“Now, sir,” he continued, with regard to disestablishment, “I myself am much opposed to it, because I am in favour of what is called the union between Church and State. What I understand by the union of Church and State is an arrangement which renders the State religious by investing authority with the highest sanctions that can influence the sentiments, the convictions, and consequently the conduct of the subject; while, on the other hand, that union renders the Church--using that epithet in its noblest and purest sense--political. That is to say, it blends civil authority with ecclesiastical influence; it defines and defends the rights of the laity, and prevents the Church from subsiding into a sacerdotal corporation. If you divest the State of this connection, it appears to me that you necessarily reduce both the quantity and the quality of its duties. The State will still be the protector of our persons and our property, and no doubt these are most important duties for the State to perform. But there are duties in a community which rather excite a spirit of criticism than a sentiment of enthusiasm and veneration. All, or most of the higher functions of Government--take education, for example, the formation of the character of the people, and consequently the guidance of their future conduct--depart from the State and become the appanage of religious societies, of the religious organisations of the country--you may call them the various Churches, if you please--when they are established on what are called independent principles.” After welcoming the fact of a religious revival, he next continues:--