able number of day schools? Undoubtedly we could. In many places we already have suitable premises, or such as could be made so, and the number of these is rapidly increasing. In many towns we might be able, by the aid of building grants, to erect schools. And with regard to the salary of the teachers, this might also be obtained in very many of our town, and even in some of our most influential village churches. For in a school of only fifty scholars the grant could not be less than fifteen pounds, and might go up to thirty pounds per annum; and the same proportionately in larger schools. And who does not see that this amount, supplimented by scholars' fees, public collections, annual donations, etc., would soon swell to considerable dimensions and bring us within sight of the required sum? Difficulty there would be, of course; but an energetic body like ours might surmount it, and speedily rejoice in the possession of hundreds of schools that could boast of equality with the best elementary schools in the land.

But now comes the grave question, What becomes of our principles as Protestant Dissenters if we adopt such a course? An important matter this; for valuable as day schools are, let them perish if they can be maintained only by the sacrifice of right principle. We hold, however, that the acceptance of Government aid, in such a case, does not in the least involve the sacrifice of right principle. The chief grounds of dissent from the Church of England are the following, namely, that that Church as by law established, interferes with the right of private judgment and liberty of conscience in matters of religion-that it trenches on the Headship of Christ, and the sufficiency of Holy Scripture as the rule of faith and practice.* Which of these principles is violated by our acceptance of Government grants to day schools? Should we not be as good Dissenters after accepting them as we were before? We could still hold our objections against the frame and constitution of the State Church-protest against the Prayer Book, and laugh at or deplore the foolish mummeries carried on in many churches. Nor should we be at all fettered in our Connexional movements. We could order our affairs, exercise our varied functions, and carry out our plans; we could appoint our ministers, sing through the streets, and preach in the market places, just as we have been wont to do before we possessed Government schools. The State would not even force a teacher on any place contrary to its wishes; and the utmost that it does in the way of religion is to provide for the reading in the school of portions of the Holy Scriptures-a regu lation that cannot be considered sectarian or improper. Where then is the compromise of principle of which many are afraid? But suppose that we accept Government aid and afterwards find

* Protestant Dissenters' Catechism, p 20.

ourselves brought into bondage thereby-what then? Why the remedy is easy. We can at any time throw the State band from our Connexional machinery and return to our former condition; in doing which we could take the school building with us by refunding the amount of the building grant. But now for another question.

Apart from the idea of Dissent, is it right and proper in itself to receive Government aid for education? To this we answer by asking the question-Why not? Granting it is wrong to receive State aid for religion-which however is more than the first Dissenters taught it may for all this be perfectly right to receive it for education. The two things are widely dissimilar; and to confound them in argument, as many appear to do, is a fruitful source of mistake in action. The State provides for the poor-takes care of the public health-expends its wealth in punishing crime. Why then may it not provide for popular education, by which crime, poverty, and disease are prevented or diminished? We readily admit that if the voluntary principle could perform the work unaided by State gold, it would be far better. But we have already shown its inability to do this. In fact, the voluntary principle, as far as we know, never has dealt ably with the matter single-handed. In our own country the masses were untaught till the State came to the aid of voluntary effort. In many continental nations the State supports both church and schools; and in America, where a State church is a thing unknown, the masses are everywhere educated by the State. The Government support to education, we admit, is subject to the inconvenience of indirectly supporting religious systems of which we disapprove. But might not the same objection be urged against State relief to the poor, and many other things? If, as we have seen, Government aid is necessary to the efficient performance of the task of educating the people, the best and simplest way of counteracting the necessary evils of the system will be, for each religious community to accept its proper share of the public money, and educate the whole of its own children. This would be just and right to all, since all contribute in the same manner to the State funds.

But why argue the matter any further? Do not multitudes of valiant Dissenters, aye, of Primitive Methodists even, already send their children to Government schools? Now if it is wrong for us as a denomination to accept State aid to schools, can it be right for our individual members to receive it? Is not the principle the same in both cases? If it is wrong to receive such aid, we have thousands of sinners in our society already. But they appear to feel no qualms of conscience, to smart under no sense of sin in the matter. So far from this, they appear to think they act commendably, as they thus secure for their children a better education than

could be otherwise obtained. As the propriety and wisdom of accepting such aid is thus both allowed and acted upon by probably a majority of our adherents, whose children are being educated by it, why not as a religious body accept it? Then we should have no need to send our offspring to Government schools connected with other bodies; for we could have such schools of our own. Whereas so long as we refuse to accept such, we perpetuate and increase the evil of which we complain-weaken the stakes of our beloved Zion-and introduce alarming errors and divisions into the bosom of our families, errors which will result in many of our children despising the faith and church polity in which their fathers glory, and identifying themselves, in many cases, with heretical churches, in which, after spending their days in doing evil, they may die in their delusions and perish for ever. All this may happen, in many cases it must happen, if our children continue to be nursed in schools where deadly errors are taught. Then why not accept at once the aid of Government and thus, at a stroke, do away with so alarming an evil from our midst?

