ness to use every help for the attainment of Divine truth, which God himself has provided. These are many and various, and each of them has some peculiar excellence of its own. We may specify, as the most important, the instructions of parents, pastors, or missionaries, creeds and catechisms, sacraments and sacramental ordinances, the writings of pious men, and the reading or hearing of the Scriptures themselves. Direct oral teaching is the most immediate and aggressive, and, in many cases, the only means which it is possible to employ. But when once the conscience has been gained to the side of truth, all the others come into powerful operation. Creeds and catechetical forms then become an important help to the memory, concentrate the Divine message in a simple outline, and serve as a guide to profitable meditation. The teaching of sacraments is most impressive and lively, and guards us from the evil of mere intellectual convictions, without seriousness or practical application of the truth. The writings of holy men, wherever accessible, form a wholesome antidote to spiritual egotism, link us more closely with the body of Christ, and commonly enlarge the range of our vision in Divine truth. The direct study of God's written word crowns his whole provision of grace, and is not only the commanded test and touchstone of all other teaching, but forms the most pure, simple, and various channel for the continual acquisition of fresh knowledge in the things of God. In the joint use of all these different helps, though no one of them, separately, is indispensable, the great objects of the Christian life,truth, holiness and love, will be most effectually attained.

We must now inquire what light Mr. Sewell and his friends have thrown upon this complex and important subject. In his notice to the reader he describes himself and the other "revivers of Church principles" as men whose eyes are just opening to some "great truths," to which English Churchmen, and still more, pious Dissenters, like his ideal missionary, had become totally blind. Now in what corner of the subject does this great discovery lie?

In the first place, has Mr. Sewell, in this work, enforced powerfully the excellency and fulness of the Scriptures as an all-sufficient and perfect source of Divine truth? The following short extracts will give some help towards a true reply:

But, then, I continued, remember that these divine truths which we are charged to communicate to the world are, both in the Bible, and in the Creed, contained in words; and those words are intended to convey one strict and definite meaning. And to impress these on the minds of men in any other sense than the one intended by God, is not to teach them truth. And yet, from the very nature of words, however carefully and explicitly they are put together, they may be made, and are made, to bear a great variety of meanings. And one man will associate with a word one set of ideas, and another man another. And one will derive a particular feeling from them, and

another a feeling quite different, either in degree or in nature. And this person will form his opinion on reading one portion of the book, and that person on reading another. And the more the words are multiplied, the more easy it will be to put together passages, and to involve the text, and to multiply the interpretations; and the more difficult to arrive at the one true meaning, which probably can only be drawn from a full and accurate survey of the whole work. And if the words convey a knowledge deeply interesting to man, bearing on his affections, and hopes, and fears, and involving his eternal salvation, the more keenly he feels, the less likely will he be to weigh these words coolly and logically, and the more likely to be led away by some enthusiasm.”—(p. 69.)

"It is a sad and a foolish thought, said the Brahmin, that we can learn without a teacher.

"It is, I said, assuredly; and we therefore, in the spirit of the Catholic Church, knowing that we cannot learn without a teacher, and that the very business of a teacher is to supply us with the great fundamental truths that we need to learn, and that when these are supplied, little remains for the learner but to prove them, will so approach the Bible. And if we must reason, we will reason in confirmation of what we are told is truth, by men whom we are bound to believe, rather than to overthrow suspected truths, which we only suspect from ourselves. We will place our own individual mind, with its weak judgment, its narrow experience, its unexercised faculties, side by side with the wisdom, the antiquity, the matured age, and the practised powers of those who have witnessed to Catholic truths; and then decide which we shall follow.

"Yes, said the Brahmin. And knowing this also, that even if we commence our search by ourselves, with our minds cleared, as is said, from all prejudice, that is from all information given to us from without, we cannot proceed a step without first adopting some other theory, assuming some hypothesis from within, and one that we invent for ourselves; and that afterwards our whole course must be the same as if we received it from another. For we must still inquire as proving-that is, looking out for confirmation of what we believe to be true, and testing this by what we find, and rejecting it finally if contradicted by experience."-(pp. 230, 231.)

