THIS Work, from one of the ablest writers of the Oxford School, and has considerable literary merit, and still greater theological defects. We deem it desirable, then, to give it some short notice, as it is purposely thrown into a popular form. Its lively style, the important truths it contains, the real talent of the author, and we may add, the needless affectation of great depth of thought, make the danger all the greater, with young and incautious readers, of imbibing the false and unscriptural doctrines with which it is too deeply imbued.

Our limits forbid us to enter into a full analysis of the work, nor do we profess to give a full review, in which we might find many points to commend, though still more to deprecate and blame. We must be content with pointing out in succession, some of those fatal defects which render it wholly unfit for Protestant, Evangelical churchmen, to place as a manual in the hands of their children.

If

1. First, the title itself is deceptive, and truth, even in a title-page is a branch of Christian morality. A work on Christian morals, if designed, as the introduction implies, for young readers, should be mainly occupied in unfolding the various branches of duty, from Christian motives, and on scriptural grounds. written for deeper students, as stated in the preface, it would first unfold the basis of moral obligation in the Divine perfections, and the relations of God's intelligent creatures to God himself, and to each other; next, it would trace the fresh relations introduced by the fall of man, and the revealed plan of redeeming

mercy in Christ; and lastly, unfold to our view the stately temple of Christian holiness in all its fair proportions, and bring the high motives of the Gospel to bear on the heart of the Christian in every various lesson of practical obedi

ence.

Most of these topics will be sought for in vain in the present work. It professes two inconsistent objects, and it fulfils neither. It is in truth a string of metaphysical Essays, slightly connected with each other, and with the main subject, too abstruse for the young reader, and far too superficial, cursory, and dogmatic, for the thoughtful student. The following headings may give some idea of its contents:- - Books alone not instructive-Ministers of religion how to be distinguished--intruders to be rejected-Rationalism-Eclecticism Syncretism-Plurality reconciled with unity-Duality the law of creation-Majority no good criterion-Importance of triflesUse of Mystery-Exorcism-Possession, (demoniacal) -External world a law--Nature of fancyBlessings given at Baptism, not merely offered-Trinity in man— Justification, (i. e. by Baptism)— Predestination-Seventeenth Article-Use of theory-Confirmation Holy Communion Pleasure, Pain, Happiness.'

Besides the deception in the title, two grave objections lie against a work on Christian Morals' so composed. The abstruseness of its topics will bewilder and perplex simple readers. They will find little to nourish practical holiness, and much to engender speculative pride; while the profusion of fan ciful illustrations may dazzle them

into a blind adoption of dangerous errors. Really deep thinkers, on the other hand, will be repelled by the superficial treatment to which so wide a range of topics of necessity leads. They will not be content, with the author, to rove, like butterflies, from one theme to another, or glance on fifty topics, each of which requires the most profound and careful thought. They will justly claim for the author less profession of depth, and more of the reality.

2. The first chapter is an address to young readers, to prove that books alone are not instructors. Now it may be true, that some in the present day, have an exaggerated view of the efficacy of human writings, taken alone: but the author, both here and in many other places, in striving to expose an error, reasons falsely, and wanders as widely from the truth on the other side. He cannot refute rationalism, without advocating implicit faith; he cannot denounce lawlessness, without proscribing Christian liberty; or maintain the privileges of Baptism, without perverting them into the monstrous assertion, that the baptized Christian has nothing whatever to gain, but is in present possession of everlasting salvation.

So it is here. The words,' he says, 'which I use are all ambiguous, and may be made by an ingenious reader to mean one thing or another. If you are either lazy, or partial, or ignorant, or stupid, you will certainly err.' But does the author think, as the words in their connexion imply, that by his oral instructions he can preserve lazy, partial, stupid, and ignorant pupils from error? Thoughtful readers will hardly rate his powers so high, and will suspect that he has followed his own prescription, and filled his mind with innocent fairy tales and visions of fancy,' instead of the humbling lessons of practical experience.

66

These are some of the reasons, why wise men of old, wiser than any of us in this century, would have opened their eyes with the utmost contempt, if any one had proposed to make you a good Christian or citizen by means of a book. The Spirit of God however has proposed to effect, nay, more, in ten thousand cases has actually effected this very thing. The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimonies of the Lord are sure, making wise the simple; moreover by them is thy servant warned." The law, the testimonies, and the statutes, are only a book, a little book, and yet the Spirit of truth himself ascribes to them this mighty power. The contempt of these wise men would have been grievously mis-placed; even their wisdom very questionable; and perhaps the simplest devout student of God's word, might say with truth of Mr. Sewell's authorities, "I am wiser than the ancients, for thy testimonies are my meditation." The secret, we hope not the designed tendency of this introduction is to magnify the difficulties, and depreciate the practical worth of God's written word.

