if the present opportunity for resistance is allowed to pass, all cure within the Church will become desperate,-that she must either fall, or persecute.

What are our politicians, our statesmen, be they of what party they may, what are our men of worldly wisdom thinking of, that they remain so indifferent to this revival amongst us of priestly domination? Shall this country present to all Europe the lamentable spectacle of a people boasting to be enlightened, boasting the long possession of liberty, religious as well as civil, permitting its own Church to lead it back into an ecclesiastical tyranny in no degree less execrable than that which popery itself would have inflicted? Can it possibly be that our free constitution is to be made subservient to the support of a presumptuous hierarchy inimical to the dearest of all liberties? Is it a subject of indifference to a British statesman that his Church is changing under his eyes-that, taking advantage of the old attachment of the people, it is becoming its spiritual despot instead of its teacher-that, relying on the love of a Protestant nation, it is wielding a power destructive of every Protestant sentiment-that, grounded on the plea of state expediency, and professing to be an auxiliary to good government and enlightened institutions, it is introducing the worst of national degradations, a mental slavery, amongst us?

Is the nation to stand committed to the bigotry of the highChurch party? Is the law, is the civil administration, directly or indirectly, to take cognizance of, or give support to the multiplied excommunications which a national church now threatens? These are immediate, practical, political questions. If any man think this is a mere dispute between theologians, let him read the following extract from the introduction to Mr. Newman's work on 'Romanism and Popular Protestantism,' and mark well its spirit and tendency. It is taken from no slight or hasty tract, but from an octavo volume, and from that part of a volume which, being generally written last, may be presumed to express most faithfully the mature judgment of the author.

'It would be well if these men would keep their restless humor to themselves (that is the men who advocate inquiry, while Mr. Newman would inculcate implicit faith); but they unsettle all around them. They rob those of their birth-right who would have hailed the privilege of being told the truth without their own personal risk in finding it: they force them against their nature upon relying on their reason, when they are content to be saved by faith. Such troublers of a Christian community would, in a healthy state of things, be silenced or put out of it, as disturbers of the king's peace are restrained in civil matters; but our times, from whatever cause, being times of confusion, we are reduced to the use of argument and disputation, just as

we think it lawful to carry arms and barricade our houses during national disorders.'-Introd., p. 5.

So that argument and exhortation are, with this priest, the extraordinary means,-means to be justified by the emergency of the case, while church discipline, excommunication, and anathema are the appropriate and ordained instruments for the inculcation of the religion of Christ! We ask again, with all sobriety, whether a church of which this spokesman would be a fair interpreter, is one that the government of a free people ought to ally itself with?

We have already, on previous occasions, and shall frequently again recur to this important topic. At present we have taken but one view of it, that which was suggested by the lectures before us; and we conclude with repeating to that moderate body in the Church to whom Mr. Smith evidently belongs, our exhortations to be candid, energetic champions of their own sincere convictions. From us the warning may be slighted, but we tell them that if they slumber now, whatever may be the destiny of the Establishment, their own fate is sealed--they will either fall with a sinking church, or be expelled from a triumphant one.

Art. V. A Treatise on English Grammar, Style, Rhetoric, and Poetry; to which are added, Preparatory Logic, and Advice to the Student on the Improvement of the Understanding. By RICHARD HILEY. London: Simpkin and Marshall.

IN order to ascertain whether a book is a good one or not, we must first know for whom it is intended, and what it purposes to accomplish. For what class of readers or pupils Mr. Hiley's thick duodecimo is meant, we are utterly at a loss to divine. If it is meant for young children who are beginning systematic grammar, we should say that full half the book is a useless incumbrance, treating as it does of subjects which form, or ought to form, a study for a much later and more advanced period of education. If it is meant for advanced pupils, for those who are studying English grammar scientifically, not merely learning it as children practically, then we should say that it is quite useless, since no part of the subject is treated in a scientific manner, and the author seems to be quite ignorant of the great features of the structure of the English language. The formation of the (so called) irregular verbs and the plurals are

Of course if

We do not,

given in a most incorrect and imperfect manner. The author seems never to have heard of the strong and the weak formation, or to have imagined more than one way of forming plurals. But perhaps the work is meant for young men who have not had the advantage of early instruction, and wish to learn grammar by themselves. This certainly is a most praiseworthy desire, but it will be likely to end in nothing but conceit and formal ignorance, if an attempt is made to master rhetoric, logic, and stylistic, without a previous course of reading and training. These are much later studies. It has been well said, that grammar is the first thing taught and the last learnt: and this is only a strong way of stating what is an undeniable fact. Grammar in its wider sense comprehending logic, rhetoric, and stylistic, is the last thing learnt, since these parts of it are the result, and, if we may so say, the cream of many other knowledges. We have not space to enumerate the errors or faults of the book: this would take many pages. We will mention a few, however. Page 12, we are told that 'gender is the distinction of sex,' and then that there are three genders;' of course then there are three sexes. Page 15, we are told that men is a plural with the Saxon termination en. This is a blunder which has crept into many of our grammars. en were added to man, we should have manen. however, remember meeting with this word. Page 95, we are told that the adverb never must not be used for ever; thus 'charm he never so wisely' should be 'charm he ever so wisely.' Who ever said that never was used FOR ever in this passage? Is it a fact? Did the writer know what he said, or did he not? 'Ever so wisely' is one phrase,' and 'never so wisely' is another: to confound them is a sheer blunder. Page 94, it is said, 'The active participle must never be used for the passive participle;' thus 'money was wanting to defray the expenses,' should be 'was wanted,' &c. In the following sentences also, young men educating for the Christian ministry,' should be 'young men preparing, studying, or under instruction for the Christian ministry. I want my coat mending,' should be 'I want my coat mended.' This rule (if an entire misconception may be so called) inculcates a serious error. The participle in ing is neither active nor passive exclusively: it is the incomplete participle; and may be either active or passive, according to its use. Surely our author would not say that the house is building' is wrong, or 'the book is printing,' or 'the series of works is publishing.' These phrases, or others like them, are used by our best writers; and the phrases being built, being printed, are of much later introduction. There are two classes of grammarians-one rejecting building, and the other rejecting being built. The truth is, both phrases are right according to the existing standard of the lan

