Mammon; or, Covetousness the Sin of the Christian Church. By the Rev. John Harris. London, Ward and Co. 1836. ABOUT a year and a half ago, a notice was widely cir culated, to the effect that Dr. Conquest, of Finsbury Square, proposed conferring a prize of one hundred guineas upon the author of the best essay on the sin of covetousness. The Hon. and Rev. Baptist Noel and Dr. Pye Smith were appointed by the donor adjudicators of this prize; and after examining 143 essays -for so many were sent in-they pronounced the one before us the successful composition. Mr. Harris, therefore, appears before the public under most favourable auspices; so that we are not surprised to find that his work has already had an extensive circulation. He has divided it into three parts. In the first, by way of introduction, he exhibits selfishness as the great antagonist to Christianity. In the second he treats of his main topic-covetousness, which he calls the prevailing form of selfishness; and this he considers in its nature, forms, prevalence, especially in Britain, disguises, tests, evils, doom, and pleas. In the third and concluding part, the author expounds and enforces the claim of Christian liberality. The work, therefore, according to the most approved rules, consists of a beginning, a middle, and an end. We cordially hope that the object contemplated by the munificent donor of the prize may be attained; and we consider that no mean advantage will result from the mere fact of public attention's being drawn to a sin, which has derived half its power of mischief from the address with which it has disguised itself. Mr. Harris, too, has done his part. His style is indeed sometimes too declamatory, and disfigured with prettinesses and attempts at fine writing: he repeats himself: he also ventures occasionally on incautious statements: but, as a whole, we are bound to say, his book is conceived in a spirit, and written with an earnestness, which must, we think, commend it to the heart of its readers. He is evidently not afraid of his subject. Many persons would have felt that they were treading upon tender ground; and, lest peradventure they should condemn themselves, would have palliated where they ought to have protested, and, by admitting many exceptions and excuses, have blunted the point of all their arguments. Mr. Harris, however, tracks the lover of money through every evasion, unfolds the full enormity of his sin, and charges it home upon his conscience with an impressive personality-"Thou art the man." And of his own sincerity he has given ample proof, in devoting, as we are informed, the amount of his prize to works of Christian charity. multitude, Come now, for all things are ready.' Each We shall make one quotation from his section on the guilt and evils of covetousness; and then, with real respect, we take our leave of Mr. Harris. "The inconsistencies in which his (the Christian mammonist's) covetous attachments involve him, are grievous and many. His enlightened judgment impels him for happiness in one direction, and his earthly inclinations draw him in another. In the morning, and at night probably, he prays, 'lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil;' and yet, during the interval, he pursues the material of temptation with an avidity not to be exceeded by the keenest worldling. He hears, without questioning, our Lord's declaration concerning the danger of riches; and yet, though he is already laden with the thick clay, and is daily augmenting his load, he doubts not of passing through the eye of the needle as a matter of course. He professes to be only the steward of his property; and yet wastes it on himself, as if he were its irresponsible master. He pretends to be an admirer of men who counted not their lives dear unto them, provided they might serve the cause of Christ; and yet he almost endures a martyrdom in sacrificing a pittance of his money to that cause; while, to give more than that pittance, especially if it involved an act of self-denial, is a martyrdom he never thought of suf But in one part of his book, we must remark, the author has failed to reach the root of the matter. We allude to his section on "the forms of selfishness in the Church." There are certainly many observations here of remarkable value, especially in "the selfishness of the pulpit-that fearful spirit which presumes to limit what God meant to be universal-the overtures of redemption to a ruined world;" on "the selfishness of the pew-that modification of selfish piety which lives only to be personally comforted; which, in all its reading and hearing, makes its own individual comfort not a means, but an end. The divine Redeemer (he proceeds) describes the faithful shepherd as leaving the ninety and nine sheep for a time, to traverse the wilderness in quest of the one wanderer. But this unlovely spirit, reversing the touching pic-fering. He prays for the world's conversion, and yet ture, would have him neglect ninety and nine wanderers, to attend exclusively to one folded sheep. An epicure in comfort, it is impatient if the cup of consolation be removed from its lips for a moment, though that moment was only seized to say to a famishing holds back one of the means with which God has intrusted him to aid that specific object. He professes to have given himself up voluntarily and entirely to Christ; and yet has to be urged and entreated to re linquish his hold on a small sum which would benefit the Church. Indeed, the truths and means of salvation appear to have been so designedly arranged by God to condemn the covetous professor, that were he not blinded