Without saying whether this was the case or not—­for I should not like to commit myself to the position, “Whatever was, was right” at the time—­I trust we are now far on the way to being agreed that the civil and the religious are no longer to be identified; that the State, as a state, is not concerned to uphold any one form of religious belief.  Modern civilized communities are believed capable of existing without an official religion; the citizens being free to form themselves into self-governed religious bodies, as various as the prevailing modes of religious belief.  It may be long ere this goal be fully reached; but even the upholders of the present state religions admit that, supposing these were not in existence, nobody would now propose to institute them.

* * * * *

The foregoing remarks may appear somewhat desultory, as well as too brief for the extent of the theme.  They must be accepted, however, as an introduction to a more limited topic, which presupposes in some measure the general principle of toleration by the state of all forms of religious opinion.  Whether with or without established religions, perfect freedom of dissent is now demanded, and, with some hankering reservations, pretty generally conceded.  Individuals are allowed to congregate into religious societies, on the most various and opposite creeds.

So far good.  Yet there remains a difficulty.  Long before the age of toleration, when each state had an established religion, the people in general formed their habits of religious observance in connection with the State Church—­its doctrines, its ritual, its buildings, and its sacred places.  When disruption took place, the separatists formed themselves into societies on the original model, merely dropping the matters of disagreement.  Fixity of creed and of ritual was still enacted; the only remedy for dissatisfaction on either subject was to swarm afresh, and set up a new variety of doctrine or of ritual, to which a rigid adherence was still expected as a condition of membership.

By this costly and troublesome process, Churches have been multiplied according to the changes of view among sections of the community.  A certain energy of conviction has always been necessary to such a result.  Equally great changes of opinion occur among members of the older Church communities, without inducing them to break with these; so that nominal membership ceases to be a mark of real adhesion to the articles of belief.

* * * * *

[EVILS OF PENAL RESTRAINT ON DISCUSSION.]

These few commonplaces are meant to introduce the enquiry—­now a pressing one—­whether, and how far, fixed creeds are desirable or expedient in religious bodies generally; no difference being made between state Churches and voluntary Churches.  This is the question of Subscription to Articles by the clergy.

Let us now review the evils attendant on subscription, and next consider the objections to its removal.