sideration of this theological objection, as powerfully urged by the author of "Ancient Christianity." In doing so he, no doubt, acts prudently; and we are, at any rate, glad to perceive indications of an impression upon one so much in the secret, that the times will not quite bear the full plenitude of the Catholic doctrine upon this subject. But it is a question which must not be flinched from on our side. A vital point is here at stake, and a great interest involved. It becomes all who would shun peril of idolatry to be cautious, when their faith in Church miracles conducts them into such ground as this. Again, the ecclesiastical miracles are generally ambiguous and tentative; cases where the effect may (if it ever happened) have been the mere result of natural causes, and where, upon the use of the same means, the desired effect is only sometimes produced. These are grievously suspicious indications; and it is no answer to say (as Mr. Newman does not hesitate to say) that several of the gospel miracles have been suspected on the same grounds. We do not deny that a miracle which was undeniably manifest and unambiguous to the spectators, may be so reported as to appear ambiguous in the narrative. But we say that such a narrative as leaves the nature of the miracle ambiguous, cannot be, by itself, a ground of our belief in the miracle. The gospel miracles in question, therefore, though they were adequate grounds of faith to those who saw them, are not (properly speaking) the grounds of our faith. The grounds of our faith are the clear and unambiguous miracles of the gospel; and the certainty of the other miracles to us is the result of the general authority of the Revelation, in which they are recorded, as established by the evidence of miracles about which there can be no rational room for doubt. When we know that certain persons have the power of working miracles, for the purpose of attesting their divine mission, then it is easier and more rational to suppose that a prima facie miracle (if the phrase can be tolerated), apparently wrought for that purpose, and certainly answering it, was a true one, even though the account of it is not specially guarded, than to suppose the contrary: because to suppose the contrary would be to suppose something which (though natural) would be more or less strange and out of the way; while to suppose this would be to suppose what, under the peculiar circumstances of the hypothesis, would be nothing strange at all; namely, that a person gifted with a certain power for a certain purpose should use it for that purpose. We had intended to illustrate these principles by a detailed examination of particular miracles, but we must reserve this part of the subject for a more favourable opportunity. POPULAR EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. BY WILLIAM SEWELL, D.D., late Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Oxford. London: Murray. 1843. THE present state of our theological literature is very remarkable, and may well startle a thoughtful observer. It is like the breaking up of a polar winter. The apathy which had long brooded over the formal portions of the Church seems passing away. The influence of mere habit and custom, in every religious community, is sensibly declining. Principles, whether for good or evil, are obtaining the mastery. Schools of thought are starting forth, like icebergs, from regions that of late were frost-bound in spiritual indifference; are creating fresh currents in society, and seem ready to dash against each other with gigantic power. Amidst the confusion, two main tendencies may be observed, steadily at work, and which give a clear warning of issues the most weighty and momentous. Romish principles, either diluted, or in a more open form, make daily advances, and are awakening deeper alarm and more earnest desires for union, among all Christians who value the pure gospel of salvation. Meanwhile religion, in some shape or other, is asserting its claims afresh to a wider dominion; enters, as one main element, into nearly every public discussion; and begins to vindicate its rightful and supreme control over every province of natural science, literary research, and social action. In this unwonted turmoil of mental activity, the works of Mr. Sewell have a distinct character of their own. They belong, in their general tone, to the Tractarian school; but with important differences and exceptions. They contain a strong protest against papal usurpation and Romish idolatry; a protest which does not seem, as in the leading Tractarians, a faint and reluctant whisper to appease the stubborn prejudices of his countrymen, but distinct, hearty, and sincere. Their extreme high-church principles are also modified by a large infusion of heathen philosophy. The two elements, indeed, as might be supposed, are not the most easy to combine; and the broken stumps of Greek metaphysics look uncommonly grotesque, when thus imbedded in the stratified sediment of church forms and human traditions. Brilliant thoughts and foolish paradoxes follow in rapid succession; exhortations to implicit faith in the parish clergyman, are mixed with ethics from Aristotle, and theories of Plato; and a lament over the disuse of exorcism and spittle in baptism is followed by deep and just reflections on the essential unity of goodness. The present work has less ostentation and more quiet seriousness than its two predecessors. It is also, in our opinion, much heavier in style, and more wearisome to the general reader. The title of "Popular Evidences" will prove, we suspect, peculiarly unsuitable. Mr. Sewell himself appears to have a secret suspicion of this truth; and while throwing out some hope of a continuation, in a short notice to the reader, observes very pithily that "it is idle to waste time in writing books, or to load the press with publishing them, if they are not read." The "Popular Evidences," however, though not likely to fulfil the promise of their title, deserve a careful review; since they may probably have a considerable influence, in the present state of opinion, on young students of divinity. The ability and reputation of the author, his evident seriousness of purpose, and the importance of the subjects discussed, may excuse a fuller notice of the work than either its literary or theological merit could of itself require. The general subject of the work is "Church authority," viewed as a part of the Christian evidences, and essential to the success of Missionary labours. The form adopted is the Platonic dialogue, in which the scene is laid on the banks of the Ganges, and the speakers are a Hindoo Brahmin, a dissenting missionary, and the author himself, in the guise of an Anglican clergyman. The two first chapters treat of idolatry, and the duty of labouring to convert the heathen. The third enters on the main topic, the necessity of the Creed, as well as the Scriptures, to ensure success in missionary labours. The two next