"The Missionary here recalled what had been said before of the danger of viewing the Scriptures in this light, as containing in every part only expansions and applications of the creed. And he again objected to this mode of interpretation, as tending to mysticism.

"You must remember, I replied, once more, that we possess in the creeds all the knowledge necessary to salvation; we want, therefore, to discover no other; and if we do not pretend to find any, but what from the creeds we know already to be true, we cannot wander into error, or on forbidden ground. Such a mode, therefore, of studying the Scriptures is, to say the least, perfectly safe."-(pp. 232, 233.)

Now we ask with all seriousness, what is the necessary effect of such statements as these? Have they the slightest resemblance to the language of the inspired writers on the same subject? Compare them, for instance, with the words of the Psalmist"The testimonies of the Lord are sure, making wise the simple." "I have more understanding than my teachers, for thy testimonies are my meditation." "Thy word is a light to my feet and a lamp unto my path." "Thy testimonies are my delight and my counsellors." What harmony can be found between the Professor and the Prophet? The two lines of thought are "not diverging, but contrary." The general tone of the above extracts, and of many

similar passages, resembles nothing in Scripture so much as the evil report which the spies brought against the good land of promise. The Anakims of heresy, it seems, have got full possession. The texts are walled up to heaven with doubts and ambiguities, and it is dangerous and hopeless for the people of Christ to seek from the Scriptures themselves their true meaning. We are to search them by the light of the creeds, for the profitable purpose of learning nothing but what we already know. The mine is very rich and precious, for the miner who works it deeply and with good light, will be sure to find at the bottom-his own candle! What a contrast are these puerilities to the plain assertions of the Holy Spirit, and even to the daily experience of every simple-hearted Christian!

How different is the tone of prophets and apostles, when they treat of the written oracles, and of their practical worth! Every syllable is marked by the fervour of a deep affection. All nature is laid under contribution to furnish images of excellence, and to commend to us the deep treasures of their inspired wisdom. They are the lamp of the pilgrim, and the beacon-light of the mariner; sweeter than honey, and more precious than gold. In short, they are described as the sufficient means not only of salvation, but of perfection; the full treasury of life eternal.

Has our Author, next, been more successful in enforcing that moral preparation, which is needful for the reception of sacred truth? The failure, on this second point, is scarcely less complete. We find in his works, and in those of kindred writers, some strong invectives against the spirit of the age, and a real or fancied detection of several spots and flaws in the popular creed and practice of the religious world. But their censures are far too blind and indiscriminate to be likely to benefit those at whom they are aimed. The statements they make of the views of Protestants generally, and especially of pious dissenters, are often little better than gross calumnies. Now this is a very serious evil, and our deep sense of the practical mischiefs of separation only makes us feel it the more. Calumny is never more pernicious than when aimed against those who hold erroneous views. Error is then hardened into obstinacy, while truth itself is corrupted into arrogance and pride.

To pass by these invectives, often worse than useless, what moral directions do these professed "revivers of Church principles" supply to the inquirer after truth? We find in their writings little or nothing of the kind. Their one panacea for error is to believe implicitly what the Church tells us; to lay aside the exercise of our own judgment; and to receive, without questioning, whatever they themselves, in their oracular wisdom, are pleased to decorate with the euphonious titles of "Anglican

theology," the teaching of antiquity, or Catholic tradition. The duty of searching the Scriptures is tacitly or openly denied. The apostolic command, to prove all things, and then to hold fast the good, is superseded or forgotten. The need of prayer for Divine teaching, and the blessed assurance that it will be really answered, is buried in almost total silence. Instead of being urged to diligence, warned against pride and rashness, and cheered and quickened by the promise of success, the inquirer after truth is dazzled by the ghosts of countless heresies, that he may fling himself, in sheer despondency, a passive slave at the feet of an usurping priesthood.