by passion, and kept in countenance by so numerous a fellowship, he would hear a rebuke in every profession he utters, and meet with condemnation at every step he takes." Pp. 150, 151. Tracts for the Times. Nos. 71, 72, 73, 74. WE have read these tracts with interest, but also, we are free to say, with apprehension. There is much in them with which we cordially agree; there is much from which we must express our dissent. They are written by men of talent, of learning, of conscientious zeal, we readily allow, for the glory of God; but this combination of advantages renders, in some respects, their work more dangerous, and procures for their opinions a hearing and an acquiescence, which inferior pretensions could never have commanded. We feel it our duty to point out to our readers, not a few of whom have, doubtless, these tracts in their hands, some of their prominent errors. Number 71 is a treatise on the controversy with the Romanists. The writer speaks first of the subjects which he conceives may profitably be argued in this dispute. He would exclude the question of the pope's power, because, he says, few will be able to draw the proper distinction between his primacy in honour and his sovereignty in jurisdiction. He excludes also all argument on the rule of faith, because as the Bible is the record of necessary truth, and the Church Catholic's tradition is, he asserts, the interpreter of it, we should soon on such a subject be involved in refined and intricate questions. He also puts in the back-ground the controversy about the eucharist, as almost certain to lead to profane and rationalistic thoughts in the minds of the many. To practical grievances, we should, he says, confine ourselves: and of these he enumerates the denial of the cup to the laity, the necessity of the priest's intention to the validity of the sacrament, confession, the anathemas of the Roman church, purgatory, the invocation of saints, and the worship of images. He then adverts to the authorities to be used in ascertaining the Romish doctrines, and to the arguments to be employed against them. He concludes with certain remarks on how far we may safely go in our admissions respecting ourselves. Our limits prevent us from entering into any thing like a full examination of our author's opinions; but we will touch briefly on one or two. We consider him eminently unsound in his reasonings about the rule of faith. He stigmatises what he calls the argument of ultra-protestantism -"the Bible, and nothing but the Bible"-and contends that it is an unthankful rejection of another great gift, equally from God, that is, Catholic tradition. Similarly he says elsewhere, that if we can urge that the Fathers held a doctrine, that "would be an irrefragable argument." Far be it from us to depreciate the Fathers; we highly honour them; but we can by no means yield to them that authority | in the interpretation of Scripture which our author claims. Herein we must take our stand with timehonoured Latimer: "What is to be said of the Fathers ? How are they to be esteemed? St. Austin answereth, giving this rule, that we should not therefore think it true because they say so, do they never so much excel in holiness or learning; but if they be able to prove their saying by the canonical Scriptures, or by good probable reason; meaning that to be a probable reason which doth orderly follow upon a right collection and gathering out of the Scriptures. One man, having the Scripture and good reason for him, is more to be esteemed himself alone, than a thousand such as they (i. e. the papists), either gathered together or succeeding one another. The Fathers have had both herbs and weeds." It is pity that Latimer was such an ultra-protestant! But the mind of Latimer is, we maintain, the authoritative mind of the English Church. In her sixth article she declares that "holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite, or necessary to salvation." And where she treats the matter at more length in her first homily, she never sends the inquirer to the interpretation of the Fathers, but declares, from St. Chrysostom, that "man's human and worldly wisdom or science is not needful to the understanding of Scripture, but the revelation of the Holy Ghost, who inspireth the true meaning unto them that with humility and diligence do search therefore." Perhaps our author will say that this silence respecting the Fathers is one of the omissions, so many of which he seems to deplore in the English Church. We thank God for such an omission. If the tradition of the Fathers be once allowed to be the authorised interpreter of Scripture, the step is very short to that miserable withdrawal from the people of the word of life, which, if it did not invent, certainly fostered into rank and luxuriant growth the monstrous fictions of the Romish heresy. But our author shall not try to reconcile his assumption with the doctrines of our Church, by saying that there has been an omission on her part: we contend that his system is in direct opposition to what that Church has taught. Palliate it how he may, his doctrine comes to this, that Scripture is to be judged of by the Fathers; whereas the fundamental principle of the Church is, that the Fathers-that every human composition-must be judged by the Scripture. No there is nothing stable, nothing altogether trustworthy, but the ScripGathered councils and settled churches have often erred; and shall we tie our faith to the manyvoiced instruction of fallible men? We will hold antiquity in reverence; we will not rashly cast away the helps it may supply to us: but we will