is ordinarily obtained by means of human testimony. The ordinance of preaching is the instituted means of our being put in possession of the knowledge of the truth, and of our being brought to recognize its Divine evidence and authority. Faith, the only basis of which is, the Divine testimony, "cometh by "hearing." It is by Faith we receive that testimony as the sufficient evidence that the things revealed are true: but, to the knowledge of what is actually contained in the Sacred Scriptures, we are introduced by human teaching. In this sense, then, we must admit with the present Writer, that the Church, using the word in our own sense, must teach, or publish, what the Scriptures are alone competent to prove.

That the Scriptures were not designed to supersede the necessity of a standing ministry, and that the mere reading of the Scriptures without the aid of human teaching, is not ordinarily sufficient for the instruction of mankind, are positions which few Protestant Dissenters will be found inclined to dispute. Among no class of society are Biblical commentaries and other theological writings illustrative of Scripture, held in so high estimation; and a very large proportion of this species of literature has been furnished by their own teachers. The importance of preaching and of catechetical instruction, may almost be termed a tenet of Nonconformity; so much so, that Hooker devotes a long section to shewing, that the public reading of the Scriptures, is an efficient species of preaching, in opposition to those controvertists who maintained the necessity of expository discourses as the ordinary means of saving men. Hooker was evidently in favour of the sufficiency of the Bible without note or comment. For I would know,' he says, by some special instance, what one article of Christian faith, or what duty ' required necessarily unto all men's salvation there is, which the very reading of the Word of God is not apt to notify.' Reading doth convey to the mind that Truth without addition or diminution, which Scripture hath derived from the Holy 'Ghost.' Again In belief there be but these two operations, Apprehension and Assent. Do only Sermons cause belief, in that no other way is able to explain the mysteries of God 'that the mind may rightly apprehend or conceive of them as 'behooveth? We all know that many things are believed al· though they be intricate, obscure, or dark, although they ex'ceed the reach and capacity of our wits, yea, although in this 'world they be no way possible to be understood. Many things 'believed are likewise so plain that every common person may 'therein be unto himself a sufficient expounder. Finally, to ex'plain even those things which need and admit explication, many other usual ways there are besides Sermons. Is it in regard 'then of Sermons only, that apprehending of the Gospel of

Christ, we yield thereunto our unfeigned assent as to a thing infallibly true? They which rightly consider after what sort the heart of man hereunto is framed, must of necessity acknow'ledge, that whoso assenteth to the words of life, doth it in regard of his authority whose words they are.' Scripture is not so hard but that the only reading thereof may give life to willing hearers.'

It is singular how opinions rise and fall, and how sometimes they seem to change sides. The neglect of the public reading of the Scriptures, is certainly not chargeable upon Protestant Dissenters in the present day; and we suspect that even at the time that Cartwright wrote, the private reading of the Scriptures was a more general practice among the Puritans than among their adversaries. We know they laid no small stress upon catechetical instruction. The system exhibited in the venerable and masterly compilation of the Assembly of Divines, is precisely that which Mr. Hawkins contends for: the doctrine of the Church is accompanied in every instance with the Scriptural proof, and both were designed to be committed to memory together. In what is familiarly denominated the "Church "Catechism," on the contrary, the only proofs adduced, are, the Decalogue and the Paternoster, which contain no evidence of any one doctrine peculiar to Christianity.

The "Assembly's Catechism," is still in very general use among the Congregational Dissenters, as a part of that series of catechetical instructions which are adopted in their seminaries, their Sunday Schools, and in private families. An objection to its being taught prevails, however, among one denomination, but this is on account of its including the doctrine of Infant Baptism. In some quarters, we are aware that it is upon other grounds objected to. There are many respectable individuals who are for employing exclusively the language of Scripture, in teaching the doctrines of the New Testament. Aware of the mischief which has been done by schismatical contentions for particular phrases, and by the over-refinements of systematic theology, they run into the opposite extreme of rejecting all human explanations of Scripture, all articles of faith and formularies, as a part of private instruction. They seem to consider the mere teaching of these expositions of Divine Truth, as a sort of infringement of the right of private judgement; as if what was committed to memory, and repeated by rote, was in the least degree more imposed upon the belief, than the discourses of the pulpit! Yet, to the latter means of prejudicing the mind of the pulpit, these same individuals are not found to raise any objection. On the contrary, where catechisms and creeds are the most ostentatiously rejected, we have sometimes witnessed a more than ordinary anxiety that the opinions should in other ways be

trained in a certain direction, and that the learner should very distinctly be taught both what the Scriptures are held to contain, and what they are not allowed to prove.

In point of fact, the principle for which Mr. Hawkins contends, is, more or less, universally acted upon, except where religious instruction is altogether neglected. But we think that it may not be wholly unnecessary to have it thus distinctly brought forward before the public attention; more especially as the application of the principle, involves duties of no small importance.Mr. Hawkins expresses his regret, that, in the English 'churches,' catechetical instruction has grown extensively into disuse; by which he means, not the disuse of the Church Catechism, but of the catechetical mode of public teaching; and he attributes mainly to this neglect, the familiar fact of persons of talent and general information in various branches of polite learning, frequenting our churches, moreover, joining in the Liturgy, listening to sermons, free from outward moral disqualifications 'for religious knowledge, but rather appearing to desire it-and yet, after all, ignorant of some main article of our faith or the foundation of a Christian's hopes.' Had Mr. Hawkins been conversant with the state of religious knowledge among the Dissenters, he might have enforced his argument, by adducing the superior degree of theological information which is found among their congregations, as an effect, in part, of the more general use of catechetical teaching.

