t on from the
changes, that a practical approximation is thus already made to what is
technically known as Voluntaryism. The "_United Secession_," that is the
old collective body of Scottish Dissenters, who, having no regular
provision, are carried into this voluntary system, already exult that this
consummation of the case cannot be far off. Indeed, so far as the Seceders
are dependent upon _annual_ subscriptions, and coupling that relation to
the public with the great doctrine of these Seceders, that congregations
are universally to appoint their own pastors, we do not see how such an
issue is open to evasion. The leaders of the new Secession all protest
against Voluntaryism: but to that complexion of things they travel rapidly
by the mere mechanic action of their dependent (or semi-dependent)
situation, combined with one of their two characteristic principles.

The same United Secession journal openly anticipates another and more
diffusive result from this great movement; viz. the general disruption of
church establishments. We trust that this anticipation will be signally
defeated. And yet there is one view of the case which saddens us when we
turn our eyes in that direction. Among the reasonings and expostulations
of the Schismatic church, one that struck us as the most eminently
hypocritical, and ludicrously so, was this: "You ought," said they, when
addressing the Government, and exposing the error of the law proceedings,
"to have stripped us of the temporalities arising from the church, stipend,
glebe, parsonage, but not of the spiritual functions. We had no right to
the emoluments of our stations, when the law courts had decided against us
but we _had_ a right to the laborious duties of the stations." No gravity
could refuse to smile at this complaint--verbally so much in the spirit of
primitive Christianity, yet in its tendency so insidious. For could it be
possible that a competitor introduced by the law, and leaving the duties
of the pastoral office to the old incumbent, but pocketing the salary,
should not be hooted on the public roads by many who might otherwise have
taken no part in the feud? This specious claim was a sure and brief way to
secure the hatefulness of their successors. Now, we cannot conceal from
ourselves that something like this invidious condition of things might be
realized under two further revolutions. We have said, that a second schism
in the Scottish church is not impossible. It is als