submit it entirely to the Spirit of God, "to the law and to the testimony;" to the Bible, and the Bible only, will we make our appeal. ture. We must proceed to another topic. Our author, as we have seen, disapproves of all controversy about the eucharist, which cannot well, he says, "be discussed at all without the sacrifice of godly fear." The venerable martyrs of our Church had other thoughts; for it was on this very point that they most of them sealed the faith with their blood. They had no scruple in attacking the Romish heresy, in this, one of her most vulnerable parts: they would have felt that they were compromising the truth by leaving alone this doctrine. And there is a remarkable variation here between our author and our 28th article. "If transubstantiation must be opposed (says he), it is in another way— by shewing that, in matter of fact, it was not the doctrine of the early Church, but an innovation at such or such a time." "Transubstantiation (says the article) cannot be proved by holy writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." Here we find the Church urging just those lines of argument which the writer of the tract denounces as "almost certain to lead to profane and rationalistic thoughts." And as to the practical grievances, on which he says we may dispute, they are several of them of minor consequence, and such as (the denial of the cup to the laity, for instance) the Romish Church might be persuaded to surrender. Nay, she might give them all up, and still be rotten at the core; still be the mystery of iniquity, deluding and destroying the souls of men, with the essence of her abominations untouched. If these subjects be made the main points of controversy, it would seem that the unfathomable gulf which severs us from Rome might easily be overleaped. But our author loses here his usual shrewdness, and forgets his own distinction. Practical grievances, he says, may be attacked. And is there no practical grievance in the Romish doctrine of the sacrament? Is it not in this, that the crowning idolatry is consummated, when, at the elevation of the consecrated host, every knee must bow, and every heart appear to pay worship to the present Deity? We pass on to another tract. Number 72 consists almost entirely of a reprint of Archbishop Usher on prayers for the dead. The archbishop proves to demonstration that the popish custom of praying for souls in a state of pain, is altogether different from the practice which prevailed in a very early age of praying for souls that rest in peace; and hence he makes a strong argument against the Romanists. Usher treats the subject with his usual wisdom: he simply alleges facts, and never shews any desire to reintroduce the ancient prayers; against which, let us say, there are the gravest objections. But we think we discern in the remarks which follow his treatise a wish with which we entirely disagree. The writer seems to imagine some apology needful for the English Church in not retaining prayers for the dead; and quotes a modern author to justify her, by saying, that as to pray for the departed would have implied, in the minds of the many, a belief in purgatory, she relinquished the practice, and then the people became free from that error. We fear there is some latent intention of having it inferred, that the (so-called) omission might now be safely repaired. We hope we are mistaken; but we must assure the writer that he could hardly serve more effectually the cause of Romanism, than by the revival, in any shape, of prayers for the dead. Number 73 is on the introduction of rationalistic principles into religion. The writer commences with comparing the rationalistic and the catholic spirit: he then proceeds to comment upon Mr. Erskine's "Internal Evidence," and Mr. Jacob Abbott's "CornerStone:" he has also a postscript on an article in an American review on Dr. Schleiermacher's notions of the Trinity. Though we do not quite agree with every position in this treatise, we think that it contains matter highly valuable. We rejoice especially to see so complete an exposure of the mischievous principles of that lamentable work of Mr. Abbott's. Nothing has been to our mind more indicative of the unhealthy state of religion amongst us, than the avidity with which this book has been read; and cordially do we welcome every effort to disabuse the public mind, and exhibit its real tendencies. But here we will let our author speak for himself. Mr. Abbott had spoken of Jesus Christ " having a taste for beauty both of nature and art." "Let us think seriously (it is observed on this), is Christ God, or is he not? if so, can we dare talk of him as having a taste for nature?' It is true Mr. A. does speak in this way of the Almighty Father also; so that it may be said rather to prove that he has a grovelling conception of God than of Christ. Perhaps it will be more truly said, that his irreverence towards the Saviour has led on to the other more direct profaneness. Yet, a taste for beauty of art! This of the eternal Son of God, the Creator: will it be said that he is man also? True; but his personality is in his Godhead. He did not undo what he was; he did not cease to be the infinite God; but he added to him the substance of a man, and thus participated in human thoughts and feelings, yet with no impairing (God forbid!) of his divine perfection. The incarnation was not a conversion of the Godhead into flesh, · but a taking of the manhood into God.' It seems there is need of the Athanasian Creed in these dangerous times." P. 46. Again, after quoting some of those wretched passages in which