ertions of the sister University, the present work from the pen of its Regius Professor of Divinity, would furnish one.

As members of the Church of England, we receive with satisfaction the present work, and all of a similar nature, convinced that the Church can lose nothing by the keenest inquiry; on the contrary, that her tenets will always receive additional confirmation from being compared with the authority from which they profess to be derived. Nor can moderate and well-meaning dissenters be justly displeased at the use of such means for adding strength to our cause. We grant that they are entitled to the most perfect toleration, and to receive, at our hands, the utmost regard for their opinions that a man can possibly feel for opinions which he conscientiously believes to be erroneous. But it is our duty to speak and write in favor of that which we deem worthy of all praise; and no dissenter can be offended at our claiming and exercising that right which he himself claims and

exercises.

The learned Professor begins with a few remarks upon the dissensions and divisions which have agitated the Church, from its earliest institution to the present time, notwithstanding the strong and urgent recommendations to unanimity and concord, with which the Sacred Writings abound. Though sensible of the evils with which the abuse of controversy, rather than controversy itself, is attended, he maintains, that a large portion of good has resulted from the investigations to which these dissensions and divisions have given rise; and that the faith itself has received support and confirmation from the polemical treatises which these contests have provoked from her pious supporters. On this subject there is a passage containing some very excellent advice to controversialists, recommending a line of conduct, which, it is to be lamented, has not been uniformly pursued by writers of this description. He reprobates that spurious kind of liberality, which would teach us to regard with equal complacency every diversity of religious opinion;" and proves from the admonition in the text, "to exhort and to convince the gainsayers," that controversy is often necessary. He then shows the necessity which exists, of adhering to some general principles of Scripture-Interpretation, as a means of making it effectual to the preservation of Christian truth and unity.

To agree in the interpretation of scripture, there must be a concurrence in the general principles of interpretation. Some variety of opinion may indeed be expected, notwithstanding such a general concurrence: but a variation so circumstanced can hardly involve an error, on either side, dangerous or incapable of adjustment. On

the other hand, a radical disagreement concerning these first princi ples of the subject to be discussed, precludes the hope of bringing men to be "perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

He makes the proper distinction between Scripture-Criticism, and Scripture-Interpretation; and announces his intention to confine himself to the latter. He unfolds the plan of his work, and proposes to consider in the second Sermon, "the moral qualifications requisite for a right apprehension of the sacred word." In the discussion of this subject he institutes an inquiry into the cause of religious error, which, he shows, may be "ascribed partly to human perverseness, and partly to the influence of a spiritual adversary operating upon fallen man's predisposition to evil." That" the will of man is deeply concerned in every departure from the truth," is a proposition which he proves to be contained in the text-" If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God;" an observation, which, though immediately applied to the Jews, he shows to be generally applicable. To demonstrate "the connection of a right or wrong interpretation of Scripture with a good or evil disposition," he very properly observes,

That in the pursuit of every kind of knowledge, an earnest desire to obtain correct views of it, greatly facilitates the labor, and is necessary to ensure its success. And if this be true of other studies, still more evidently is it so in that of revealed religion. It is a circumstance which distinguishes this from every other study, that the knowledge it obtains is derived from the authority of an Instructor, whose wisdom is infallible, and whose will is above control. It is essential to the sincere enquirer, that he should enter upon the research with this consideration deeply engraven upon his mind. Such moral dispositions as are requisite in other pursuits, and especially that love of truth, which is the powerful stimulus to improvement of every kind, are doubtless indispensable also in the character of the sacred interpreter. But to complete that character, something more is also required. The Bible has pretensions exclusively its own. In his interpretation of it, the critic must ever bear in mind, that it is the work of sacred penmen, not of unassisted human powers; therefore, not only an ordinary solicitude to avoid error, but also a readiness to submit, where the subject requires it, the understanding and the affections to what is propounded on such authority, become the duty of the theological student; a duty, never to be unconditionally exacted, where the composition is merely human, never to be on any pretence dispensed with, where it is confessedly Divine.

In the justice of the sentiment expressed in this extract, the reader, we are persuaded, will acquiesce.-We are then cautioned against supposing, that those frequent declarations of

Scripture respecting the efficacy of moral qualifications, include any kind of promise of such supernatural aid as shall enable the enquirer to dispense with the exercise of his natural faculties. We are assured, however, that, though those qualifications will not be found an infallible guide to truth, they are a powerful preservative from error; and that to the want of them are to be attributed the infidelity of some, and the heresies of others. As an additional inducement to the cultivation of sound moral habits, we are told

That the enquirer after religious truth, cultivating this genuine. disposition to know and to do the will of God, may well confide in that communication of heavenly aid, which, if duly sought for, will not fail to be bestowed, as a blessing upon his endeavours, by him, who "giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not." In whatever point of view we consider the subject, we shall find this position incontrovertibly established, that the willing and ingenuous mind, the free and unrestrained surrender of every thought and purpose, of every imagination and affection, to the all-perfect will of God, is the first principle of religious duty, the germ of every thing which is afterwards to expand and ripen into action. It is that, which can alone produce the fruits of sound Christian knowledge; and to which, when duly planted and watered by human industry, the Divine Benefactor will assuredly give the increase.

