apostolic warning that 'they are not all Israel which are of Israel,' (Rom. ix. 6), we must require for our historian that he receive the previous, or an equivalent definition of the Church. To consent to take any other view than that which a faithful churchman is bound to take, we pronounce a dereliction of Christian duty to endeavour to obtain some more elevated position such as philosophy is supposed to furnish, from whence a more comprehensive, and therefore a truer estimate of history may be made, is in our judgment nugatory. Even F. Schlegel is not always to be acquitted of entertaining this idea in his Philosophy of History, lect. xii. is this passage :—

:

It is only the knowledge, and complete comprehension of the great scheme of history, which can enable us to rise above the particular transactions of our own, or of a foreign nation of the present times or of past ages; and it is this knowledge which can alone clearly and safely determine the feeling with which we should regard particular historical facts. But for that end the ancient historian, as well as all antiquity, wanted the clue which Christianity alone has given us, to the internal connexion of the world's history, and which they who seek for it elsewhere but in this religion, will certainly seek in vain.'

There is so much to admire here that we shall be thought hard to please, we fear, when we venture to say that the lecturer seems to refer to a genius of Christianity higher than the Romish Church, to which however he was sincerely attached; and we believe that the more comprehensive Anglo-Catholic doctrine of the Church would have better satisfied his reasoning and his aspirations. But most unreservedly do we join him in maintaining that faith in the revelation of God is the only key to a perfect knowledge of history, whether we look back upon what is recorded of various nations, or look forward to their future destinations according to the pages of prophecy. And now, to resume our argument more consecutively. Let us remember that ecclesiastical history is a continuation of the Bible, as the Bible is the beginning of Church history; and thus the older historians, Eusebius and others, always treated it; they prefaced their own annals with a brief account of the first institution of his Church by Christ and His Apostles; nor must this be lost sight of by any one that ventures to put his hand to so holy a work. The lapse of fourteen or fifteen centuries can make no difference in this respect. If Church history be what it professes to be, it is a continuation of the Acts of the Apostles and their successors, and we cannot admit any one to perform this office with whom the above consideration is not paramount to every other and always present. We disclaim any attempt to confound the authority of canonical with apocryphal Scripture; we only look for such a continuation of the sacred records as

the Jewish canonical scriptures found in the Books of the Maccabees.

Now, truth being the professed aim of every historian, is it possible that his object can be attained in any other way so effectually as under the guidance of the Spirit of truth? If honesty is almost the first, the second, and the third grand requisite in treating history, the faithful follower of his Lord, whose mind is renewed from the fountain of truth, must not only have an advantage over every other, but must indeed be the only person to whom can be intrusted the history of truth itself. With respect to himself, and his own appreciation of his task, how important it is that he believe himself to be engaged in a work wherein he may dare to hope for Divine influence, such as being really σuvepyos Te must certainly ensure. What abundant and heart-stirring motives will he have for zeal, for charity, for discrimination; how fervent his prayers!—after the example of the devout painter who prefaced his daily work with a supplication for divine assistance on his labours,-when he reflects that a portion of the Book of God is purely historical, that all the several economics displayed therein are grounded upon history, and that he too has engaged to set in order the things most surely believed by us:' these things being no less than the operations of God's Spirit upon the heart of man, the opposition of the world and its perversion of the truth, destined to suffer a fearful retribution, and a portion of the struggle between good and evil which forms the great mystery of our condition.

We must still farther unfold our meaning, in order to guard against being misunderstood. With us it is impossible, for one who is a good Churchman, to be other than a devout and enlightened Christian: and we believe that there is no moral excellence beyond the reach of those who are renewed day by day with the refreshing grace of God. Whatsoever, therefore, may be needed for the counteraction of all that can pervert, debase and injure historical truth, may with confidence be expected in one whose character is formed and matured under the influence and discipline of the Church of Christ. It may here be justly expected that we should, even if it were only as an illustration of our meaning, enter into a few particulars of the mode of action, whereby, as we assert, true Churchmanship will neutralize all or most of those evil humours of the mind, from whence spring error, deception, and falsehood. To commence, then, with what has been already acknowledged for one of the greatest disturbing forces, partiality and partisanship, exemption from which the Roman historian claimed for himself; (sine odio et sine delectione;') it is the endeavour and the earnest prayer

of every Christian, that his will, and tastes, and predilections, may be all submitted to, or brought into accordance with the will of his heavenly Father; and, so far as he attains his avowed object, so far may we be assured that he escapes from every narrow prejudice, realizes his brotherhood with every man, and truly "loves his enemies : nor should we omit to mention, that not only is this grace given to sincere Christians, but that he holds in the sacred history of the Bible, the clearest directions by example for his guidance, not alone in this particular, but in every thing that concerns a historian. In Holy Scripture, the offences and failings of the greatest saints are unsparingly recorded; it was not Jewish prejudice and national partiality that blotted every page of their history with only 'evil continually:' and shall we exceed the bounds of reasonable expectation, if we look for similar traits of unbiassed impartiality, such as are seen in the sacred writers, successfully imitated by a true Churchman? The annals of God's people have formed the subject of his studies at every period of life, and have been taken for his model of excellence in all the main essentials of history. Again we are well aware, that vanity and self-love have frequently spoiled with a taint inexpiable, memoirs and historical compositions; for this great blemish of the mind we know of no other remedy, we never heard of any successfully applied, but Christian Churchmanship. By it men are taught to know their own true position, like the good centurion, who, being himself under authority, had soldiers under him,-they are taught their real subordinate place in the economy of God's household; they are not lifted above it, nor lowered beneath it; and the consequence is, a serene self-knowledge, which neither highest philosophy, nor any of the exaggerations of Christian doctrine could ever attain. Egotism and an anxiety for reputation, is the besetting sin of authorship; nor have the plodding band of historians been exempt from it; we may, perhaps, refer to this feeling some of the almost incredible exertions and industry, recorded of certain writers; but, making themselves the centre of their system, bent upon showing their superior acuteness or sagacity, and endeavouring to raise themselves by the depression of others, they produce a distorted and unfair misrepresentation of history. In this case also, if we compare the sacred historians of both the Old and the New Testaments with such authors, how remarkable a feature in the former is the absence of personal and private feelings; the individual is quite lost sight of, so far, at least, as dwelling for an instant on his own merits, or the importance of his history: all concern for self, is absorbed in zeal for the honour of their God. Thus Moses composed his history in the third person, placed on