Mr. A. declares that the Saviour "acted under every disadvantage;" that he exhibited a spectacle more sublime than "Napoleon urging on his columns over the bridge of Lodi ;" and that he was "wiser than the builders of the pyramids;" our author says: "Such are the feelings which this writer ventures to express concerning Him who is his Lord and his God. In condemning his most unclean and miserable imaginings, I have neither wish nor occasion to speak against him as an individual. We have no concern with him. We know nothing of his opportunities of knowing better, nor how far what appears in his writings is an index of his mind. We need only consider him as the organ, involuntary (if you will) or unwilling, but still the organ of the spirit of the age, the voice of that scornful, arrogant, and self-trusting spirit, which has been unchained during these latter ages, and waxes stronger in power day by day, till it is fain to stamp under foot all the host of heaven. . . . . . This is a spirit which has tempted others besides those who have yielded to its influences. . . . . . The books of the day are so full of its evil doctrine, in a modified shape, if not in its grosser forms; the principles (I may say) of the nation are so instinct with it or based on it, that the best perhaps that can be said of any of us, or, at most, of all but a few, is, that they have escaped from it so as by fire;' and that the loudness of their warning is but a consequence of past danger, terror, and flight."-Pp. 49, 50. Our rapidly decreasing limits warn us to stop; and we will only say, that we think few can seriously reflect on this exposure of Mr. A., without seeming afterwards, to use the words of the writer," to incur some ceremonial pollution" in perusing his book. Number 74 is entirely occupied with quotations from English divines, on the doctrine of the apostolical succession. As this tract is only a compilation, we do not feel called on to say more respecting it, than that we are deeply grateful to God for a blessing, which no ecclesiastical community that was not destitute of it ever ventured to depreciate. 66 An Address to the Irvingites; in which their Heresy, unchristian Conduct, and their Perversion of Scripture Modes of Worship, &c. are set forth: illustrated by Facts, &c. By James Crabb. Seeleys. 1836. MR. CRABB is, no doubt, a well-meaning man, but not exactly qualified for the task he has undertaken. His book is desultory and ill-arranged; his style is low and ungrammatical. And we are bound to say, that he occasionally uses most incautious language respecting our blessed Saviour and the inspired word. For in stance, he speaks of Christ as so perfect a Jew, and doubtless well acquainted with all the types and shadows of the Old Testament." This might do, were Christ only the son of man; but when he is also the Son of God,-when he says of himself, " Before Abraham was, I am,"-when from his divine wisdom flowed all the ordinances of the Mosaic law, we protest against such language being applied to him. We are very jealous of the honour of his name; and we ought to be so. In justice to Mr. Crabb, we will express our conviction that he intends no harm; and we will admit, further, that as his views of the Irving heresy are correct, he might be useful, and in his place, in privately warning his friends and acquaintance against it; but why, when he is ignorant of the principles of composition, and unable to express his meaning clearly, why will he rush into print? We respect his motives; but we know that a good cause has not unfrequently been injured by the indiscretion and incompetence of its advocates. We wish some really well-qualified person would, in short compass, deal with the Irving heresy as it deserves. Its pretensions ought to be plainly and popularly exposed. And this would be, we are persuaded, no difficult task. For the foundations of the system are rotten, and are laid upon the shifting sand. The followers of this sect rest their claims to be considered as the true Church, on the alleged manifestations of the Holy Spirit among them. But that Spirit is the Spirit of consistency and truth: his revelations agree together, and cannot, in the nature of things, admit of variableness. Now, what is the fact among the Irvingites? Professing to be specially moved by the Spirit, they have strangely contradicted each other: they have delivered prophecies that have failed of accomplishment: they have uttered voices which, one while authoritatively, in their Church, acknowledged of the Holy Ghost, have been subsequently as authoritatively denounced as coming from a false spirit. Let these things be but plainly and intelligibly set forth, and good must be done: let the unsoundness of its fundamental position be thus demonstrated, and surely, under God's blessing, we need fear little from the increase of Irvingism. A Century of Sacred Songs, composed for favourite Airs. By Thomas Grinfield, M.A., Author of the "Visions of Patmos," "The Omnipresence of God," and other Sacred Poems. Hamilton, London; and Chilcott, Bristol. 