themselves in drawing men away from the
faith.

On certain assumptions, these arguments have great force. Clearly a man
ought not to take pay for doing one thing and do something quite
different. When a body of religionists come together upon certain
tenets, it would be a _reductio ad absurdum_ for any of its ministers to
be occupied in denying and controverting these tenets.

All this supposes, however, that men will not be made to conform by any
means short of prosecution and deprivation; that the suspending of a
severe penalty over men's heads is in itself a harmless device; and that
religious systems are now stereotyped to our satisfaction, so that to
deviate from them is mere wantonness and love of singularity. Such are
the assumptions that we feel called upon to challenge.

The plea that the Church has engaged itself to the State to teach
certain tenets, in return for its emoluments and privileges, has lost
its point in our time. 'L'etat, c'est moi.' The Church and the State are
composed of the same persons. Gibbon's famous _mot_ has collapsed. 'The
religions of the Roman world,' he says, 'were all considered by the
people as equally true, by the philosopher as equally false, and by the
magistrate as equally useful' The people are now their own magistrates,
and the true and the useful must contrive to unite upon the same thing.
If the Church feels subscription and fixity of creed a burden, it has
only to turn its members to account in their capacity of citizens of the
State to relieve itself. If it silently ignores the creed, it is still
responsible mainly to itself.

[POSSIBLE ABUSES OF CLERICAL FREEDOM.]

The more serious objection is the possible abuse of the freedom of the
clergy to utter opinions at variance with the prevailing creed. This
position needs a careful scrutiny.

In the first place, the argument: supposes a condition of things that
has now ceased. When creeds were accepted in their literality by the
bodies professing them, when the state of general opinion contained
nothing hostile, and suggested no difficulties,--for any one member of a
body to turn traitor may have well seemed mere perversity, temper, love
of singularity, or anything but a wish to get at truth. The offence
assumed the character of a moral obliquity, and discipline can never be
relaxed for immorality proper.

All the circumstances are now changed. The ministers and members of
religious communities no longer cherish the s