record his own and his family's offences, and their exclusion from the land of promise: he does indeed declare that Moses was meek above all men,' but this does not amount to selflaudation, it is the simplicity of truth, and it may be made a question whether it is not mentioned by him as an infirmity, rather than a virtue. So, also, the solemn asseveration at the end of St. John's Gospel, of the authenticity and genuineness of that holy writing, is almost the sole instance of authorship being declared in the New Testament, (excepting of course in the Epistles, the very nature of which made it necessary :) and even here, as in the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles, the testimony of the Church was required to identify the writing with its author. So little had self to do with the authorship of the Sacred Writings. We need hardly tell our readers that the subversion of vanity is one of the most difficult tasks ever accomplished in the mind's discipline, (especially in those who have devoted themselves to literature of any kind, the inventive faculty appearing to be prone to worship its own creations,) and thus becomes an indication of the presence of that influence, without which no one can go on towards 'perfection.' Under this head, also, we may class that great impediment to truthful narrative, under which those writers labour, who may be described as men of one idea. Some favourite notion takes possession of their minds, and appears to them to be the solution of every difficulty, to be illustrated directly or indirectly by every event in history, and, indeed, to be the grand cardinal truth on which everything in life has turned and must turn. This monomania totally unfits a man for the office of historian, and, to our cost, we know, has rendered the labours of many serious-minded Christians almost useless. To such contracted views Catholic Christianity is corrective, nor will we ever believe that its noble principles are really held by those who have all their views bounded by the narrow horizon of one formula. One more phase of human weakness leading to the deterioration of history we will mention, which, also, perfect Christianity can alone remedy; we mean the excessive admiration for great men, recently termed hero-worship. There is no greater contrast, in our judgment, to be found between sacred and non-sacred history, than that all praise in the former centres in, and rests upon One. In a piece of biography or in a funeral sermon, we can allow a wide licence to the attachment of friendship, and the regrets of the bereaved. But in Church history, the last page of which shall record that God is all in all,' we can tolerate no homage to the creature that is not based upon, and derived from, the glory of God. We should be led too far for our present limits, if we pursued to any greater length the details

of all that is to be corrected by the sanctifying influence of real Churchmanship; and enough has been shown by way of specimen in proof of its efficacy; for it is unnecessary to say, that all dishonesty, intentional unfairness, malicious feelings, all morbid discontent at the providence of God, as well as Utopian expectations of the universal happiness and perfection of mankind, are utterly excluded from the writings of one who looks upon the world through the medium of the light of revelation; and remembering that there is, no doubt, if it only can be attained, a true view of every transaction, a just estimate of every character, to be secured and faithfully represented by neutralizing every evil tendency and counteracting every disturbing force; (such a view, perhaps, as a dying man takes of all the transactions of his past life) we hold that the Christian's estimate of every thing terrestrial must be nearer to that than any other that can be supposed. 'I die daily,' St. Paul's short and impressive description of the Christian frame of mind, is the very position of superiority to the passing interests, and the fleeting passions of a troublesome life, which must be acknowledged to be the most favourable for a calm and unbiassed judgment. There is a holiness about such a retrospect of life, so truthful in many individuals, as well nigh to anticipate the final estimate that shall be summed up and declared at the dreadful day of judgment; and this surely finds a close resemblance in the serious decisions which a Christian purged from the mists and perplexities of active life is enabled to make. The clue to all history, and à fortiori to ecclesiastical history, is the Christian dispensation. "Without this faith, the whole history of the world would be nought else than an insoluble enigma, an 'inextricable labyrinth, a huge pile of the blocks and fragments of an unfinished edifice; and the great tragedy of humanity 'would remain devoid of all proper result."-F. Schlegel, Phil. of Hist.

It is sufficiently obvious that such a claim as the above advanced for the Churchman, will be resisted by the generality of men, and will remain unsupported even by many Christians. They refuse to look at the Church history in a religious light, and consequently miss the only point of view, from whence its true character is discoverable. It will be said that history written on this principle, must be an ex parte' statement; that prejudice must disfigure any annals that are written by one who is a zealous, however intelligent, member of the Church; that he will be blind to its imperfections through attachment, and that the only way to arrive at certainty in such matters, is by the ventilation of controversy. Such reasonings are plausible, and only too popular we fear; but we hope that the fore