cooke has raised on the solid basis of Scripture testimony, regarding the endowment and support of the Church by Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes. Hear him :

"But there is one general principle,' says our 'skilful controversialist,' ,' 'which I shall employ as a philosophical and practical touchstone for my pponents. This principle I borrow from the renowned American, Dr. Franklin. It is simply this, when you get a good principle, go through with it,' and as he has accordingly applied it in almost every way in which we can conceive misapplication possible; and as, moreover, that principle is quite as applicable to religion as it is to philosophy, suppose I give our facetious Doctor what he calls a rub on Franklin's whetstone. It would seem that the king of Persia enforced his decree for rebuilding the Jewish temple with so much rigour, that we find the following enactment recorded in the 6th chapter and 11th verse of the book of the aforesaid Ezra :-' Also I have made a decree, that whosoever shall alter (disobey or frustrate) this word, let timber be pulled down from his house, and being set up, let him be hanged thereon; and let his house be made a dunghill for this.' Now this was coming to the point at once, and if the decree of Artaxerxes be intended for our government, then let us go through with it.' When God says strike, let not man presume to spare. Let our good King William the Fourth adopt the Scriptural and sum

mary mode of punishment enjoined by the king of Persia, and let him enforce it not only against the tithe-resisters of Ireland, who are now seeking with a vengeance to alter the law of the king,' but also against those tithe-haters, the dissenters of England, who are equally opposed to his decree,' and are labouring more silently, it may be, though not less assiduously, than their fellow-labourers in the West, to erase it from the statute book. If Dr. Cooke chooses to select such parts of the Jewish code for his model as he may think suitable to his purpose, he must (at least as regards those parts) adopt the whole code, and nothing but the code; in other words, if his principle be a good one,' he, too, must go® through with it.'"

This is Dr. Cooke "answered" with a vengeance; but let us examine it. Dr. Cooke is to go through with his principle: he "must adopt the whole code, and nothing but the code." This is Mr. Dixon's decision; but we appeal to the tribunal of common sense. We ever conceived that a general principle might not be educed, without involving all the details. Who ever would have thought that, in imitating the zeal, and faithfulness, and exertions of good men, we were bound to the precise mode and limits of their operations. Does Mr. Dixon not perceive, or has he voluntarily blinded himself, that the morale of a duty may be binding, while the mode of performing it is to be regulated by circumstances. Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes gave "special favour and countenance" to the Church of God, by which they promoted its interest, and were approved of by Jehovah for what they did. What is the language thus addressed by the tongue of inspiration itself to Kings? Go ye and do likewise. They adopted a certain manner of performing this duty. Are we shut up to the same path? No: a clearer light shines around us-a brighter day hath dawned. The sphere of duty is enlarged the path more enlightened-the excitements higher-the motives purer, and the obligations stronger. Jehu, by deceit, convened, and by treachery slew the prophets of Baal. Jehovah approved of him, for his motive was the extirpation of idolatry, and he was zealous for the glory of the true God. The inspired language of the case is, that Kings are bound to aid in the extirpation of heresy, but not by the same means, for there are other more effective modes within their power. This "horn of a dilemma," on which our author places Dr. Cooke, appears, after all, to be but a vision of his own imagination, and would not so much as support a gossamer's thread.

Again, our author says, “I maintain that no State-endowed Establishment, when viewed in reference to all its

2

consequences, can be a 'good,' but that such an institution must of necessity be an evil." We are at a loss whether to smile at the presumption, or pity the ignorance of the man who could make such a sweeping assertion. Has he never read or heard of the Church of Scotland? Has he never heard of the Synod of Ulster, or of the Secession Church of Ulster? We will take the Church of Scotland, and if he can produce any Church, in an age, from the days of the Apostles to the present day, that has equalled her in zeal, in purity, and in success, we will give up the argument. Let him examine the length and breadth of her history, from the day when her Scriptural foundation was laid by Knox, down to the present period, when she can boast of a son in the "incomparable Chalmers," and if he can candidly say that he perceives in her nothing but "necessary evils," then must we give him up to some intellectual oculist, afraid that he is both morally and spiritually blind. All the annals of Voluntaryism cannot produce such evidences of vital godliness, doctrinal purity, and spiritual independence.

Our author has expended a vast deal of time and talent, to prove, that the Jewish Church was supported solely by voluntary offerings, and that compulsion denudes every institution of its Scriptural character. This is the hobby of the Voluntaries, and the very climax of their argument. However, despite of all their eloquence, we have yet to learn that the payment of tithes, under the Jewish dispensation, was optional. We have yet to learn that the Levitical cities, allotted for the support of the priesthood, were dependent on the popular will. But, says our most admirable expositor, the Legislature had no authority to punish by confiscation or imprisonment, or compel the refractory to pay, Jehovah himself being their King, and punishing them by judgments, inflicted by his own hand. This much, however, our opponents yield us, that tithes were originally the appointment of God himself, and that the refusal to pay them provoked his displeasure, and exposed to his chastisement. Will the Voluntaries then act up to their own admissions? Shall we hear of them condemning those who refuse to pay the "Church-rates ?" Shall we see them separating themselves from the “antitithe" crusade, and henceforth enforcing and encouraging the payment of tithes ? Let them do this, and compulsion will soon be unknown, though Voluntaryism would be