than knowledge. But still in thought we can separate the two, and each also requires in some measure a different line of study.

The intellectual means of acquiring a knowledge of the Scriptures in themselves are, I suppose, Philology, Antiquities, and Ancient History; but the means of acquiring the knowledge of their right application are far more complex in their character, and it is precisely here, as I think, that the common course of theological study is so exceedingly narrow, and therefore the mistakes committed in the application of the Scriptures are, as it seems to me, so frequent and so mischievous. As one great example of what I mean, I will instance the questions, which are now so much agitated, of Church authority and Church government. It is just as impossible for a man to understand these questions without a knowledge of the great questions of Law and Government generally, as it is to understand any matter that is avowedly political; and therefore the Politics of Aristotle and similar works are to me of a very great and direct use every day of my life, wherever these questions are brought before me; and you know how often these questions are mooted, and with what vehemence men engage in them. Historical reading it appears that you are actually engaged in, but so much of History is written so ill, that it appears to me to be desirable to be well acquainted with the greatest historians, in order to learn what the defects of common History are, and how we should be able to supply them. It is a rare quality in any man to be able really to represent to himself the picture of another age and country; and much of History is so vague and poor that no lively images can be gathered from it. There is actually, so far as I know, no great ecclesiastical historian in any language. But the flatnesses and meagerness and unfairness of most of those who have written on this subject may not strike us, if we do not know what good history should be. And any one very great historian, such as Thucydides, or Tacitus, or

Niebuhr, throws a light backward and forward upon all history; for any one age or country well brought before our minds teaches us what historical knowledge really is, and saves us from thinking that we have it when we have it not. I will not cross my writing, so I must continue my say in another sheet.

The accidental division of my paper suits well with the real division of my subject. I have stated what appears to me to be the best means of acquiring a knowledge of the Scriptures, both in themselves, and in their application to ourselves. And it is this second part which calls for such a variety of miscellaneous knowledge; inasmuch as, in order to apply a rule properly, we must understand the nature and circumstances of the case to which it is to be applied, and how they differ from those of the case to which it was applied originally. Thus there are two states of the human race which we want to understand thoroughly; the state when the New Testament was written, and our own state. And our own state is so connected with, and dependent on the past, that in order to understand it thoroughly we must go backwards into past ages, and thus, in fact, we are obliged to go back till we connect our own time with the first century, and in many points with centuries yet more remote. You will say then, in another sense from what St. Paul said it, “Who is sufficient for these things?" and I answer, "No man ;" but, notwithstanding, it is well to have a good model before us, although our imitation of it will fall far short of it. But you say, how does all this edify? And this is a matter which I think it is very desirable to understand clearly.

If death were immediately before us,- say that the Cholera was in a man's parish, and numbers were dying daily, it is manifest that our duties, our preparation for another life by conforming ourselves to God's will respect

ing us in this life, would become exceedingly simple. To preach the Gospel, that is, to lead men's faith to Christ as their Saviour by His death and resurrection; to be earnest in practical kindness; to clear one's heart of all enmities and evil passions ;-this would be a man's work, and this only; his reading would, I suppose, be limited then to such parts of the Scriptures as were directly strengthening to his faith, and hope and charity, to works of prayers and hymns, and to such practical instructions as might be within his reach as to the treatment of the prevailing disease.

Now can we say, that in ordinary life our duties can be made thus simple? Are there not, then, matters of this life which must be attended to? Are there not many questions would press upon us in which we must act and advise, besides the simple direct preparation for death? And it being God's will that we should have to act and advise in these things, and our service to Him and to His Church necessarily requiring them; is it right to say, that the knowledge which shall teach us how to act and advise rightly with respect to them is not edifying?

But may not a man say, "I wish to be in the Ministry, but I do not feel an inclination for a long course of reading; my tastes, and I think my duties, lead me another way"? This may be said, I think, very justly. A man may do immense good with nothing more than an unlearned familiarity with the Scriptures, with sound practical sense and activity, taking part in all the business of his parish, and devoting himself to intercourse with men rather than with books. I honour such men in the highest degree, and think that they are among the most valuable ministers that the Church possesses. A man's reading, in this case, is of a miscellaneous character, consisting, besides the Bible and such books as are properly devotional, of such books as chance throws in his way, or the particular concerns of his parish may lead him to take an interest in. And,

though he may not be a learned man, he may be that which is far better than mere learning,—a wise man, and a good man.

All that I would entreat of every man with whom I had any influence is, that if he read at all-in the sense of studying, he should read widely and comprehensively; that he should not read exclusively or principally what is called Divinity. Learning, as it is called, of this sort,—when not properly mixed with that comprehensive study which alone deserves the name,-is, I am satisfied, an actual mischief to a man's mind; it impairs his simple common sense, and gives him no wisdom. It makes him narrow-minded, and fills him with absurdities; and, while he is in reality grievously ignorant, it makes him consider himself a great divine. Let a man read nothing, if he will, except his Bible and Prayer Book and the chance reading of the day; but let him not, if he values the power of seeing truth and judging soundly, let him not read exclusively or predominantly the works of those who are called divines, whether they be those of the first four centuries, or those of the sixteenth, or those of the eighteenth or seventeenth. With regard to the Fathers, as they are called, I would advise those who have time to read them deeply, those who have less time to read at least parts of them; but in all cases preserve the proportions of your reading. Read along with the Fathers, the writings of men of other times and of different powers of mind. Keep your view of men and things extensive, and depend upon it that a mixed knowledge is not a snperficial one;-as far as it goes, the views that it gives are true,—but he, who reads deeply in one class of writers only, gets views which are almost sure to be perverted, and which are not only narrow but false. Adjust your proposed amount of reading to your time and inclination-this is perfectly free to every man, but whether that amount be large or small, let it be varied in its kind and widely varied. If I have a confident opinion on any one point connected with the improvement of the

human mind, it is on this. I have now given you the principles, which I believe to be true with respect to a clergyman's reading.

If you can come to Rugby in your way to Oxford, I will add any thing in my power to the details; at any rate I shall be delighted to see you here, and I shall have great pleasure in giving you an introduction to Hamilton, who, I am sure, would value your acquaintance much.

CCVI. TO CHEVALIER BUNSEN.

Rugby, October 4, 1839.

When I think of you as really going to leave England, it makes me think how much there still is on which I want to talk to you more fully. Particularly, I must get you some day to answer for me in writing certain questions as to the Lord's Supper. I think that you and Samuel Coleridge both agree with one another and differ from me, and this of course makes me suspect the justness of my own views, while it makes me sure that what you and Coleridge hold can be nothing superstitious or unchristian. I see clearly the wide difference between what you hold and the opinions which I so dread and condemn. But, plainly, I cannot arrive at even your notion of the Communion, or what I believe to be your notion, from the Scriptures, without interpreting them by what is called the Consensus Ecclesiæ. Now this so called Consensus Ecclesiæ is in such a matter to me worth nothing, because such a view of the Communion was precisely in unison with the tendencies of the prevailing party in the Church whose writings are now called Consensus Ecclesiæ. And if I follow this pretended Consensus in forming my views of the Sacraments, I appear to myself to be undoing St. Paul's and our Lord's work in one great point, and to be introducing that very Judaism, to which Christianity is so directly opposed, and which consists in ascribing spiritual effects to outward and bodily actions. It seems to me historically