distinguished from all other sects of the christian religion: for all other sects believe and venerate the Bible; they may indeed find fault with each others' books; but to Puseyism belongs the frightful distinction of finding fault with God's book, and thereby either confirming men in their wickedness or driving them out of the only ark of safety and of peace into all the fearful darkness of infidelity.

How important then is the question, what is the rule of faith? or, what is that standard by which we should try the correctness of our religious views, feelings, and conduct? The men of trade and commerce, and of art and science, know that nothing could save them from inextricable confusion without some acknowledged standard of propriety or excellence. How much more important is it then upon the subject of religion, with which all men should be solemnly and inseparably connected? Without a settled rule we shall be out at sea, without a compass or a guide, tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine,-first taking refuge in one opinion, then in another, till at length we shall be dissatisfied with all, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Now we can say that the "Holy Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus," and by virtue of

their unborrowed and inextinguishable light, can throw a lustre on the obscurities of our present condition-and conduct us into the path of everlasting life. But the most prevailing* sentiment of Tractarianism on the rule of faith is this: it must consist of three co-equal elements: first, the bible (with those exceptions and cautions, ut supra): secondly, tradition, consisting of creeds, confessions of faith, and what are called the writings of the fathers. But then, thirdly, there is another element, without which the rule would be incomplete, and that is the authoritative teaching of the clergy. Thus no progress can be made, and no step can be taken in religion without them. The bible is nothing without tradition, and both combined are nothing without the clergy.

But who are the Fathers that we should obey them? It will not do to say that the + bible cannot be explained without them, for if we cannot understand Peter and Paul, how can we understand Clement, or Justin Martyr,

They have recently adopted the theory of development as propounded by Mohler and de Maistre which requires us to believe that Divine institutions exist only in germ in the scriptures, and are left to be developed and expanded by the progress of events and necessities.

This will certainly smooth the way for any future changes in the system, and will greatly facilitate a full and unreserved declaration in favor of Rome.

Whether my sentiments on baptismal regeneration are according to the Scripture is not the question; but are they according to the teachings of the Church.-Bishop of London.

the commentaries of Cyril, Ambrose. Augustine, and other fathers on the Lord's Prayer there are puerilities and absurdities which a sunday school scholar would not be guilty of.

N

or St. Chrysostom, and how can the patristic writings be more clearly, or more easily interpreted than the sacred writings*? It is not denied that some of the Fathers were most excellent and most enlightened men, and most useful men: in some cases they might be nearly equal to Leighton, or Matthew Henry, or Newton, or Dr. Doddridge; but if the "engrafted word is able to save our souls," what can we want besides: how many are in heaven, and how many are on the road to heaven, who never heard of the Fathers; and what would they have been the better for it if they had heard of them?-why then should we place them on an equality with the bible, or make the commandments of God of none effect by their traditions?

And what is the use of creeds and catechisms, and confessions of faith? To secure uniformity of belief. But did they ever secure this desirable object? To say nothing of that heterogeneous mass called the laity: is it not true that all the clergy subscribe the same

* Some fathers are against others—the same fathers against themselves the consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age-the church of one age against the church of another age.-Chillingworth.

+ James-1.-21.

Clement of Rome, believed in the fab'e of the Phoenix. and Justin Martyr believed that the angels married the daughters of the children of men. Some of these fathers advocated the right of infants to the Lord's supper, that ministers should never marry-and even greater absurdities than these. Then what a number of them,- the writers extending over a thousand years; some are translated; but others remain untranslated to this day. The cost of a complete set of the fathers is about 200-how then is the poor man to become acquainted with re religion?

.

articles, and yet that the ministers of no denomination exhibit so many differences of opinion in the ministrations of the pulpit as they do. The Wesleyan preachers are remarkably uniform, the Baptist and Independent are so to a great extent; but the very ministers who have all solemnly sworn to be the same, differ more than any others; for Calvinists, Arminians, Arians, Millenarians, Antinomians, and ministers partaking of all the sectarian peculiarities of the present day are to be found in the established church.

The Oxford party wish us to give up the exercise of private judgment,* and to submit to the authoritative teaching of the clergy, but to which of the clergy should we submit? Even in the city of Canterbury there is now some diversity of sentiment-but in other places there is the greatest diversity among those who profess to be the only authorized teachers of the Word of God. But how absurd the idea, that truth is changeable, and that it is not the same in every parish in the kingdom, and in every country in the world.

The very genius of Puseyism requires you to make the clergy all in all:-to their guidance, body, soul, and spirit resign yourselves;about the meaning of the bible, or the care of your souls, have no concern;-cast all your

แ

* A clergyman in Oxford has uttered curses so loud and deep against private judgment," as to obtain the somewhat unenviable appellation of cursing" Palmer.-J. P. Hewlett, Dover.

care upon the priest, for he careth for you. This would all do very well if the priest could be religious for you,-could answer for you, and if, in the event of your condemnation, could be damned for you; but if you must answer for yourself, if every one of us must give an account of himself to God,- and if your soul can have no proxy before him, then read for yourselves, and judge for yourselves, and go to God by Jesus Christ for yourselves: you are, or you may be in the possession of all the information God was ever pleased to vouchsafe on the subject of religion. Men of high sounding names, and connected with imposing ceremonies, and with what are called the venerable usages of antiquity, may assume unwonted airs, but don't be afraid. All this brings them no honour from God, confers on them no dignity, and no useful quality, and makes them no nearer the kingdom of Heaven. Not all that the world is worth can give them access to any sources of information about the will of God, that does not lie within the reach of the humblest individual that ever lived. Then, as a rule of faith, away with Tradition-away with creeds and catechisms, and confessions of faith-away with the contradictory or Jesuitical teachings of the clergy, and to "the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."*

Isaiah, 8-20.