M. BOUCHER, the highly accomplished author of this book, is pastor of the Evangelical Church at Brussels, a man of no ordinary reasoning powers, and at the same time a devoted minister of the Gospel and distinguished preacher. His work is called "Man confronted with the Bible; or, the respective claims of the Bible and Man upon each other" and is an essay in proof of the absolute and inalienable right of every individual to possess and read the Word of God, and consequently his obligation to do so.

His arguments are most ably drawn up, and we have been particularly struck with the close chain of reasoning by which he advances to his conclusion. We would that they could be brought in some easy and familiar form before the public mind in this country. We know of no mode so ready of solving that vexata questio of national education as this. It is in our view worth a hundred spirit-stirring and eloquent appeals to auditors already won. In fact what do we require, save to benefit our country, by Christianizing the rising generation. We know of no means so effectual as by that book which contains the history, doctrines, principles, and practices of our holy religion. Now the priest would assume the right to rob man of this treasure, and the so-called liberal Protestant stands by consenting. Let us then endeavour, rather than by mutual recrimination and division, showing our own internal weakness, to draw men's attention to this subject. In the words of our author,

"If revelation had been directly addressed from God to man, without the intervention of a book, if, in short, God had given to man to hear his voice, evidently man would then possess the right to hear; and by the same reason, man must have the right to read his written revelation."

Thus, if God has given this book, he has given it to be read, freely and

without restriction, and man cannotdare not, save at his peril, disregard it for himself, much less take away from his fellow, "lest God also take away his name out of the book of life."

Our author approaches his task with a summary of the evidences for the inspiration of the Scriptures. The Bible comes from God: and he proves it satisfactorily-remarking on the nature of moral evidence, and its adaptation to the condition of man as a free and responsible agent. Upon this portion of his work, though neatly and concisely drawn up, we feel hardly disposed to dwell: the arguments being familiar to most of our readers, and taken from Leland, Paley, Horne, Leslie, and others. He treats of the historical proofs, showing a chain of writers reaching from Jerome, in the fourth century, to the very days of the apostles. He applies to the miracles of the Old and New Testaments the as yet unanswered, because unanswerable, argument of our own Leslie, in his Short Method. He analyses and shows the minute and circumstantial fulfilment of certain prophecies-those descriptive of the present condition of the Jewish people, and those relating to the birth, life, and death of their Messiah. He touches upon the manifest intervention of God in the propagation of Christianity, in spite of circumstances the most adverse, the pride of human reason, the corruptions of heathenism, and the bloody persecutions of the pagan emperors. In the way of internal evidence, he appeals to the beneficial effects produced upon society, morals, and individual character-in peace of conscience, and all virtue.. We subjoin an extract of his style and manner of treating this portion :

"Finally, the very nature of Christianity, its doctrines, morality and worship, afford a proof, of which the beauty and force have been rarely if ever sufficiently brought out. Let us try to do The argument appeals at once to

So.

conscience, good sense, and facts. It is this: God must have worshippers here on earth, now Christianity is of all others the religion most conformable to his divine character, and most worthy of him. Therefore Christianity is the religion of God-is the true religion.

"Let us take up each of these assertions which carry this irresistible conclusion-God must have his worshippers here on earth. In this respect it matters little whether men had known of themselves what is pleasing to their Creator, or that he had himself given them to know it. This is not the place to inquire by what means this knowledge of God, which is indispensable for his worship, reaches man. It is only essential to state that it must reach him. If our inability to discover the character of God be established, then God must make known the service which he requires from his creatures. If God had never created responsible beings-moral agents-creatures capacitated to worship him--then he might (however improbable the supposition be) have remained without worshippers during eternity. But what shocks reason and feeling is, that he should continue without worshippers after having peopled his universe. The ends of creation may have been both the glory of God and the happiness of his creatures, but both these ends alike demand the worship and service of God. To say that God has no worshippers amongst men, whom he has made, is to say that he has made them without respect to his own glory or their felicity; for this worship is alike necessary to both. God must have worshippers here below, if he desires to display the brightness of his nature or the greatness of his perfections: he must have worshippers here below if he wishes the real good of his creatures, which only can consist in the knowledge, love, and service of God. If God did not make man to be his worshipper, for what other end did he make him? Common sense justifies this assertion let us go on to the second.

