to it. Recently they have turned to experience, to observation, and to facts, and science comes forth from its grave and flourishes. A corresponding movement on the part of interpreters, is beginning to be followed by corresponding results.

But in respect to its inspiration and applicability to all nations and times, the Bible is a book of its own kind. The views which are taken of these will modify the interpretation to some extent. If, as some maintain, the Scriptures were written in the words which the Spirit dictated, and the writers were merely the mediums through which these verbal communications were made, less account must be taken of many historical circumstances than would otherwise be required. If this be the true idea of inspiration, the authorship of the Bible is strictly one, for the writers were but amanuenses of the Spirit, and we have only to consider that the Spirit made communications in the words and phrases current at the time. We must not look for any peculiarities in the habits of each writer, nor for any peculiar usus loquendi, nor inquire into his natural talents, his acquirements or peculiar occupations, unless we say that the Spirit, in his utterances, accommodated himself to the peculiarities of each writer, and we can see no reason why this should be done. On this theory of inspiration it is most reasonable to suppose, that the writers were often ignorant of the real meaning of what they wrote, (for if they themselves had the ideas which were to be clothed in language, it would be, in most instances, wholly unnecessary that the words should be dictated to them,) and, therefore, it would by no means secure a right understanding of the Scriptures to enter even fully into the spirit, times, and circumstances of the writers.

If, on the other hand, we regard inspiration as consisting in bringing before the minds of the prophets visions of coming events and transactions, and in bringing to the remembrance of Apostles what they had seen and heard, then it is reasonable to suppose that they recorded in their own language what they saw in prophetic vision, or what they remembered to have seen and heard. All that they saw

and heard would be arranged in their own minds according to their own principles of association, and so, when they wrote, their language would be variously modified by these principles, and we should expect to find the same occurrences, doctrines and precepts stated in a great variety of forms and connections. With this view, we must believe that every writer attached some meaning to every word and sentence which he wrote, (except, perhaps, in a few instances to be noted below,) and the business of the interpreter will be to use all the means he can command, in order that he may, as it were, go back, and put himself in the place of the writer, amid the scenery, customs, events, learning, national peculiarities and prejudices with which he was surrounded. Yea, moreover, if possible, he must enter into the spirit with which the authors wrote, as if he, with their ideas and their language, was writing for the purposes for which they wrote. The latter appears to us to be the correct view of inspiration. It is not inconsistent with this view to believe that the Holy Spirit guided the writers in the use of language, so that the things they wrote were expressed in words approved of God, at the same time that they understood what they wrote. (1st. Cor. ii: 12, 23.) There are instances, too, in which the writers give expressly the words of another as of Jehovah, as in Gen. 5: 17, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." These they may have understood or may not. In such cases we must gather, as nearly as possible, what the original speaker intended by his language.

There is another point in respect to which, if there is not absolute disagreement, there is some uncertainty and confusion, which are unfavorable to correct and uniform interpretation. The difficulty is stated by Davidson, in a reference to some of the German writers, in substance as follows: "Some of these writers make a dangerous use of historical principles, by inquiring merely into the genius of each writer, the prevailing opinions of the times, especially the religious opinions, and the nature of the things about which he wrote, and interpreting accordingly. Thus they localize relinion, by making it a thing of one country and one