With regard to the prejudice to which we have just alluded, respecting human expositions of the matter of belief, we should be grieved and alarmed to find it on the increase among them. The knowledge of Scripture is, like all other knowledge, obtainable in the first instance only through an expository medium; and the elements of knowledge systematically displayed, must be lodged in the memory, before the proof can be made palpable to the understanding. In that shape, they will not at first be understood; they must, therefore, be implicitly received, or not at all; they must partake of the nature of a prejudice, till the pupil is capable of having the grounds of his knowledge unfolded to him. But, says Hooker, as for those things which at the first are obscure and dark, when memory hath laid them up for a time, judgement afterwards growing, explaineth them." And we believe that the annals of Christian biography, would supply numberless instances in which religious truths thus laid up in the memory, at a time when they could not be understood, after long lying dormant, have put forth a seminal vigour, and origi nd the first salutary convictions that led to a change of character. Dugald Stewart has a remark which admits of useful application in this reference. In order to give a proper direc<tion to our attention in the course of our studies, it is,' he says,

useful, before engaging in particular pursuits, to acquire as familiar an acquaintance as possible with the great outlines of the different branches of science.' This end, systematic theology, and that familiar mode of exhibiting it, more especially, to which we are adverting, are designed to answer with respect to the study of the Scriptures; and where this means is neglected, even in cases in which an evangelical ministry is at hand to supply the deficiency of previous teaching, the character produced will rarely be that of a very firm, a very intelligent, or even a very Scriptural believer. A man who has no system, no opinions-we may add, no prejudices, can have little knowledge; for these serve as the vehicle of knowledge, which cannot subsist in the mind otherwise than as combined with the individual's previous notions, according to some more or less arbitrary mode of association. Systems are merely attempts to arrange the matter of our knowledge, according to the agreement of truth with itself; for which, those who reject all system, do but substitute, in general, a less formal and less advantageous arrangement, founded on the agreement of truth with their own speculations.

It is very true, that the knowledge of the truths of religion is not religion; that although to believe in them, is, in the highest sense, to know them, there may be a very correct apprehension of the doctrines of Revelation, where the character exhibits none of the signs of faith. But still, knowledge is a good, and it cannot but be good in its tendency; and its relation, as a means, to a saving faith, will hardly be denied, unless by those who hold that ignorance is the mother of devotion.

Let every true Christian then, reflect that he is, by virtue of his faith, constituted a keeper of tradition. We believe this to be sound Protestant doctrine, such as we are glad to receive from a member of the University of Oxford, because it is utterly subversive of those wild and pernicious claims which in no very distant days have been set up, to an exclusive prerogative on the part of the clerical order, as the guardians and authorized interpreters of Revealed Truth. We cannot too warmly commend the language in which Mr. Hawkins urges upon every parent and every master, the obligation their very profession of belief lays them under, to assist in spreading the elements of Christian knowledge, and in handing down to the next generation the tradition of the truth. Parental and domestic teaching,' he remarks" possess obvious advantages in this respect above every other vehicle of tradition.' It was the opinion of one of our most practical and most devotional Nonconformist divines, that were parents to discharge their duty in this respect, private teaching would be employed by the Almighty as the ordinary means of conversion. Implicit faith in human testimony however venerable, is, in matters of religion, most perilous. Tra

dition, let it come in what shape it may, yields no proof, has absolutely no authority. But yet, when it is thus presented in the form of parental teaching, commended to us by the experience, the affection, and, above all, the holy example of those to whom we owe our being, as the faith which served them to live by, and to die by,-the reasonable presumption which it affords in favour of those doctrines, is such as it were equally unwise and unnatural to reject; such as can scarcely mislead; and it is well adapted to dispose the mind to the attentive and submissive examination of that evidence which is authoritative and final.

But, further, Mr. Hawkins states, that any uninterrupted tra'dition of any given doctrine, brings with it a reasonable presumption of its truth.' Even prior to the proof that it is derived from the Scriptures, some faint presumption in its favour may 'be demanded, if the Church present it to our notice.' This position will require a cautious examination. What is meant by The Church? It is upon this point, that we suspect some discrepancy between the Writer's views and our own sentiments.

Were we, indeed, to take the word in the popular sense, as applying to the national profession of Christianity, we should have no difficulty in admitting, that a presumption in favour of the established religion,' quite strong enough to render a contempt previous to examination inexcusable, is supplied by that very circumstance. And this presumption would doubtless operate to a far greater extent than it does, in disposing men to embrace Christianity, were it not for other circumstances connected with an Ecclesiastical Establishment, which originate a presumption against Christianity, and give an opposite bias to the mind of the sceptic. The advice, however, which Mr. Hawkins offers to such persons, is excellent, supposing them to be inclined to enter upon religious inquiries. Let the first ( step be,' he says, to ascertain the paramount authority of the Holy Scriptures;' and then, should they appear intricate, indirect, unsystematic, let him have recourse to unauthoritative tradition, and, by the Scriptures themselves, prove the correctness of what is proffered to him as the substance of the Scriptures by the Church. Let him

try the validity of her system by what he had previously admitted as the only rule of faith, and thus abridge her creed, or add to it, or embrace it, as that rule shall give him occasion.'

This, again, is true Protestant doctrine. But will The . Church allow of this freedom? Will that Church which claims authority in matters of faith,' and which denounces, in one of her creeds, eternal destruction upon all who hold not with her in the specified articles, suffer herself to be thus dealt with? No: and here is the radical fallacy of talking of unauthorita