continue the train of thought, by enforcing the need of an Apostolic Succession. Two others follow, on the continuity of Tradition, and the Athanasian Creed, and an eighth on the safeguard against the abuse of authority, in the free circulation of the Scriptures. The author then pursues rather more strictly the subject of Christian evidence. He dwells successively on the testimony of the state, the publication of the Bible, and the antiquity of revelation; and afterwards considers more in detail the New Testament, the Epistles and the Acts, Miracles and Prophecy, the Apostles themselves, and the Church, the Apostolic body. The main question which underlies these various topics, and forms the woof of the whole essay, is the use and true province of Church authority. Truth and error are here so closely mingled, that it is no easy task to separate them. We shall, therefore, confine ourselves mainly to an analysis of the third and two following chapters, which form the nucleus of the dissertation. But first we must protest seriously against the loose and unsound theology which ever and anon peers out on the surface of the dialogue. No ability, however great, no zeal, however earnest and sincere, can qualify a writer to be a safe guide to the Church, who contradicts the first elements of divine truth repeatedly, through mere inadvertence. Yet such is the case in the present volume. The Pelagian ethics of Aristotle, in every unguarded moment, replace the searching statements of God's most holy word. What shall we say, for instance, when St. Paul, before his conversion, is described in these terms, "a good man, steady in adherence to his national faith, and in obedience to the strictest of its rules, keeping a conscience void of offence both before God and man, but fully persuaded that Christianity was false?" Were the holy apostle now present among us, we can imagine the intense indignation with which he would reject this false and flattering picture, and replace it by the faithful portraiture of the Holy Ghost. "For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another." "Peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die; but God commendeth his love to us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Great prospects, it has been said, may be seen through small openings; and even this single expression reveals a strange contrast between the theology of our author and that of the holy and inspired apostle. A similar instance occurs at the very beginning of the work. The Brahmin inquires of his friend, whether he regards the Hindoo prayers and ablutions as mere idolatry : "Far from it, I replied; I am myself a servant and minister of the Most High God, and cannot ridicule devotion, even where I think it is accompanied with useless forms or evil errors. You believe in an Almighty God, and you come here to worship him, such as you believe him to be, and with forms which you have been taught to think will please and honour him. We also worship God, but such as we know him to be, and with forms which He himself has taught us. To believe in God is good, and to fear him is good, and to love him with all our hearts, and with all our minds, and with all our soul, and with all our strength; to worship him, to give him thanks, to put our whole trust in him, to call upon him, to honour his holy name and his word, and to serve him truly all the days of our life.' He who does this from the heart, even if he knows not the real nature of God, I cannot despise. Rather I honour and love him; and pray, as I hope and believe, that God may be preparing to bring him to the knowledge of his gospel. "Sir, he replied, after a pause, your words are good."-(pp. 2, 3.) What a deplorable confusion of thought is here, or rather, what an open contradiction to the first principles of Christian truth! The great commandment, which our Lord alone ever perfectly obeyed, and which the holiest believers have felt to surpass far their highest experience on earth, is here made a cheap and common attainment of unconverted heathens, and even of open idolators! Surely this is to darken counsel by words without knowledge, and thoroughly subverts the gospel of Christ in its very foundations. We doubt not that it was 66 an unintentional error"; but then such errors must entirely disqualify him who commits them for the high office to which Mr. Sewell aspires, of "laying a foundation for more enlarged and definite views of the great truths" of the Christian faith. But we must hasten to the main subject. Our Brahmin, the missionary, and their common teacher, are seated near the sacred banks of the Gunga, and the discussion begins. The inquiry is into the means of attaining Christian unity, as the first requisite for the conversion of the heathen :— : "Sir, said the missionary, I trust we do not differ so much as you would lead the Brahmin to suppose. We are both Christians, and all who believe the gospel of Christ, and love and serve him, are, we hope, united in one fellowship with him, however we may differ on some points of doctrine, or of mere outward discipline. Faith in Christ is all that is necessary to salvation, and this is all that we should both of us require from our heathen converts. You are not then, I replied, one of those who make light of disunion among Christians. You remember the last prayer of our Lord before he was delivered up to be crucified: Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.' And you remember that he laid down his life for his sheep, that they might all be brought to hear his voice, and be one fold under one shepherd.' And you acknowledge that all Christians should be what Christ's Apostle St. Paul describes them to be, like the body of a man: for as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one spirit......that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.' And though you do not conform to the prayers of our Church, you will not object to my reading one of them, which will show the Brahmin how earnestly we, the ordained ministers of the Church of England, are commanded to pray and strive that Christians may be one with each other, and that no such thing as dissension, by which name it is grievous that you should call yourselves, should be known among us. 66 6 "O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace; give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions. Take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatsoever else may hinder us from godly union and concord; that as there is but one Body, and one Spirit, and one Hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may henceforth be all of one heart, and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.' "Is there, I asked, in this prayer anything to which you cannot assent? "Certainly not, said the missionary. It is the prayer of my own heart, and ought to be the prayer of all who love their Lord. "And yet, I continued, are we, as Christians, one; or are we torn with |