age, whereas the writers of Scripture indited divine communications for the use of all men and all times."—(Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics, page 226.) Does the fact that the Bible was given for all men and all times modify the principles on which it should be interpreted? We think not. That fact merely requires that the truths of the Bible be regarded as truths for all men, but none of the grammatical principles or historical facts, whose existence cannot be traced back to the age of the writers, can be safely introduced to aid interpretation. The doctrines and truths which those writers wished to inculcate, were couched in language adapted to the understanding of men of those times. Those doctrines and truths remain the same, while the medium by which they must be communicated is constantly changing. Hence, to discover exactly what those truths are, we must go back and consider only the medium through which they were originally given. We may use whatever helps we can find, to enable us to transfer ourselves to the scenes of the writers, and to gain a knowledge of the language they used, but care must be taken to introduce no new grammatical principles nor any historical facts which were unknown in the times of the writers. The remarks of Davidson, which appear to oppose this view, were most likely called forth in opposition to the accommodation system, so called. But the advocates of that system in reality maintain that Christ and his apostles accommodated their teachings, their sentiments, to the prejudices and erroneous opinions of the populace, rather than that they adapted their language to the understanding of their hearers. Besides, the view we have taken does not at all require that we should limit the sense of the Scriptures to that deduced by those to whom they were originally addressed. It is not what they understood the Scriptures to mean, which we wish to find, but what the writers wished them to understand the Scriptures to mean. We wish to attain the stand-point of the writer, not that of the persons addressed. We wish to know what he meant, knowing that, we know the meaning of the Scriptures.

ART. IV.-HISTORICAL SKETCH OF TRACTARI

ANISM.

The Oxford Tracts for the Times. London.

The Church, the Crown, and the State. By the Rev. W. J. E. BENNETT. London: 1850.

A Concise History of the Hampden Controversy. By the Rev. HENRY CHRISTMAS. London: 1848.

Report of the Judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Case of Gorham against the Bishop of Exeter, March 8, 1850.

Recent Decisions of the Court of Arches in the Case of Denison against the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in the Case of Liddell against Westerton & Beale.

TRACTARIANISM is not a phenomenon peculiar to the Church of England or to the nineteenth century. Its essential elements are found in Romanism, and Judaism, and Paganism. It is a renewal of the endeavor, old as humanity itself, to approach God through another medium than the Lord Jesus Christ; to substitute an imposing ritual for a spiritual life; and to engraft personal works and merits on the divine plan of salvation by faith. It is a fresh outbreak in the English Church of the principles of Archbishop Laud and of the Non Jurors. A brief glance at the early Christian history of England, and the influences which moulded the forms of the Established Church, will introduce us naturally to our subject, and will develop the important fact that the principles of Tractarianism form an essential part of the Constitution of the English Church, and will unfold into life under favoring influences, as naturally as the weevil's egg in the wheat develops into the destructive insect.

Christianity was introduced into Great Britain in the first century, or early in the second. Neither history nor tradition has reported the names of its first promulgators, whether

Phenician merchants, or British captives converted at Rome, or Christian soldiers of the Roman legions, or zealous missionaries from the continental churches. We find traces of numerous churches, both in England and Scotland in the second century, and the severities of the Diocletian persecution penetrated to this remote isle. The scattered disciples fled to Scotland, and under the name of Culdees, by the beauty of their pious lives won many of the Picts from the Druidical worship to the Christian faith. A flourishing church was formed at Iona, where gospel truth was preached and practised in its primitive simplicity for many generations.

An emigrant Scotchman, named Succat, who had been seized by freebooters in his new home in French Brittany, and sold as a captive into Ireland, having become the apostle of Christian truth in that beautiful isle, met with wonderful success in the rapid conversion of its ignorant people, and has received the doubtful honor of sainthood among Irish Catholics, under the title of St. Patrick. But the few historical fragments handed down from that early age, clearly indicate that, in his views of doctrines and sacraments, and in his habits of living and preaching, Succat had no connection with Rome, and no sympathy with the later corruptions of the Papal Church.

The Saxon invasion of the fifth century almost uprooted Christianity in England. The conquered Britons found refuge in Scotland and Wales, and embittered against their warlike masters, made no efforts to convert them to the truth. For more than a century Paganism was again dominant, till Columba, an Irish Christian, inflamed with zeal by the study of Succat's life, sought the re-conversion of Succat's native land. He visited the Culdees of Iona, quickened their faith, and obtained their co-operation. The Pictish king and many of his subjects were the first fruits of the new labor. A missionary school was founded at Iona, and its earnest disciples penetrated into England, and gathered converts among the Pagan nations of the continent. A large college was founded at Bangor, in Wales, and flourishing churches were formed on English soil. These churches