The Sermon concludes with recommending caution in not being too hasty in imputing a want of moral qualifications on ordinary occasions to others, or too slow in suspecting a want of them in ourselves.

In the third and fourth Sermons we are called to a consideration of this text of Scripture-" If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God"-the meaning of which, according to the Professor's explanation, is,

Let him, both as to the Doctrine and the Interpretation, be careful to advance nothing contrary to those sacred oracles, nothing that may bring into competition with them authority of a different kind. The question then, which it is in the first place necessary to determine, is this:

Whether there be any authority paramount, or even equivalent to the Sacred Word, which, either as jointly connected with it, or as its judicial superior, may claim our unreserved obedience? If there be any such, the sincere inquirer after truth must submit to its pretensions. If there be not, to admit such pretensions is not only superfluous but dangerous; as derogation from the authority which possesses the rightful claim.

And here, he observes, it will be found,

That we have three distinct parties to contend with, all widely differing from each other, yet all asserting principles injurious to the just pre-eminence of scriptural authority. The first of these, the Papist, insists upon the necessity of an infallible Judge or Interpreter

of doctrine, in the person of some visible Head of the Church, from whom there shall be no appeal. The second, comprising various sects, contends, that every doctrine of Holy Writ must bend to the decision of human reason as the supreme judge in matters of Faith. The third, a multifarious order of Interpreters, gives supreme sway to a supposed inward light, or immediate communication from the Holy Spirit, supplementary to Scripture, and infallible as well as irresistible in its operations.

Our limits will not permit us to follow the author through the very powerful arguments which he brings to disprove the pretensions of the Church of Rome to infallibility; and the authority of unwritten traditions. The far greater part of our readers need not to be convinced that those pretensions have no foundation whatever, either in the Bible or in reason. All that was requisite to put at rest a question of this nature, was accomplished long ago; and were it not that certain recent events have communicated to this subject an interest and importance which it had long ceased to possess, it might now have been passed by in silence. Neither will it be necessary on the second topic, to say more than that we completely agree with the author in his condemnation of those, who look upon it as a noble and glorious task, to bring the doctrines of celestial wisdom into a certain subjection to the precepts of their philosophy, and to make deep and profound researches into the intimate and hidden nature of those truths, which the Divine Saviour had delivered to his disciples." It is surely the height of absurdity to make reason the judge of things placed so completely beyond the reach of reason, that, as our author justly remarks, they can be received only upon the credit of the Sacred Oracles, being to our apprehensions incapable of any thing resembling a scientific demonstration :" nor are we more inclined to admit the assertions of those, who maintain that reason is of no avail in the interpretation of divine truth, and assert the necessity of a miraculous heavenly illumination. The first of these errors would lead us into Socinianism and infidelity; the second into religious absurdity and fanaticism. The proper province of reason, with respect to Scripture-Interpretation, is easily ascertained; and let us not endeavour to extend it further than it can or ought to be extended; nor, on the other hand, let us deny it that influence to which it has a just claim. We shall make a short extract from this very excellent discourse, conveying a caution which deserves to be had in remembrance. With reference to the errors we have now been considering, let us remember that there are lights which dazzle and mislead; which blind the judgment instead of showing objects in their true shades

and colors." Take heed," therefore, it is the emphatical warning of the Redeemer himself; "Take heed that the light which is in thee be not darkness!"

After having exposed the erroneous opinions of others upon these subjects, the author, in his fourth sermon, proceeds to enquire what is the true opinion; that is to say, "what deference is justly due to Church authority, to human reason, and to the ordinary assistance of the Holy Spirit." He settles with precision the degree of obedience, with respect to articles of Faith, which the Church may lawfully exact from her members.

The Papist looks to one visible Head of the whole Christian Church, the universal arbiter of religious controversies, infallible in his decisions, and from whom there is no appeal. The Protestant acknowledges no such universal Head, nor deems the Church itself, acting even by its legitimate rulers, to be either gifted with infalli bility, or vested with such authority as may annul the right of its individual members to appeal to Scripture itself. The Church, he contends, has no lawful power to enjoin any doctrine or observance militating against the written Word. And the reason is this: that the authority of the Church being derived from Scripture, as the charter by virtue of which it governs, it cannot with impunity violate the charter itself. It is the constituted Guardian of the truth, and may do whatever the Scripture enjoins or permits, for the government and edification of the body at large; though it cannot originate, as of its own right, doctrines or duties really necessary to salvation.

He then goes on to determine the deference due to the writings of the primitive Fathers of the Church, and the use and value of ecclesiastical antiquity; and in the conclusion to which he comes, he appears to have avoided alike the error of those who ascribe too much weight to the decision of those ancient worthies, and of those who ascribe to them too little.

We do not claim for them any infallibility, any commission to make further revelations of the divine will, or any absolute authority as Scripture-interpreters. The appeal still lies from them, as from all other religious instructors, to that Word itself, which was no less their rule of faith than it is ours: and the highest degree of deference that can be due to them, may be paid without any infringement of that inviolable maxim, "If any man speak, let him speak

as the oracle of God."

We cannot dwell upon the other two heads of this discourse. Our space permits us only to say that the limits imposed to the excursions of our natural reason, appear to us very correctly defined; and that the extent of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, upon which, in furtherance of our own efforts, we may rely, is marked out so as to agree with the declarations of