1836. THE collection of sacred songs which bears the above title is the work of an author who has already established his reputation as a religious poet. Both the other poems referred to in the title are specimens of his high taste and skill. The mind of Mr. Grinfield is evidently of an elevated cast, and habitually conversant with "the things that are above." With much poetic imagination, he has a sense of duty which leads him to devote his powers to the glory of the Giver of "every good and perfect gift." The present publication is an instance of the pious habit of his mind. It is an attempt to reclaim from the dominions of levity those beautiful airs which have been appropriated to amatory or secular songs, and to transfer them to the service of God. When we consider how fascinating is the art of " song," and how large a portion of the time of the upper and middle classes is devoted to it, we cannot but hail this attempt to "turn delight into a sacrifice." Songs there are," says the author, "and of such not a few may be selected from the myriad, which, without pretending to importance in their sentiments, are elegantly pleasing or pathetic. Of songs like these, who would blame the temperate indulgence? Yet even these may not be sufficient to satisfy the taste of those who, desirous to blend religion with their musical enjoyments, would prefer, to songs of every other cast, an air combined with Christian thoughts and sacred influences." 66 We strongly recommend to all such, and to Christian families in general, this little volume. It is remarkably modest in its form and in its pretensions, as set forth by the author in his preface; but, if we mistake not, it will be found to contain many poems of exquisite pathos-all pervaded by a spirit of deep piety, and all consecrated to the high object of implanting heavenly tastes in the heart of those who read them. At the end of the volume are a series of "the songs with the corresponding airs." We add a portion To breathe the soul of sacred themes, Beguiled by light, unhallow'd lays, To HIM WHO GAVE THEM FOR HIS PRAISE." A Letter to Thomas Fowell Buxton, Esq. M.P. in Reply to his Speech on the Irish Tithe-Bill. By the Rev. Edward Newenham Hoare, Rector of St. Lawrence, and Minister of the Asylum Episcopal Chapel, Limerick. Pp.52. London, James Nisbet and Co. 1836. A VERY powerfully written letter, by a man who seems thoroughly to have studied the question of the Irish Tithe-Bill in all its bearings, and which we can safely recommend to the perusal of our readers. We have obtained from it much important information, and think it will be read with much interest. Mr. Hoare gratifies us with the important intelligence," that the land;" that "the people have a desire for instruccause of scriptural education is progressing in Iretion, and for scriptural instruction: but the priests desire to keep them in ignorance. This appears now to be hopeless in this day of the march of intellect. Their curses will not prevail to make the people bring up their children in that state of ignorance which has made the parents the easy tools of agitators, and the abject slaves of priests." God grant this may be the case: the grand, the sole remedy for all the evils of Ireland, we firmly believe, is the faithful, unadulterated preaching of the "truth as it is in Jesus.” The present state of the Irish Church, viewed as to its temporalities, is indeed cheerless; but viewed as respects deep spirituality among its members, lay and clerical, it is truly animating; and looking forward with an eye of faith, and trusting to the gracious promise of Jehovah, that his word shall not return to him void, we anticipate the ultimate emancipation of Ireland from the galling yoke of Popish tyranny, and the peaceful profession of the doctrines of the apostolical branch of Christ's Church, which is still mercifully We refer the admirers of the new system established. of education introduced into that unhappy country, to 1836. pages 34, &c. of the Letter before us. A Sermon, on the occasion of the Death of Lieut.-Colonel the Hon. James Stewart, C.B. Preached at St. Paul's Chapel, Kilburn, on Sunday, July 31, 1836. By Wm. Hancock, M.A. London, Seeleys. 1836. SUCH details as are contained in this truly excellent sermon cannot fail to be not merely interesting, but highly instructive. They powerfully testify the value of vital religion in supporting the Christian not only in the season of affliction, and in the last hours of his carthly pilgrimage, but in the ordinary duties of active life, in health and strength. Our limits do not permit our enlarging on the benefits likely to arise from the publication of such a sermon as that before us, which we desire to see very widely circulated, and more especially in the higher circles of society, in which Col. Stewart was by birth and education entitled to move. We trust at no distant period to advert more particularly to the character of this excellent man. It is our prayer that the principles which influenced him in all the various circumstances of life may be more widely disseminated; and that from the highest to the lowest amongst us, there may be as cordial a willingness to receive and obey the truth. Robson, Levey, and Franklyn, 46 St. Martin's Lane. REVIEWS AND NOTICES.-No. II. the various churches are deserted by the poor and working classes. I am quite aware that, though there is a large portion unable, from pecuniary inability, to provide the requisite number of sittings for their families, there is also a large mass of the population who could pay for a sufficient number of cheap sittings if they were willing. There has been much useless con Statistics of the Church Accommodation of Glasgow, Barony, and Gorbals, presented to the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Means of Religious Instruction and Pastoral Superintendence afforded to the People of Scotland, especially to the Poor and Working Classes, on 9th May, 1836, in behalf of the Glasgow Church-Building Society; with accompanying Observations. By William Collins, Esq., Secretary to the Society. With an Appendix.jecture offered on this subject respecting the