and of the isles shall bring presents,-the kings of Sheba

and Seba shall offer gifts.

Yea, all kings shall fall down before him, all nations shall serve him.' Nay more, the Psalmist not only predicts, but premonishes :-" Be wise now therefore, O ye kings, be instructed, ye judges of the earth, serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with

29. in hunc nexum ; potentem te præsta.....ex palatio tuo cet. Cf. vs. 36. et 110, 2."

Nevertheless, as it appears to us, the construction observed in the Authorised Version is decidedly preferable." Languidum, si quid aliud, est quod plerisque placuit Propter templum...... Tibi offerent rel."

Luther translates the passage,..." Um deines Tempels willen zu Jerusalem werden, dir die Könige Geschenke zuführen." So the Prayer Book Version-"For thy temple's sake at Jerusalem, so shall kings bring presents unto thee."

Ibid, lxviii. 31. "David foretels, that on the establishment of the then church and worship in Jerusalem, the Kings of the Gentiles should come, and make their oblations at the temple of God, (the tabernacle is called hêbhál, 1 Sam. iii. 3., or “temple,”) which happened in his days, and those of his son, as an earnest and figure of that plenary accession of the kings of the earth to the Church of Christ, which was to take place in the latter days under the gospel."-BISHOP HORNE.

* Psalm lxxii. 10, 11. "Reges Tartessi et insularum (maris medii) tributa referant, Reges Sabææ et Meroës dona offerant, tributa faciant ac dona offerant reges terrarum remotissimarum earumque ditissimarum! Hashibh mìnchâh:—facere tributa 2 Reg. iii. 4., xvii. 3., 2 Chron. xxvii. 5., adhibito referendi verbo, non ob iterationem, ut putant, nam hǎshibh non significat repetare, iterare, sed propterea, ut mihi quidem videtur, quod, qui tributa facit, debita refert. Eshpar :-pretium (vid. ad Ezech. xxvii. 15), hinc donum."-MAURER, Comm. vol. III. 193.

L

trembling. Kiss the son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little."* And again in that magnificent hymn,-" Kings of the earth, and all people; princes, and all judges of the earth ......let them praise the name of the LORD; for his name alone is excellent his glory is above the earth and the heavens." Indeed, and in a word,, however much the attempt may be made to refine away the language of prophecy, it is notwithstanding impossible, without taking refuge in the subterfuges of casuistry and sophistication, to evade the fact, otherwise patent to all, that in the future, much more than in the past of the Christian Church;-in its ultimate splendours, beatitudes, and triumphs, much more than in its initial periods of mere type and adumbration-there will be exhibited the operation of the great principle of Church and State.

*Psalm ii. 10. 11, 12.

"Kiss the Son" i.e., in token of reverence, 1 Sam. x. 1., 1 Kings xix. 18. The Hebrews were wont to kiss the beard, 2 Sam. xx. 29. "Lest ye perish from the way, etc.," that is, lest the way conduct you to destruction, into which ye have entered.-MAURER in loco.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE DOCTRINE OF M. JULES SIMON.

In respect of the relations between religion, and the State, says M. Simon, "three systems have existence; the system of state-religions, that of absolute independence, and that of the concordats."* But strange to say, that accomplished author does not include the Anglican Establishment under any branch of this classification. "It is convenient," he adds, "to make a class apart for England," + which professes liberty of worship while giving to the Established Church an official existence. This bastard system§ can only be explained by the habitudes of a people which

* La Liberté de Conscience, p. 9.

"Il convient de faire une classe à part pour l'Angleterre."

ceaselessly improves its laws by reforming them, never by suppressing them. The state-religion is conserved in England, because all is conserved......At the present time the established church has no more, as a state-religion, than a nominal existence......Thanks to the progress of all the liberties, the state-religion of England, is no more than a formula."* In fact, it would seem, that M. Simon, thus summarily dismisses the case of the Anglican Church, because it is only too practical a refutation of his own elect theory-for he admits, incautiously it is true, that in England, liberty is established-"la liberté s'y est établie," although side by side with it there exists a state-religion religion d'État. A writer who can indiscriminately affirm that a state-religion is a form of despotism the most complete and the most absolute," and that "its object is to enchain the mind as well as the body"-does well, no doubt, to persuade himself if he can, that in England there is no true state-church, or that, at the best, it has only an "official" or a merely "nominal" existence. Any other position would of course have been suicidal. It would have been death to his entire argument; which is, that liberty of conscience is attainable only by the separation of religion from the state.

To state M. Simon's general doctrine in his own terms:-"La séparation absolue est nécessaire à l'indépendance de chaque Église vis-à-vis, de l'État, à l'égalité des Églises entre elles, à la fondation ou l' introduc

* "N'est plus qu'une formule."

tion d'une religion nouvelle, et même consideration grave quoique d' une ordre très inférieur, à une équitable répartition de l'impôt.' ""* But how is this doctrine established? In, as it appears to us, a most unsatisfactory manner.

It is affirmed that "if the state only patronizes a religion......such religion becomes, despite all its efforts to the contrary, a part of the public administration :"+ and, in proof, an appeal is made to "the régime of protection" before and after the French Revolution. But that this method of proof is most inconsequential must appear on a moment's reflection. It is not enough to be told, that in France "the state nominates the bishops, and approves the nomination of the curés; § that "it holds the personnel," and "the matèriel,”—that all church property is vested in the government, that neither church, nor sacristy, nor burial ground, nor parsonage is in the property of the curé. || It is vain to speak of "the interdiction of religious processions in certain

+ La Liberté de Conscience, p. 11.—“D'abord l' État nomme les évêques et approuve la nomination des curés-il tient par là tout le personnel."

Concordat de 1801. Art. 4.

§ Concordat 1801. Art. 10. § 2.

|| La Liberté de Conscience, p. 14.-Quoique traitée généreusement, la religion n'est plus maîtresse chez elle. Ni le temple, ni la sacristie, ni le cimetière, ni la maison curiale ne sont au curé. Il dépend, pour tout le matèriel, de l'autorité du conseil du fabrique.