guage. Our best writers use both, and though the simple form in ing is undoubtedly the more elegant, being less cumbersome, yet there are cases in which ambiguity would be caused by the use of it; and in such cases the form with being must be employed instead, unless we change the construction altogether. We find such phrases as the following in good authors, they are being carried,' 'when they are being withdrawn,' and so on. Page 93, the verbal nouns are confounded with the participles. Of all languages the participles and their derivatives form one of the most difficult parts, and demand especial attention. We have no hesitation in saying, that almost the whole doctrine of the English participles and participial substantives is misrepresented in the work before us. The phrases in the philosopher's hearing,' and 'by Christ's preaching,' are given as examples of the participle: and in a note of very small type they are afterwards called substantives.

Page 85, we are told that 'in familiar language the relative is frequently, but improperly omitted;' as, 'he is a man I greatly esteem,' should be he is a man whom I greatly esteem.' This is some of the same sort of nonsense we had from Mr. Lindley Murray. Our language has suffered very materially from the influence of this rule-making system. Who told Mr. Murray (if he says so, we do not remember now) or Mr. Hiley that the relative is improperly omitted? Did Milton teach them this? or South? or Jeremy Taylor? or, to take more recent authors, did Middleton ? did Addison? did Johnson? The omission of the relative is an idiom of the language, just as much as the use of it is; and the omission is sanctioned by all the authors we have named, not to mention all the best writers of the present day. What would our author make of such a phrase as this, the first school I was at? It cannot be altered. The house you bought is as good English as the house which you bought, or the house that you bought. The truth is, that the insertion of the relative is sometimes inelegant and positively bad.

Page 154, we are told that 'if he happen to have leisure' is a pleonasm for 'if he have leisure,' and that happen to are superfluous words. Any school-boy might see that happen is not superfluous, but adds another idea.

Page 175, we are told that 'long words are commonly more agreeable than monosyllables.' This is a very raw, green statement, and calculated to breed many errors in style. Short words are usually pure English words, and are generally preferable to long ones; not always, of course, but if we must have a general rule, it would be in favor of pure English words over Latin and French derivations. The following sentence contains twenty-five monosyllables, and not one word of more than one syllable: yet who will find any fault with it on that

VOL. IX.

P

account? 'As we should act as they did, were we in their times, so, as we think, they too would act as we do in ours.' This is pure English, and, in spite of its monosyllabism, is not inharmonious.

What notion our author has of elegance in language it is difficult to tell, unless it be, that the harder and longer and less intelligible the word, the more elegant it is. For, in page 150, we are told that accumulating is more elegant than heaping up, their superiors than their betters, exclude than shut out. According to this criterion Shakspere would be very inelegant indeed.

Page 145, we are treated with what are called 'canons of criticism' for determining the use of words, borrowed from Dr. Campbell. To discuss each of them separately would occupy too much space. We have room now merely to state that several of these pretended canons are decidedly wrong, and to give a few examples. Page 166, we are told that such words as wrong-headedness, shame-facedness, and other long compounds should be rejected, because they are particularly harsh and not absolutely necessary.' We deny both the premises and the conclusion. In the first place, these words are not more harsh than the long words so much recommended elsewhere by our author, such as incompatibility, unintelligible, continuation; and, in the next place, they are absolutely necessary; and, thirdly, they ought not to be rejected, but ought to be studiously retained. It is just these compounds which we have left, which serve to show us that we have a language of our own, and need not be entirely indebted to dead or foreign languages.

Again, page 146, we are told that the word beholden taken for obliged should be rejected.' Now, we should say, that beholden is not taken for obliged, but that if we must talk about taking one word for another, it is obliged which is taken for beholden. Beholden is our own, obliged is a gift of foreignersbeholden belongs to the staple part of our language: it is homebred; and to cashier it for obliged would be ridiculous.

On the same page it is said that whit, dint, moot, and some other words, are too vulgar to be admitted into good writing.' Of course if good English is to be judged of by Scotch canons of criticism, these words may be rejected: but if it is to be judged of by the practice of standard authors, it would be difficult to show the great vulgarity of the words in question.

It is an ungrateful task to go on pointing out faults, and we have no disposition to say any more, although there are scores of other matters on which remark is called for. What we have said will serve, however, as a caution against considering the work as a very high authority.

The only grammar we have yet at all worthy of our language