Schöttgen, Hulsius, Majus, Allix, &c. &c. It is only to be regretted that Allix's Judgment of the Jewish Church has never been published with the text of the passages referred to. I have not examined all his references, but, having gone through a great many, I am inclined to think that an exhibition and translation of these passages would make this book one of the most interesting and unanswerable on the subject. But let it not be thought that this field has been cultivated to the utmost. There still remains enough untouched to reward the most investigating, and to employ the most industrious. A collection of rabbinical passages, to shew the difficulty which the rabbies felt in expounding those verses of the Old Testament which imply the doctrine of the Trinity, would be of great importance. The Talmud, Siphri, Sohar, and particularly the Jalkut Shimoni, still present a wide field for discovery. Schöttgen long ago proposed, what has never yet been done, to prepare a work on the Old Testament, similar to Lightfoot's on the New. Much remains to be done in the direct controversy with the Jews. It is very common to wonder at the unbelief of the Jews, and to say that the time is not come for their conversion; but no one, moderately acquainted with Jewish literature, will do either the one or the other. He knows that much of this literature is either directly or indirectly controversial, and that there are very few books on the Christian side of the controversy which can be put into their hands. The writers of the seventeenth, and the beginning of the eighteenth, century wrote in Latin, which but a small proportion of the Jewish nation understands; and now, for nearly a century, divines have neglected both rabbinical literature and the Jewish controversy. The publication of small tracts, like Leslie's "Short and Easy Method," is not sufficient even to engage the attention of a learned Jew, and much less to convince him of the erroneousness of his system. Their literature must be known, in order to understand their train of thought and the system of reasoning upon which their creed is built, and by which it is sustained. Is it too much to expect that Christian divines should take all this trouble merely to bring the Jews to a knowledge of the truth? I think not, when I see the labour and industry which they have bestowed on the Socinian and other controversies. As men have thought it their duty to spend a whole life in illustrating Christian antiquities and ecclesiastical laws, it is to be hoped that some may yet be found equally zealous in convincing the Jews of their errors, and equally desirous to fill up that gap which still remains in the bulwarks encompassing Christianity.

Another use of rabbinical studies, and the last that I shall notice, is, to enable Christians to edite and translate rabbinical books. Christian libraries abound in rabbinical MSS. of works never yet published, as well as of those already printed. It is most devoutly to be wished that Christians would make use of

these treasures, and furnish the student with the best possible editions of Jewish authors, or, at least, a collation with the existing editions, as it is well known that the Talmud, and other Jewish books, have been mutilated by Christian censors, or by the prudence of Jewish editors. The Oppenheim library contains many most interesting manuscripts; as, for instance, one of the Nizzachon; also a Hebrew version of the book of Sohar; also manuscripts of the Hebrew liturgy, a good edition of which is a desideratum, on many accounts. I have often wondered that the divines of our church have paid so little attention to the Jewish forms of prayer; some of which are, perhaps, the oldest liturgical pieces in existence, and might be profitably employed in illustrating the early Christian liturgies. But besides editorial undertakings, it is to be hoped that the lamented Professor Chiarini's writings have directed the public mind to the work of translation. A prospectus of a German translation of the Talmud has already been advertised. I look, however, with more satisfaction to the revival of Hebrew studies in this country, and from British students I expect more sound and judicious translations than from the continent. For, however unfashionable such an opinion may be, I believe that there is in our own church quite as much real learning, and a great deal more of sound judgment than is to be met with elsewhere. And in this particular department the modern German publications do not bear the marks of any extraordinary proficiency.

I propose hereafter to offer some remarks on the mode of studying Rabbinical writers.

ON THE AGREEMENT OF A NATIONAL CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT OF CHRISTIANITY WITH CHRISTIANITY ITSELF, WITH A PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

In every subject of discussion or argumentation, something must be taken for granted; otherwise the disputing parties can never advance beyond the discussion of first principles. In geometry we take for granted the truth of the definitions and axioms; and, in metaphysics, that of our senses: so in this question of a national church establishment of Christianity, I shall take for granted two things, which none but an infidel will deny. And as I do not argue with an infidel, but with a believer in Christianity, my postulates will be admitted.

The two things which I shall take for granted are, first, that Christianity is TRUE; or, in other words, a divine revelation from God; and, secondly, that all persons to whom it is preached are, therefore, bound, by the most solemn and awful sanctions, to receive and believe it; for, "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned....

If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins." (Mark xvi. 16; John viii. 24.)

Now that we may clear our subject of all obscurity, I at once admit with Paley, that "a religious establishment is no part of Christianity it is only the means of inculcating it." Our business, therefore, will be to prove, that though a religious establishment be no part of Christianity, yet it is in ACCORDANCE with it. We must prove that a national Christian church is in PERFECT AGREEMENT with the Christian dispensation.

