still without a parallel, and with Mr. Greenfield's concordance forms a valuable accession to the polyglott and polymicrian Greek Testaments of its enterprising publisher. But viewed as a specimen of lexicography the present volume goes far a-head, as far, indeed, as Dr. Robinson, the independent lexicographer, has gone a-head of Dr. Robinson the remodeller of Wahl, and communicates in a most convenient manual and pocket form the last results of lexicographical skill.

The getting up' of this school lexicon is also, we are happy to say, on an equality with the rest of the performance, the Greek character employed being remarkably pleasant to the eye, and the page really beautiful. The quantity of matter moreover, as compared with the bulk of the volume, would be, were this not an age of typographical wonders, a subject of surprise. Without presenting any appearance of heaviness, such is the fulness of its pages, that the 518 duodecimo pages of which it consists are equal to 546 of the 8vo. edition of the original lexicon, with which we have compared it. In conclusion, not only do we wish that the editor may be duly rewarded for the outlay both of trouble and expense occasioned by this publication, but in that case we would venture to ask him, what he would think of a reprint, in the same Greek type, and of paper, and form of page to match, and bind with his lexicon, of Knapp's Greek Testament, copied exactly from the second Halle edition, and in every respect a reprint of that edition, with the single exception of the arguments being transferred from the foot of the page, each to the head of its appropriate section.

Art. V. Dissertation on Church Polity. By A. C. DICK, Esq., Advocate. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black.

THE

HE advocates of state churches are divided, as the reader is probably aware, into two parties, each of which denies the soundness of the reasonings of the other. The first are the high churchmen, who build their arguments for a state ecclesiastical establishment on divine authority, and defend the existent system on the assumption of divine right. The second are the low churchmen, who are contented with the humbler ground of expediency and public advantage. The one class advocate state establishments of religion because God has ordained them; the other, because they promote the public good. To the first, belong Hooker, Inglis, and most of the old authors who professed to answer the writings of the Puritans, with Mr. Gladstone: to the second, belong Warburton, Paley, and not least, Dr. Chalmers.

Each of these great men has framed his argument most consistently with his own views, and fortunately enough has generally expressed it so as to answer or deny the reasonings of the rest. Hooker and Inglis are on some points agreed, but they had no conception of the dogmas of Gladstone, while Mr. Gladstone on the other hand has very much to object to theirs. Warburton denies that the magistrate has any business to trouble himself about truth, all he wants are the sanctions of religion; Paley assents; and Chalmers rejects the theories of both as eminently secular and unchristian. The two parties themselves are still more opposed. Dr. Chalmers has no sympathy with Mr. Glad'stone's bigotry;' Mr. Gladstone regrets to differ from a man so 'excellent and useful:' while Drs. Warburton and Paley have either elaborately or contemptuously answered Drs. Hooker and Inglis. What else than ruin can await a house so lamentably 'divided!'

To give a reply to the two classes of reasoning to which we have referred the one founded on Scripture, the other on civil utility is the object of the writer of the treatise which is placed at the head of this article, and which we beg to introduce with great good will to the attention of the reader.

We know not how it has happened, that this treatise has hitherto failed to obtain, on this side of the Tweed, the attention to which it is so eminently entitled. Where the fault may lay, it is not for us to determine,-of this we are certain, it is not traceable to any deficiency of merit in the work itself, which is not surpassed by any modern treatise, in the closeness and severity of its logic, the clear and forcible enunciation of scriptural principles, or the uniform maintenance of a calm and dignified temper.

The first two sections (which we wish had been called the first chapter) are intended to meet the arguments of the high churchman. They are both devoted to the consideration of the plea, that it is the duty of the civil magistrate to establish religion. The first, showing that it is not his duty from any right interpretation of the functions of his office; the second, that it is not his duty from any right interpretation of the precepts or examples of the Bible.

That it is not his duty from the nature of his office, will appear, if it be remembered, that national establishments rob the dissentient subject of privilege or inflict penalty, just because he does as God bids him-reads for himself, and acts consistently with his belief. Now no man surely can affirm that it is a magistrate's duty thus to oppose God.

Besides, if it be his duty to establish religion, let it be established; let it be national, and no longer as now the religion of a sect. If duty be at all involved, dissent is rebellion; toleration

guilty connivance, and neither should be allowed. The magistrate, therefore, neglects his duty in permitting them. The 'nation,' to use the forcible language of Mr. Dick, 'participates in the guilt of the heretic, which having a right to exclude him, 'permits him to labor within its boundaries, and taint the air with 'a moral pestilence, which may work to the dissolution of the whole body of discipline. As the priest would cast him out of the church, so the civil ruler, charged as he also is to keep reli'gion pure, should expel him from the soil. . . . Nor is there wanting, it must be confessed, abundant occasion to resume this 'policy, and rouse all the sleeping terror of the law. The insults which Dissenters are continually offering to the religion of the state, are undisguised and flagrant-are such as would not be tolerated in any other department of government. They make "an open boast of their disloyalty, and in their unremitting and ' organized hostility, are assailing the religious branch of the con'stitution. Let them then be repressed by the same weapon which ensures their obedience to all civil laws. Nor let it be said, that a persecution would strengthen their animosity and increase their numbers. These are consequences only when it 'is conducted feebly, and by wavering counsels. A vigorous 'persecution suppressed Protestantism in Italy; it suppressed it in Spain, and went near to extinguish it in France; and over any faith, in any quarter of the globe, those rulers will undoubtedly triumph who are ready for an unscrupulous profusion of blood and treasure.' The advocacy of the bitterest persecution is in truth the only course open to friends of such exorbitant interpretations of the rights and duties of the civil power.

