SIR, - In your issue of Friday, there is a report of the business transacted by the 'Free Church' Synod of Victoria at its recent meeting in this town. Of that business a very important part consisted in the reading of a petition to the Legislative Council, by Dr. Adam Cairns, against the indiscriminate endowment of religion. Being somewhat conversant with the state of the public mind and feeling on that question, and convinced, that by the general judgement, not only 'indiscriminate,' but all endowments are already numbered amongst the things that were, what he said in support of the petition might have been left amongst such things, were it not that he has grossly misrepresented and libelled 'the voluntary principle,' a principle long since proven to the conviction of a vast majority of protestant Britain, divine, and therefore sacred in itself, and safe in operation.

It is not my purpose to review and expose the various questionable statements of the Dr.; but, inter alia, he is represented as asserting, 'that the state was now acting on the voluntary principle in supporting truth and error indiscriminately.' Now, assuming that this is a correct report of what the Dr. did say, where he acquired his knowledge of the voluntary principle I know not; but this I do know, that most defective is his knowledge, and erroneous his view of this principle, that it was derived from no enlightened advocate, and that most egregiously would the public err did they receive such an oracular enunciation as aught else than a mere vox et praeterea nihil.

What is the voluntary principle? It is the right of every man, in so far as his relations to his fellow man are concerned, to choose his own religion, to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, and to support that religion unconstrained by human law, and uncoerced by human power, or to reduce it to a more simple element still, it is just 'faith working by love.' Hence this principle in recognizing this right, strikes at the root of all civil establishments of religion; and hence it steadily, and systematically repudiates all state assumption, either in choosing a religion for a man or a nation, or in endowing any sect or system of religion, whether true or false. And wherefore? because, apart altogether from the divinity, and therefore infallible authority of the principle, if each individual is to be fully persuaded in his own mind and is responsible to God, and Him alone, for his belief, in assuming the prerogative of dictation, the State enters a province which God alone can occupy, and into which it has no delegated power to enter; because, as the State is not exactly in our estimation an equivalent for a college of orthodox doctors, it has not been not only not constituted, but is from its heterogeneous elements the most incapable of being the judge of what is the truth; because, even were the power conceded to it, it cannot in the nature of the case endow one sect without essential injustice to all who dissent from it, - or endow all without invading the rights of those who cannot in conscience accept an endowment: and because, upon the principle of supporting truth only, Christianity itself could never achieve her predicted triumphs in the world, for as each state is supposed to believe its own religion to be the true, were each state obligated to establish and endow truth, then Popery must be perpetuated in Rome; Mahommedanism in Turkey; Paganism in Africa; Buddhism in India, and so forth. If such, then, be the voluntary principle, - if upon such grounds it repudiates all State interference in, and State endowment of religion, how in patronizing and supporting one, or any, or all sects of religionists can this, or any state be acting upon this principle?

But why should I confute this Rev. Dr. since hit has been so good as to confute himself? He tells us first, that for the State to endow truth and error indiscriminately, is the acting on the principle; then next, and in a communication to the "Argus," that it is acting on the principle of indifferency and atheism. To the latter term I might take exception, and affirm, that had he substituted the word pantheism, it would have been more appropriate, for Atheism, as the term imports, signifies without God; but as the Dr. does not seem to attach the same ideas to words as are assigned them in our common Lexicons, and seems to be careless of expressing his ideas in harmony with existing facts, I shall grant him all the license he desiderates in this respect provided he does not recklessly run his head against principle, and therefore I forego the caveat. If, however, to support and endow all classes of religionists indiscriminately be acting on the voluntary principle on the one hand, and if according to the self-same Dr. this be to act upon the principle of indifferency and atheism on the other, then the two must be identified as one. 'Faith working by love,' and 'without God,' must be identical. If not, the Dr. has refuted the Dr. If so, I challenge him to prove it. I pledge him an answer.

But the Dr. not only caricatures the voluntary principle, but also offers insult to the common sense and religious convictions of a large portion of the community, for he goes on to tell us that what he wants is the endowment of truth and not error. And it requires no Daniel to read this writing, and to tell the interpretation thereof. Being interpreted, it just means that Dr. C. and his sect, if they homologate his sentiments are the exclusive depositories of the truth, and that all others are in error. It just signifies that the state ought to withdraw its patronage and pay from all other sects, and become the alma mater of his sweet orthodox child, the 'Free Church' alone, - and it just indicates that she will admit of no rival in the claim of infallibility, and no competition in the article of presumption: and it just imparts withal, that though the Dr. in his orthodoxy, teaches from the pulpit that money presents some obstruction to a man's own entrance into the kingdom of heaven, yet it furnishes an excellent help to him and his brethren in shewing the way to others. But it would seem, that should the state not be able to discover so much of the truth, and so many of the merits in this would be adopted child, as she has discovered in herself; and should the state demur to the 'Free' proposition of withholding her fostering care from the others, it would be better, saith the Dr., to take the share of the money, alias milk of this nourishing mother, - that is, to live upon the pay and patronage of the state, than the milk of the flock, as in the former case there is always a sure supply - in the latter sometimes a scarcity; but I would caution the Dr. not to be over confident of ultimately obtaining his share of the money. The voluntary principle, while being by him caricatured and condemned, is the axe laid at the root of the tree; and care shall he taken that momentum sufficient shall be given it, as that it shall strike home, and the 50,000 which hang pendent to excite and tempt, shall fall to the ground, so that neither the heretics with their error, nor the free Dr. with his truth shall luxuriate on the fruit. Petitions against all endowments will be found as efficacious, as against indiscriminate ones, and against mere pretension as against popery.

The influence of a man, whose name is associated with theological honors, though these are not always the exponents of skill in divinity and ecclesiastical politics, may be supposed somewhat extensive, especially in an infant colony; and I would take the liberty of suggesting that it were well for himself, and the community in future, that, instead of coming amongst us to misrepresent and caricature, he would think - an art by the way in which he seems very imperfect - and analyse before he speaks, and speak only sound words that cannot be condemned, but if he will still attempt to throw obloquy upon the voluntary principle, - the principle upon which he lives, - I would suggest the congruity of henceforth ceasing to live upon a principle he caricatures and condemns.

It is probable that the Dr. may not be aware of the incongruity of his own position, and he may assume that the people are blind to it also; but I may assure him, that they have perception enough to see the difference between a church that is voluntary by compulsion, and compulsory from will; and moral sense enough to feel, that such a position can neither harmonize with the genius of Christianity, nor with that influence she ought to exert, through her ministers, on the mass of society.

I am, Sir, &c.,

ANDREW PRINGLE, M.U.P.C.

Geelong, 11th November 1855.