But there is a third topic, in which perhaps these writers may prove more successful, the correct relative estimation of the various means for attaining sound doctrine. In a subject so wide and complex, there was doubtless a large opening for popular errors to creep in. Some Christians, though we believe the class is far smaller than is often assumed, have been ready to confound the source, and the means, of knowledge; and because the Scriptures are the sole fountain to us of pure and unmingled truth, to regard them as the exclusive channel by which it is to be conveyed to the soul. In fact, every means of grace has been exposed in its turn to the opposite abuses of a blameable neglect and a blind idolatry; and from these evils no age of the Church has ever been free.

Does the present treatise of Mr. Sewell fulfil wisely this important task of detecting these errors? For this is in reality the main subject of the discussion, and the question of evidence holds quite a subordinate place. In our opinion he has completely failed. There are many just statements of partial truths, and interesting trains of thought are often suggested, which may be very instructive to reflecting minds. But there is no clearness of spiritual vision, no distinct and firm grasp of the truths which he seeks to unfold. The style of the Author, which is versatile above measure, and the form of dialogue he adopts, would make a complete analysis an Herculean task; we shall therefore confine our remarks to our second extract and a few connected passages, which give a fair sample of the tone of thought and doctrine which prevails through the work. Now in the passage before us there is one great truth, which is often overlooked, though in the question of evidence it is of primary importance. Faith in the great doctrines of Christianity precedes, in order of thought, a correct knowledge of the canon of Scripture, or a belief in the purity of its text and its plenary inspiration. Such knowledge, however desirable, is no essential of Christianity. The oral teaching of the inspired Apostles was a full and sufficient vehicle of saving truth before one word of the New Testament was written. And so may faithful and uninspired teachers

convey sufficiently the great truths of the gospel to those who have never possessed one word of Scripture in a written form. No folly can be greater than theirs who extol the Bible with the highest praise as divine and perfect, and yet deny that we can obtain from it a certain assurance about the nature of any one doctrine which it contains.

With this exception, every principle implied in the reasonings of our Tractarian Brahmin is questionable or untrue. In the first place, Mr. Sewell gives a mere parody of the views which he seeks to overthrow. "The book is to be placed before every individual, and each individual is to read it by himself, and to form from it his own opinions." Now there is no class, even of orthodox dissenters, who would not reject the principle in this bare and naked form. They do not hold that the Bible is to be thrown down at hazard before the most ignorant, without the use of other helps for leading men to its true meaning. Let simple facts decide. Have dissenters, or have they not, tracts and catechisms, sermons and works of divinity, sunday schools at home for the ignorant, and missionaries abroad for the heathen? If all these facts are notorious and undeniable, Mr. Sewell is fighting with a windmill of his own construction. The class who are really the most open to his strictures might reject them, in their present shape, as calumnious and absurd.

The next maxim of our Author, by which the Brahmin confounds his luckless antagonist, is that heretical perversions disprove the sufficiency of the Bible as a rule of faith. This is a favourite argument of the Tractarian school, and yet it involves three glaring fallacies. We have no warrant for expecting the universal acknowledgment of the truth, as the effect of any rule of faith whatever. We might, with equal reason, draw a proof that Christianity itself is false, from the fact of its rejection by the greater part of mankind. Next, the true cause of such perversions is concealed and kept out of sight, as if they arose from the obscurity of God's word, and not from the natural darkness of the fallen heart. And what is this but to establish the need of tradition on the virtual denial of the veracity of God himself? And, finally, these writers call up a Mephistophiles, a scornful spirit of doubt, which on their own principles they have no power to lay. For if the divinity of our Lord be so obscurely revealed in the Scriptures as their objection implies, who will have the controversial impudence to affirm that the binding authority of the Fathers in the fourth and fifth centuries, or of "the great Church writers of the seventeenth century," is to be found in the Bible, expressed in plainer terms? The heretic, from the pride of fallen reason, rejects or perverts plain and repeated texts of Holy