66

Christianity is the religion most worthy of the Creator. Beyond controversy, the ideas which the Scriptures present us of the character and attri butes of God are the most perfect, most beautiful, most holy, most majestic, most merciful, most complete. All these ideas are comprehended in one factthe cross of Christ. The incarnation rendered necessary by justice, and granted by love, is the most brilliant display of divine perfections, and their most efficient proclamation. If the infinite beauty of this doctrine be not an absolute proof of its truth, it is at least a strong presumption. So much love,

is it not worthy of a God of love? So much wisdom in the plan of saving sinner, without excusing sin-of delivering man from the penalties of the law, while magnifying its morality-does not this confer honour upon the divine intelligence which has conceived it? The possibility and the necessity of salvation through the atonement of Jesus Christ once granted, is not its accomplishment one of the grandest things in conception? And if the incarnation be the truest impression of the divine character, ought not God himself to have adopted it? If in the whole circle of possibilities the doctrine of the cross be the grandest, most excellent, most affecting and solemn, is it not certain then that God must have preferred it? In fine, that plan into which most goodness, justice, and wisdom enters, is it not, thereby, recognised as the plan of God?

"But if theoretical Christianity is so worthy of God, practical Christianity in its turn glorifies him, not only more than any other religion, but so much more so, that we must admit that none else than Christians alone glorify God. On their lips alone it is that his name is blessed and praised. In their hearts only his presence is desired and experienced. In their consciences only his approval is taken for the mainspring of their actions: and in their regular congregations alone is he invoked and sanctified from one end of the earth to the other, world without end. Let the deists be honest-when and where do they pray to God? When and where do they celebrate his name, his law, his perfections, his providence? In their assemblies?-they would blush to speak of him. In their churches?-they have none. In their families ?-they never bend the knee. In their hearts ?-less there than any where, as they well know.

"We may, therefore, fearlessly af firm, that if Christians be not the true worshippers of God, there are none others any where. If the Christian system be not divine, no other is; for it unites all the particular qualities of others, without their defects. Let any one seek for reasons to warrant the re

jection of Christianity and God's preference of any other religion, and he cannot find one. All the fragments of truth, beauty, and moral goodness which have ever been brought forward as deserving of God's approval are in Christianity.

"Now I ask how God ought to respect this religion which is the bestthis worship which most honours him? I demand for it, that it may obtain from him that same transcendant and

Having disposed of the question of the authenticity and inspiration of the Bible, and this without an appeal to the authority of the church, or arguing in a vicious circle, (the Romanist, true to his principles, believes this impossible, and prefers casting a doubt upon the Scriptures rather than the church; nay, willing, when pushed, to avail himself of the weapons of infidelity rather than admit the right of private judgment,) our author passes to the second, and, to us, the most interesting part of his treatise.

He shows that we possess spiritual and religious rights, just as we possess civil and political ones, and that it is a primary law of our constitution to preserve them. He distinguishes between the abstract naked right and its exercise; the latter being limited or restricted by considerations extrinsic of the former.

The foundation of these rights lie in our necessities: e. g. man has a right to seek for remedies for physical evils, and by parity of reasoning, if ignorant and sinful, he has a right to seek for truth and salvation. Yet, if the exercise of this right were hurtful to society, or injurious to the public weal, then it ought to be restrained. Whereas, on the contrary, if it be advantageous, it demands respect, and ought to be protected. The right to read is not a right to cavil, contradict, or explain away.

This right is found in the manner of the revelation, being in a book, written, like every other, to be read. In its heavenly origin; in its contents; in the undeniable advantages derived from its study; in its own testimony, in varied expressions, and repeated by prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ himself, commanding us to "search the Scriptures."

No other ground can be had for the denial of this right but the pretended inutility of its exercise, and VOL. XX.-No. 115.

that based on the impossibility to seize the true and saving sense of the Scriptures.

Now this right may be wholesomely exercised, for we can understand the Scriptures. He qualifies this assertion. It does not mean that every man is in a capacity to understand all the Scriptures, to master the difficulties of doctrines, or the niceties of criticism. But every man can comprehend all that is necessary to salvation out of the Bible. This limitation implies, that in the word of God there are essential and fundamental truths, as well as those which are secondary and circumstantial.