The argument in favour of ecclesiastical establishments founded on Scripture might have been put more briefly, and perhaps more strikingly, than our author has done. The plea supplied by the example of the Jewish dispensation has always seemed to us too absurd to require any formal refutation, though Mr. Dick and Dr. Wardlaw have both devoted to it considerable attention. The mere statement of it is a sufficient answer. The reasoning is this-God himself was pleased to establish a religious system, which the Jewish people unanimously and repeatedly accepted; and to give the Levites their share of the land of promise in tithes, that, freed from the active duties of life, they might devote their time to the instruction of the people: therefore, it is concluded, a government may establish by force a system which the people do not unanimously accept, and which, in fact, many of them, the majority of them,-repudiate and condemn. God endowed out of his own what the Jews-they, their little ones, their wives, and the stranger within their gates,' as inspiration is careful to tell us-voluntarily accepted; therefore, government must endow out of another's, what neither he, nor his little ones,

nor his wife,' has ever believed; but what, on the contrary, he thinks the highest authority has expressly forbidden. God did it; therefore an earthly and fallible governor must do it; we must be compelled to support our establishment, because the Jews willingly supported theirs. Between two such cases, nothing but the most drivelling anility could have fancied any resemblance.

New Testament authorities in favour of them we have seen none. Such as are commonly adduced, any well-taught Sundayschool scholar would be ashamed if unable to refute. They are, all of them, strained perversions of divine truth, second only in enormity to some of the interpretations of the Romish Church.

Other forms of this argument from Scripture it will be sufficient to enumerate and refute in very few words. Hooker, for example, held that the Church and State were one-a theory founded, as Mr. Gladstone observes, in mere fiction, and utterly inconsistent with fact; for, if they be one, then are all ecclesiastical canons, law, which they are not till the state has sanctioned them. Besides, in this scheme, dissent must be crime; and excommunication banishment-a confusion of thought and names which has happily not yet been allowed.

Mr. Gladstone, in his work on the Church in its Relation to the State,' has explained his views in language much more remarkable for its pomp and dignity than for its truth. He holds that the nation's conscience dwells in the person of the civil ruler; and that he is bound to sanctify all the acts of the nation by religion. He therefore must not only be a 'worshipping man,' but a worshipping magistrate,' and his influence, and the wealth with which he is entrusted, must be devoted in part to the maintenance of what he thinks truth, be it the religion of Mahomet, of Brahma, or of Jesus. Now, that rulers are bound to promote religion is certain, because they are men, and they may be Christians: but that the promotion of what they deem religion is part of their office, is what we are by no means prepared to allow, till it be first shown that power is fitted to promote it; and till it be shown further, that the power of his office was put into the hand of the magistrate by the whole of the people, for the purpose of maintaining and diffusing what many of them disbelieve. Even under the law, sacrifice taken by force' was abhorred' by the people, and an abomination unto God: now it seems the offerings of force' are essential to the sanctification' of the nation's acts. To forbid them is, in Mr. Gladstone's language, to avow national infidelity-to seek to preserve civil society without the sanctions of religion, or the authority of God. We hold it nothing of the kind; to forbid them is to act on the sentence of inspiration-Let every man give, as he purposeth in his heart; but not grudgingly, or of compulsion.* Robbery for burnt-offering I hate.'

The eight remaining sections-or the second chapter-are devoted to the reasonings of the low-churchmen; and answer very satisfactorily the opinions of Warburton, Paley, and Dr. Chalmers. The questions they propose to solve are these-Are establishments fitted for civil utility, that is, do they by educating the people, prevent or lessen crime, and thus answer the purpose of law?-do they secure unity and permanence of truth in the church itself the independence of the Christian ministry-the right and universal instruction of the people-the personal devotedness of Christians-the stability of the ruling power, and generally the happiness and good order of the governed? Questions clearly of the last moment, but questions which neither experience nor reason can answer in the affirmative.

In reviewing and discussing these questions it is important that we remember a very common sophism by which Churchmen often try to deceive, if it were possible,' the most watchful voluntary. They begin with descanting on the blessings of religionon its influence on national character and happiness-and conclude with asking how you-a religious man-can think of questioning the utility of religious establishments. We venture to suggest a reply to this very difficult question: should they be men of business, ask them if they use bread in their families, and if so, whether they are not persuaded of its wholesomeness: and if, as is likely, they express their decided approbation of the Article,' show them their unreasonableness in seeking the repeal of the Corn Laws. It is clear that if they love corn at all, they must be delighted to pay for it a most exorbitant price, and to have their own market narrowed by an exclusion of the corn of the continent. Love corn and hate Corn Laws! who ever heard so gross a contradiction; or should they be country gentlemen, remind them that it is quite possible to prefer our puddings sweetened with the cane of the west, without feeling any great admiration of the wisdom that defends sugar-bounties; or should they be simply men of sense, just remind them that to love religion is one thing, and to love religious establishments is another. We never doubted that righteousness exalteth a nation,' but only that the interests of righteousness are to be promoted by injustice and compulsion.

It is happily ominous of the result of this controversy, that Churchmen have left Scripture, and taken up the lower ground of expediency. He that pleaded

had not the better cause. To the term itself we have of course no fastidious objections, if only it be remembered in what cases

VOL. VI.