3. The second chapter is on faith in testimony,' and its grand maxim, that external, historical testimony of God's revealed will is the only true basis of moral science.' The maxim is false and dangerous. The true basis of morality is the perfection of the Divine nature, and the essential relations between God and his intelligent creatures, and of those creatures with each other. Historical reve

lation is the main channel of our knowledge of moral science, but this is very different from being its only basis. Indeed the author's sentiment here is quite inconsistent with other parts of his work. And the error is not slight, but funda- ́ mental. To make external revelation the sole basis of morality, is to uproot morals and religion to

gether. Christianity itself could then have no moral claim upon our acceptance, and the moral laws of God no unchanging force or obligation. Even to make external revelation the exclusive channel of this knowledge is not sanctioned by the Apostle, who tells us that Gentiles which have not a law of outward revelation, are a law unto themselves.

'You ought to exercise no judgment of your own, in opposition to accredited testimony. Belief is natural, doubt is not; belief is a virtue, doubt is a sin. ... You read Bruce's Travels,—what harm arises from believing them to be true, even though they were false? And what good proceeds from doubting?

For it is better to have the mind filled with innocent fairy tales and visions of fancy, than to keep it empty, cold, and lonely.'

What strange doctrine for a Professor of Christian Morals!

6

We ought to exercise no judgment of our own.' Then why does the Spirit of God command us to prove all things? Why does his inspired Apostle give the direction to Corinthians, "I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say.” Why does the Holy Ghost commend the Bereans as more noble, because they searched the Scriptures daily "whether those things were so?" And why the unmeaning contradictory limitation in opposition to accredited testimony,' if our own judgment is already proscribed? How can we then tell what testimony is or is not worthy of credit? • Belief is a virtue, doubt is a sin!' And this applied by the author himself, to the reception of errors and falsehoods. The beloved Apostle teaches an opposite lesson. "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they be of God." Here we see, doubt may be virtue, and belief a sin; and so indeed it is always, in the case of false teachers. Has the author ever re

flected, that what he here commends is expressly denounced by the Spirit of God, and that to believe a lie is comprehensive of all wickedness? It is dangerous even for the sake of filling the mind with innocent fairy tales and visions of fancy,' to make void the solemn command of God.

Let us now compare together these two first maxims of the author. Books are so ambiguous as to be of little help towards a knowledge of morals. External historical Christianity is the sole basis of moral science. The conclusion, though not stated in the work, is evident to a child—that the only morality possible for man is implicit submission to the teaching, whatever it may be, of the Christian priesthood. And what is this, but Popery, full grown, and undisguised?

4. The third chapter is on Ministers of Religion, and the Catholic Church.' Let us here observe what the author asserts of the holy men who lived fifteen hundred years ago. Many more strange facts might be stated of them, not the least that it is their testimony to which, in the present day, we must look back through the long mist of years, whenever we want to know what is good and evil. These are the persons to whom you must look, by whose testimony you must abide, if ever your parent or your king seem to betray their trust?

Not a few persons, Mr. S. adds, when they read this, will think that a little book containing such notions, can only lead to mischief. They have much reason for their view. For what do the words imply? That the Nicene Fathers are the men by whose testimony we must abide, the final standard to us of good and evil. Why then does St. Paul warn the Ephesian elders, regularly authorised and ordained. Of your own selves, shall men rise speaking per

verse things? Why does the Spirit of God tell us that "the mystery of iniquity doth already work," if the writers of the third and fourth centuries are to be taken for our infallible guides? Why does our own church teach us" Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith." And how can doctrine so opposed to the standards of our church, and the current of God's holy word, lead to anything but mischief?

At page 17, we have the following statement as to those who profess to be ministers of God in the land. They differ very much as to the nature of the message: and in particular, each declares that he himself is the only one right, and that all others who have not the same credentials with himself are impostors.' We were not before aware of this startling fact. Our author should be content to shroud himself in the damp shades of Romish bigotry, without seeking to involve all his brethren in the same darkness. The clergy regard the Presbyterian Dissenting Ministers and Romish priests, all as irregular, some wilfully and schismatic, others as heretical and idolatrous; but they have learned to wound them without distinction, as impostors; still less is any of them so absurd as to set up himself as the only true and faithful teacher. This would be to surpass the arrogance of Rome.

not

Once more, these powers (of the clergy) are very great, they are even awful; if not truly conferred by God, they are blasphemously assumed by men.