The sum of our observations is this: We have described the present working of day schools under Government supervision, noticing the regulations respecting their building and furniture, the various kinds of teachers and modes of teaching, the manner in which the annual examinations are conducted, the various kinds of grants, and on what terms they are offered; showing how admirably adapted the system is to secure regularity of attendance, solid progress in plain, substantial learning, and to guard against favoritism and bad discipline. We have also remarked that good teachers approve the system and bad ones condemn it. And with regard to the probable results, these we have shown to consist of the speedy general spread of education, and the consequent weakening of private schools, and of all religious bodies which refuse State aid to their schools. We have hence shown the importance to us, as a Connexion, of adopting the principle of State aid, since by this means we shall secure our own young people to our communion, and thus promote our denominational growth and prosperity. Nor shall we by so doing violate any vital principle of Dissent, nor in any way fetter our denominational liberty of action. We have urged the adoption of Government support also from the fact that thousands of our members now receive it through the medium of other schools; and that if they must continue to receive it, how much better would it be for it to flow through our channels, rather than through the polluted channels of Unitarianism, Puseyism, or Romanism. If the remarks we have now made shall only serve to call attention to the subject and contribute in any degree to its proper treatment in our Connexional Courts, we shall feel amply rewarded.

J. B.

341

ART. V. THE LAST OF THE JUDGES.

Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church. Part I. Abraham to Samuel. By A. P. STANLEY, D.D., Dean of Westminster. With Maps and Plans. Third edition. London: John Murray, Albermarle Street.-1865.

THE

HE Episcopal Church of this country presents a remarkable diversity even to dissimilarity in one body. It is nothing less than a house divided against itself. The phrase most commonly used in speaking of this diversity is somewhat ominous-" Church Parties." The questions between these "parties" are not merely surface questions of order and worship, but radical questions. It is not if the one be right the others can be harmlessly wrong, but they involve the profoundest matters in ecclesiastical and theological controversy. An establishment so composite and heterogeneous will need foreign and adventitious aids to support it. These aids it has in its connection with the State, in its prestige in the country, in the beauty and purity of much in its ritual, and in its historic associations. Many thoughtful and unprejudiced persons question whether in the absence of genuine and homogeneous life, these aids can long sustain this tottering fabric. Leaving a margin for extreme instances, these "parties" have been grouped into three,-High, Broad, and Low Church. Or as some wit and half a wag has euphonised it-" Attitudinarians," "Platitudinarians," and "Latitudinarians." The leading spirits in each party have been eminent men, but eminent from a variety of causes and in a variety of ways. No names in the High Church party stand higher than Pusey, Keble, and Wilberforce of Oxford. Nor in the Low can we find any more notable than Simeon, Bickersteth, Bishop Elicot, Birks, and Shaftesbury. While at the very mention of the Broad Church we call up the names of Arnold, Hare, Jowett, and Stanley.

66

The last name has for some years been prominently before the world, and he is about the best representative of his section of the church. Lacking the exact and extensive erudition and logical power of some in the Broad Church, none of them combine in themselves so happily the attributes necessary for popularising the principles of his party. His father, the Bishop of Norwich, an amiable man and an able prelate, leant more to the Low School than any other; but his son has borne during his public life the stamp and image of the eminent master by whom he was trained. Dr. Arnold has not been approached, much less rivalled, in his power

to mould the young mind, to engrain into the young souls committed to his charge a high sense of honour, truthfulness, liberality, reverence for divine things, and the imperative need of personal piety. Thus the plastic minds of a large number of his pupils were ineffacably impressed with virtuous principles. It is true that some of his scholars have strayed from his teaching, not having had balance enough to keep them near the pole of truth; this was the case with his own sons, one of whom is a Roman Catholic, and another, though an acknowledged scholar and master in composition, holds views wide as the poles asunder from the truth as it is in Jesus. Few, if any, of Dr. Arnold's pupils have retained and developed his spirit with greater fidelity than the very Rev. the Dean of Westminster. The family of Dr. Arnold did wisely in committing his memory to Dr. Stanley to embalm, which he did with loving and skilful hands, producing a biography of commanding excellence. This book first brought him prominently before the public. His memoir of his father was a filial tribute to the many virtues of the venerable prelate. His "Sinai and Palestine" has taken its place among the few books of weight and authority on Biblical geography and travel, by reason of the closeness and thoroughness of his investigations, his vivid description of scenery, manners and customs, and his truly reverend spirit. While it lacks the thoroughness of Dr. E. Robinson, the authority of Dr. Porter, arising from his long residence in the East, the warmth and interest of Warburton's "Crescent and the Cross," and the fascinating descriptions and humorous comments of Kinglake's "Eothen," yet it is a valuable and deeply interesting book. He tells us that his tour and his "Sinai and Palestine" were only preparatory to his Lectures on the Jewish Church. These lectures are not strictly topographical nor historical. Robinson, Porter and others had dealt satisfactorily with the first subject, while Dean Milman's "History of the Jews" left nothing to be desired on the second, but the lecturer illustrates and explains history, mostly reading it in the light of the manners and customs of the Orient, making frequent and most felicitous use of his extensive geographical researches. He traces the surroundings of the actors in Jewish history, and estimates the accidents of their situations; he, as it were, re-peoples the regions of the East, and invests the scenes with all the vividness of life. The plan and its execution are alike admirable, and we trust he may be spared to complete his design, which is to traverse the entire history of the Jewish Church in three volumes. The one named at the head of this article is the first of the three, and extends from Abraham to the establishment of the monarchy. The second volume, also published, which we may at some future time be able to notice, continues the thread of the history to the overthrow of Jeru