The distinction has been denied, and demands proof. Now commonsense, plain fact, and the very Bible itself recognises the distinction. How absurd to equalize in importance, the minutiae of doctrine, the chronology of an epistle, the hem of the Levite's garment, the superscription of a letter, with the weightier matter of faith in Jesus Christ, and obedience to his gospel. Compare two points: one of infinite importance-the love of God; the other plainly secondary-the mode of administering the rite of baptism. The mind recoils from the absurdity, feeling the difference and admitting the distinction.

He produces passages from Scripture in support of this distinction between essential and non-essential truth. If this be not true, some of the most eminent Christians are lost, for want of entire conformity of views, opinions, observances, and forms. Shocking conclusion!

But the possibility of understanding the Bible has its conditions as well as its limits. These are, sincerity, prayer, and a spirit of obedience-a determination to practise what is made known. And this teaching of the Holy Spirit is the true and only possible source of Christian unity.

The possibility of understanding the Bible is demonstrable by facts. The Bible may, can be, comprehended for it is. : Search out those who read it regularly, and seriously, and examine the results. They are such as could proceed from no other source but the right understanding of the Scriptures. If we find unity of faith, of sentiment, of love towards God and men, humility, the spirit of

I

prayer, and the Saviour's likenessthis proves that they understand the Scriptures.

The harmony of the various Protestant Confessions proves, that they who read with care can comprehend the Bible the same way.

But, say the objectors, this essential is not the true sense; yet, in all essentials, is the very same which they and we alike maintain. Again, they say those fundamentals which they and we alike embrace and receive, may profit them and not us, for want of the non-essentials, whose omission excludes from bliss:

"Yet, after all, what are those things omitted by the generality of readers, whose importance is so great, that their omission excludes from heaven? What is this so weighty matter, neglected by these (as they are termed) erring bre thren? Is it of the worship of God, or the alteration of the moral law, or the admission of another expiatory sacrifice? Yet, once again, what is this point, which we have not understood, whose importance weighs the difference between heaven and hell?

Certainly it is not we who are to be accused of indifference respecting doctrines, against whom philosophy has so often alleged the contrary. But it is easy to see, that while shunning one extreme, that of latitudinarianism, we have no necessity to fall into exclusiveness. The doctrines which are essential to the true worship of God, to the justification and sanctification of the sinner, present themselves before us for their infinite importance. But these once received-life imbibed in the soul, the heart once purified, the whole man once become a new creature, who would dare to demand more? Who would dare to say that the addition of such a doctrine, not essential to the worship of God, or of such a practice, which makes no part of the moral law, is not only useful to the individual, or to the state, (this may be discussed,) but also indispensable to salvation? Who would pretend, for example, that faith in Christ, that consecration to his service, that the spirit of love, of prayer, of humi. lity that pure Christianity was all worthless in the sight of God, unless it carried with it the stamp of man's approval?

We would suppose many observances of that church which wishes to rule over all the rest, to be good and useful;-a generous concession! Would one affirm that constant temperance has no value, because it had not specially distinguished certain days of the week,

and had embraced them all? Would any one say, that the watchful heart, which has walked in communion with God, and inward prayer, has gained nothing, because not practised on an appointed day, and privileged place? Would not one blush to advance, that he who in the name of Jesus, and beginning by casting out the spirit of pride, instructs the ignorant, relieves the distressed, awes the presumptuous, and proclaims to all the glad tidings of salvation, through the grace of the Father, the mediation of the Son, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, would not obtain a part in the salvation himself, however ardently he may desire it, nor procure it for others, however faithfully he preaches it, if, besides the mission of the Holy Spirit, he cannot produce that of some pitiful mortal; and, that in vain he imitates the virtues, the doctrines, the piety of the apostles, if he cannot trace, through the darkness, a visible line which attaches him to them? In fine, would not one be ashamed to assert, that sincere faith, deep humility, pure love, burning zeal, persevering prayer, complete resignation, ready obedience, are all nothing, avail nothing, solely because found without the pale of a certain religious communion? Excellent and valuable there, but elsewhere worthless, or to be condemned; accepted by God under one denomina tion, to be but rejected under another. Monstrous and revolting absurdities alike to the heart and understanding!

"Jesus Christ has not taught us thus. He will not demand more than essentials at the bar of eternity. He has left us precise details upon that great and final judgment which shall decide the destiny of his creatures.

666

When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an hungered and ye gave me meat, I was thirsty and ye gave me drink, I was a stranger and ye took me in, naked and ye clothed me; I was sick and ye visited me, I was in prison and ye came unto me.'

"Then shall he say unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was an hun