propor1836. Pp. 68. Glasgow, William Collins. THIS is a most valuable document, well worthy the perusal of friends and foes to Church establishments. Differing as we do from the author, and the members of the Glasgow Church-Building Society, on subjects connected with ecclesiastical polity and discipline, we do most cordially agree with them in the enlightened views here taken of that momentous question, which is now occupying so much of the public attentionthe necessity of an alliance between Church and State. The reasonings of Mr. Collins are peculiarly forcible: his details interesting, although melancholy; for we have brought under our notice a large and increasing city, left, as to some of its districts, in a state of the most appalling spiritual desertion. No man in our own Church has entered more thoroughly into the question of ecclesiastical establishments than Dr. Dealtry, chancellor of Winchester, and no man is better qualified to speak upon the subject. We cannot say any thing stronger in favour of the very cheap pamphlet of Mr. Collins than that Dr. Dealtry, in his visitation of the county of Hants during September, urged the attention not only of the clergy, but of the laity, to the work, which he pronounced to be unanswerable. The following statement is as true as it is melancholy, and is equally applicable to the state of religious observances in England as in Scotland. It holds good with respect to the metropolis, and the towns in the manufacturing districts, as well as to Glasgow; and we conceive that no thinking man can be ignorant of the fact, that there is a very large mass of our population living in a state of little less than practical atheism, whom it is our duty to seek to arouse to a sense of their danger, and to impart to them sound scriptural instruction, and the other means of grace. "It is a matter of experience, that of late years among the working classes there has been a fearful declension both in education and church-going habits; and hence it is, that though the sittings were cheap, a large portion of them would not be found to avail themselves of them. With many of these there is not merely pecuniary inability, but careless and irreligious habits to overcome; and unless proper means are employed for overcoming their carelessness and irreligion, the churches, however cheap the sittings may be, will still, to a great extent, remain unfrequented. This state of the population clearly indicates that the want of efficient pastoral superintendence is another reason why the poor are not at church, and therefore it is that the cheap sittings remain unoccupied. While this adverse state of things is allowed to remain, the evil will continue to deepen and extend; for the reflex influence of ignorance and irreligion operates with intense and malignant power among a neglected and degenerating population. "It is deeply affecting to observe to what an extent tion of each class; for so many modifying circumstances enter into the calculation, that it is impossible to draw a deep and well-defined line of demarcation among the people, to ascertain the relative numbers of the unable and of the unwilling. Even if it were possible, it would serve no practical purpose; and so immaterial do I regard the distribution, that I care not into which class they are thrown, or whether they be regarded as destitute of accommodation from inability or unwillingness. For if it is inability, then more churches, and a greater proportion of cheap sittings, are required; but if it is unwillingness, then more ministers, smaller parishes, and more concentrated pastoral superintendence, are required. Both classes are in a state of deep alienation from our churches, to recover them from which, plenty of cheap sittings and pastoral superintendence combined, form the grand and only effective remedial application." P. 16. On the point, of late so much controverted by a certain class of Dissenters (we say a certain class; for unquestionably there are many nonconformists, who by no means wish to see the overthrow of the Established Church), whether the government ought to interfere in matters of religion, Mr. Collins has this admirable passage : "That rulers should have nothing to do with religion, is a theory of which there is not a single passage in the whole Bible to sanction, or to countenance it. We defy voluntary Churchmen to point out a single passage in the divine record which furnishes the least shadow of authority for such an opinion. If they can, we demand of them to point it out. On the contrary, the whole of the divine record is pervaded throughout with the duty and responsibility of rulers as rulers, and of nations as nations, to care for, and uphold Christ's kingdom in the world. And the whole of God's divine administration in the world has been marked throughout with the manifestations of his divine approbation of, or displeasure against, rulers and nations, according as they promoted or neglected, in their official or national capacity, the interests of Christ's kingdom, and the religious instruction of their people. What, then, becomes of their theory, that rulers have nothing to do with religion, when the divine record furnishes not one passage in support of it, and the whole expression of the divine administration is opposed to it? Surely men, professing Christianity at least, cannot remain for ever deluded by such an unfounded and destructive theory. So far from rulers having nothing to do with religion, the first, the last, the supreme concern both of rulers and people should be to uphold and extend religion in the country. For |