1. That a national church is not per se sinful, will be admitted by all who are not infidels; for God himself established such a church among the Jews, with the utmost possible exactness in every part of its principles, doctrines, discipline, and administration. The Jewish church was in reality much more an essential part of the national polity than their civil affairs; for the succession of the priesthood was confined solely to the tribe of Levi in the house of Aaron, while the succession of the judges and the kings was left very indeterminate; and not only so, but was frequently changed. But if it were right, as certainly right it was, to make a national church of the Jewish dispensation, which was only a shadow of the Christian, it must be right to establish nationally the substance. To ordain and institute the means of inculcating TRUTH, which Christianity is, must be a positive duty from the very nature of things; for to disseminate and inculcate truth is one of the first duties of a human being. And the more extensively this duty is performed, it is performed the better; but a national church establishment of Christianity performs this duty in the most extensive manner, and therefore does it best. It provides the means of instruction in truth universally; and it offers that truth to the mind and acceptance of the people as a nation, and thereby gives them the opportunity of acquiring the knowledge of divine things. It must ever be right to propagate and inculcate TRUTH to the utmost possible extent; it is, therefore, right nationally to establish Christianity, which is truth without the least mixture of error, that every individual of the nation may have the opportunity of being instructed in it.

2. But if a national church were contrary to Christianity, one would expect to find it forbidden in the New Testament; but since there is not even a trace of a prohibition upon the subject, we are evidently at liberty to form a national church. The New Testament abounds with prohibitions upon various subjects; but contains none upon this. It is clear, then, that mankind are left to exercise their own discretion upon the subject, and to act as may be most suitable to circumstances. Christ's kingdom, it is true, is not of this world; yet, it is in the world. And its great object and design is to Christianize the WHOLE world, and

to bring ALL mankind under its sway and dominion. But a national church effects this object and design more completely than any other plan, and is, therefore, in accordance and in strict conformity with the very first principles and duties of Christianity. No prohibition of a national establishment of a Christian church can be adduced from the Christian Scriptures, and therefore such a church is not contrary to Christianity.

3. But our argument rises still higher, and is made stronger by considering the duty which ALL parents owe to their childrento "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." (Ephes. vi. 4.) Every professing Christian admits that it is his duty to instruct his children and family, or to permit them to be instructed, in Christianity, both because he professes it himself and believes it to be a divine revelation-i. e., he believes it TRUE. We should revolt at the idea of a professing Christian withholding Christian instruction from his family, and would consider him as acting more inconsistently than an infidel. His duty is especially to teach his whole family the good and the right way of truth, as revealed by the gospel. But WHAT parents are to their families, THAT the chief men, the rulers, and the legislature of a nation are to the community at large. Parishes are constituted of families, hundreds and counties are made up of families, and so are nations, however extensive, great, or powerful. Since, then, it is the positive duty of parents to instruct their families in Christianity, so is it the positive duty of rulers to take care that the great family, over which they are placed, be taught and instructed in the way of truth. To neglect this, is to be guilty of an enormous sin of omission, and to fail in the CHIEF duty which the ruler owes to the people. The government which does not see that the nation is provided with adequate religious instruction, does not discharge its most essential duty, and is as culpable as the parent that neglects the instruction of his family in Christianity. It is very singular that some who object to a national Christian church, yet admit the propriety of, and contend for, a national system of education in learning. But a national Christian church is a national system of education in the very best of all learning, for it teaches absolute truth—i. e., Christianity, and is therefore the very best system of national education. Governors are, then, not at liberty to leave the people to accidental instruction in the gospel; for they are bound by the most solemn obligations to provide it as parents for their children and masters for their servants.

4. But if we refer to Christ's COMMAND respecting the PREACHING of the gospel-i. e., of Christianity, we shall obtain increased force to our argument to prove that a national church establishment of Christianity is in perfect agreement with Christianity itself. He says, " Go ye, therefore, and teach ALL NAVOL. VIII.-July, 1835.

C

TIONS... Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to EVERY CREATURE." (Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15.) The extent, then, to which the gospel must be preached, to which Christianity must be diffused, is bounded only by the world. All nations, every creature, is to hear the joyful sound of the gospel of peace. But a national church is instituted for the very purpose of carrying this command into effect with respect to the nation in which it is instituted, and is, therefore, in perfect agreement with the Christian dispensation. It is in reality a fulfilment of our Lord's command to the extent of that nationnay, it is more than this in its practical result, for the national church of England has been a missionary church to foreign and heathen lands long BEFORE the dissenters of England attempted any thing of the kind. Our church establishment carries the gospel into every parish in the nation, and is, therefore, in exact accordance with Christ's express command. It is instituted for the specific purpose of evangelizing all the people, and that not an individual might be without the means of Christian instruction. A national church is, therefore, the most perfect means of accomplishing the great work of teaching all nations. By its means the people are not left, as they ought not, to accident; but possess of NECESSITY an opportunity of hearing that gospel which is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, and which is glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men. He, indeed, who does not see that a national church establishment of Christianity is in perfect agreement with itself, must have a sad obliquity of vision, and seems almost incapable of perceiving truth by means of the dense fog of prejudices with which his mind is surrounded.

5. But should it be said, as it often is, that the gospel should be propagated and supported by a voluntary system, then we reply that a church establishment, and especially that of England, is a voluntary system; and much, very much, more so than that of any other denomination, except the Quakers. Our churches were built and endowed originally upon the voluntary system, for they were built and endowed by the owners and proprietors of land. The church of England, as a national church, never was endowed by national, but by PRIVATE, property; and is, therefore, in the strictest sense, a voluntary system in its origin and institution; and whatever is paid for the maintenance of its ministers, or the support of the church, in any way, is in reality a RENT, which nothing but sheer fraud and dishonesty would lead a man to refuse. Whether men pay tithe, church rates, or any other dues to the church, they are all rent charges, which have subsisted time immemorial, and were voluntary endowments; and any plea of conscience for not paying them is just as valid, in truth and equity, as that of a tenant refusing to pay his