The promises of bringing down the Deity from heaven, and infusing his own Spirit into the souls of miserable mortals, this which is nothing more than the everyday

promise of the church, proclaimed and administered by every minister of the church, every time that he stands at the font, or serves at the altar. Should we not expect that such a lie, if lie it be, must long since have drawn down vengeance on the blasphemer, instead of being preserved for eighteen hundred years as a great and holy treasure, the palladium of the church, the corner-stone of the Christian faith?'

Now we allow that it is possible, barely possible, to put a sound construction on this passage. We know that rich and glorious promises, of which the sacraments are appointed seals, are proclaimed and administered by those who bear the commission of Christ. Nay, more, we believe that all those who "bring the doctrine of Christ," 2 John 10. though perhaps culpably irregular themselves, proclaim and administer that which is the power of God unto salvation. If this be the author's meaning, we only regret that he has expressed it so obscurely. The meaning however which seems intended, and lies on the face of the passage, is that the Bishop or Episcopal Presbyter, by virtue of his orders, has the inherent power of infusing God's Holy Spirit into the soul' of the child at the font, and of bringing down the Deity from heaven' into the sacramental elements at the altar.' Now this, we do solemnly believe, is blasphemous. We suspect it is the very blasphemy written upon that power, which doeth great wonders, insomuch that he bringeth down fire from heaven upon earth in the sight of men. We believe this doctrine of the priestly infusion and transfusion of grace, is the very breath of life to the lamb-like apostacy of Rome, which claims these powers broadly, and without reserve, and that nothing but the riches of God's long-suffering which exceeds our thoughts,

had delayed that vengeance of heaven on the blasphemy which awards it still. The Romanist has waived the powers, but he confesses to have altered the doctrines in the course of their transmission, According to the Professor, thus the Romish priest' has the power of bringing down the Deity from heaven, and infusing his Holy Spirit into the souls of miserable mortals, every time that he stands by the font or serves at the altar.' According to the articles which he has subscribed, the sacrifices of the masses were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.' Who shall reconcile our author's statement with his subscription. Has God committed to the enacters of blasphemous fables' the power of bringing himself down at will from heaven, or can the Holy Spirit be infused into the soul' by the workers of dangerous deceits?' Where, again, is the warrant for the other assertion, that Romanists confess they have chang

ed the doctrines? The Church of Rome, like the woman in Proverbs, is clamorous and stubborn, as well as moveable in her ways, and avers boldly that she has changed nothing.

The bearing of this chapter on the Protestant faith of the Church of England, may be summed then as follows. The author concedes to the Papal hierarchy all the powers which they claim, and he protests against them on a ground which is utterly false and untenable.

Let us connect this unmeaning protest with the principles of the two former chapters, and we shall see that a way is paved for his readers

'Smooth, easy, inoffensive' back to Rome.

ness of statement, travesties a great truth, and turns it into a gross absurdity. Our Lord did not come to destroy the natural rights or offices of parents and rulers, but to complete them with fuller light, sanction them by higher motives, and strengthen them by a fresh provision of divine grace. The maxim, as it stands, would make anarchy, rebellion, and filial disobedience, matters of divine right in all families or nations that have not received the message of the gospel. Did our space allow, we might easily shew that whatever sense we assign to the words the Catholic church,' the statement is unscriptural and dangerous. Its full developement may be found in the Papal maxim, Oaths contrary to the interests of Holy Church, are not to be counted oaths, but perjuries.'

6. The fifth chapter compares 'Heathen with Christian ethics. The chief object is to prove that implicit faith in teachers is required in both. If you study them at all, you must begin by taking the word of their respective teachers as a guarantee for their truth. If I offer you a sovereign, you may doubt if it be good, but unless you take it in your hand, as if it were good, and proceed to make some purchase with it, you will never know whether it be good or bad. You are told a river is ten feet deep. You do not believe it. Will not believing it shew you whether it is so or not? No, you will act at once as if it were that depth. You take a pole of that length and sound, and the proof is there at once."

This passage may serve to measure the logical worth of those illustrations with which the work abounds. The facts are coined to suit the theory. Let us try them in the present case. You doubt if the sovereign is good, you ring it, or look at its marks, or apply to a better judge; but if it is bad, and