e had merely contended that
money given in connection with the Bible and Shorter Catechism is a
very excellent thing, and especially so to men who cannot fulfil their
obligations or pay their debts without it. But Chalmers had looked
beyond the difficulties of a scheme, to the emergencies of a nation.

At the request of many of our readers, we have reprinted his document
in full, as it originally appeared.{5} First, let it be remarked
that, after briefly stating what he deemed the optimity of the
question, he passes on to what he considered the only mode of
settling it practically, in the present divided state of the
Church and country. And in doing so he lays down, as a preliminary
step, the absolute right and duty of the Government to educate,
altogether independently of the theological differences or divisions
which may obtain among the people or in the Churches. 'As there
seems no reason,' he says, 'why, because of these unresolved
differences, a public measure for the health of all, for the
recreation of all, for the economic advancement of all, should be
held in abeyance, there seems as little reason why, because of these
differences, a public measure for raising the general intelligence of
all should be held in abeyance.' Such is the principle which he
enunciates regarding the party possessing the right to _educate_.
Let the reader next mark in what terms he speaks of the party _to be_
educated, or under whose immediate superintendence the education is
to be conducted. Those who most widely misunderstand the Doctor's
meaning--from the circumstance, perhaps, that their views are most
essentially at variance with those which he entertained--seem to hold
that this _absolute_ right on the part of Government is somehow
_conditional_ on the parties to be educated, or to superintend the
education, coming forward to them _in the character of Churches_.
They deem it necessary to the integrity of his meaning, that
Presbyterians should come forward as Presbyterians, Puseyites as
Puseyites, Papists as Papists, and Socinians as Socinians; in
which case, of course, all could be set right so far as the Free
Church conscience was concerned in the matter, by taking the State's
grant with the one hand, and holding out an indignant protest
against its extension to the erroneous sects in the other. But
that Chalmers could have contemplated anything so monstrous as
that _Scotchmen_ should think of coming forward simply as Scotchmen,