devote themselves exclusively to them? The treatises can only be understood by studious applicants; their languages are dead languages save to the initiated; their very terms are unintelligible except to the few instructed in their peculiar applications; not that we are blaming this method, there is a necessity in it, as well as a propriety, but they show that secular instruction is not plain; and how especially and painfully is the want of plainness beheld, when folly attempts to teach religion; when men sit down to write, or stand up to teach, that which God's word does not warrant! Then what confusion, what mystery, what contradiction, what an olla podrida of obscurity. There is a signal instance of this in the works of German theology, and of all those who follow in that wake. There is a remarkable instance at this present time to be seen in the works of one, who is now very prominently before the world on account of his theology, since clever, reading, studious men, pore over his books, and wonder what the writer does mean. This could never be, no matter how much genius there might be (and the more the better when rightly used) if men kept to the Word of God; for then they would be following and setting forth the instruction of wisdom, which is so plain that all can understand it—the child even, who scarcely knows his alphabet; the peasant, whose mind could not grasp the notion even of a science; the unlettered workman, or the wondering savage. Like the sun shining above and lighting all the earth, this instruction of wisdom is plain to all, if they choose to put themselves under it. Like the sun driving away the darkness of night and banishing the mists and fogs of the morning, it clears off from man's heart the obscurities of ignorance and prejudice, and put to flight the doubts and anxieties of a partial knowledge until the mind is clear; and this, because "to him that understandeth,” (that is, every one who desires and seeks to do so as God hath prescribed), the instruction is so plain, that he "who runs may read."

IV. Then, lastly, It is superior to anything else, "better than rubies, and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared with it." Not only that no attainments in the instruction of its antagonist, folly, are to be put into comparison with it-not only that you must not put into the same scale with it the highest attainments of earthly wisdom, the greatest achievements of science, the noblest accomplishments of art, the proudest exhibitions of genius -but, you must put nothing at all into the scale with it. The dearest, and closest, and tenderest affections; the massive grandeur of wealth-wrought ambitions-palaces, mansions, and noble possessions-gold and precious stones-nay, not if you could gather into one lump all the riches of the world, must you estimate this instruction by the side of it, except to show that in comparison with it, the

other is all dross. And why? How simple the answer: Because all here below, except it, is corruptible, fading, and perishing.

Oh, then, be wise, put yourselves under this instruction. Hear the "cry of wisdom," hear the "voice of understanding." It is God's Holy Spirit who will give you this "hearing ear." Many there are, indeed, who are like the deaf adder, that heareth not the "voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely," because they will not ask for the Spirit of God. They think they can teach themselves. They prefer the instruction of folly; it is more congenial to their tastes and habits, and they "love the praise of men more than the praise of God." But, at last, they will be compelled to hear the voice of wisdom, though, alas! then, not to invite, but to condemn ; and to make them condemn and curse themselves, because they would not turn at the reproof of wisdom, but delighted in their scorning, and, as fools, hated knowledge, Prov. i. 22.

Reader! be not you among the unhappy multitude who are doing evil; but hear the exhortation, the loving call of Him, who is THE WISDOM for all, and to all, and in all, who arise and follow Him. Chelsea.

R. H. Davies.

OUR NEW INSPECTOR.

II.

THE visit of our New Inspector, as may be supposed, formed the subject of much conversation amongst our teachers; and his remarks and suggestions were freely canvassed. I am glad to say that almost everything he suggested met with general approbation; so much so that we determined to invite him to one of our teachers' meetings in order to get the benefit of his advice on many matters of detail which he had not touched upon.

I found, however, that two of our body did not quite participate in the general feeling, though from very opposite causes; and it has occurred to me, that it would not be altogether useless to put my readers in possession of their objections, for I fear that each of the malcontents may be considered the type of a class, rather than a solitary individual.

The first was a young teacher, but lately engaged-full of zeal and energy-active in exertion, and sanguine as to results. His joining our body had certainly given us a stimulus, though some of the more experienced teachers inwardly pitied him for the disappointments which they foresaw in store for him.

I cannot say I was surprised at finding him altogether averse to

what he characterised as a cold, spiritless treatment of the glorious'

Sunday school cause.

“I must indeed acknowledge," he said, "that Mr. Common Sense began well. Justly did he urge the great, the noble end, the salvation of souls. Justly did he remind us that this alone is to be the answer to the question, 'What do I desire for my class?' and that our aim should ever be to train up Christian children to become Christian men and women. But surely he might have said much more on this topic, even if he had omitted all the rest. If this be but attended to, all is sure to be right; it is your cold, plodding, inanimate teachers who spoil the school. And why must he tag on a censure on an extended field of Divinity? Why may I not go over the doctrines of the Scripture with my class-those great and mysterious truths which lie enshrined in the Scripture? I cannot bear to be tied down in this way. Give me the Bible and take all your rules, and warnings, and directions, to yourselves. I wish to teach the children the Gospel, and I must have free scope for that ?".

"Forgive me," I said, "for interrupting you; but I think you scarcely do Mr. Inspector justice. He urged you to teach that which you yourself insist on the Gospel: and his warning had reference to a fault not quite unknown in Sunday schools" (I could have said, our Sunday school); " and that is, a style of teaching far above the comprehension and acquirements of children. If indeed, you were teaching our first class, who have been for years under our care, I am sure Common Sense would not only allow, but require you to give them (as far as you could) an intelligent knowledge of Scripture doctrine." "There you go again," said he. Why speak of an intelligent knowledge? If I explain the doctrines they will be sure to understand them; but you must be harping on a dry mechanical study of all those things." "Why, a study of doctrine must be necessarily dry," I replied, "I cannot understand. This I am sure of, that if you expect to give your children any real knowledge of Scripture truth at all, it must be by other means than merely lecturing them as you would a grown-up audience. Besides, you stopped the remark I was about to make. Your class is one of little folks, only able to read a chapter in the Gospels with tolerable accuracy; let me urge you to keep to those familiar parts of Scripture with them, and not take them" (as I suspected he was rather apt to do), "into the argumentative chapters of St. Paul, or St. James. Let these come in due time; but you cannot err if you take such simple parts as the Sermon on the Mount, and the truths taught indirectly by the miracles and life, or directly, by the parables of our Lord, and teach these, line upon line, precept upon precept, making sure of your ground by careful questioning as you go on. Surely you can find ample scope here!"

was

“Ah, well,” said he, "we shall never agree on that point, and I think I am in the right. But my chief objection is to what was said about the success to be expected. Too much was attributed to the teacher, and far too little to the subject matter. Surely the Gospel is the Gospel, whether taught by Paul, or by a child; and indeed, I believe that your trained and efficient teachers, as you call them, are likely to be the least successful, because they will be trusting to their own strength and wisdom. Remember David's rejection of Saul's armour." "I do not think your illustration will answer your purpose,' my reply. "David properly used that weapon which he knew best how to handle. He could sling a stone with practised dexterity; but the heavy sword would have been an incumbrance. The time came when he laid aside his sling, and girded himself even with Goliath's sword; and so the teacher ought to exercise himself in his work, taking pains to teach. What cost nothing is seldom a worthy offerto any one, much less to God. True it is, that a trained and experienced teacher may lean too much on his training and experience; but that is his fault. He abuses a precious gift and power. And allow me to remind you in all Christian kindness, that an untrained teacher may be just as proud of his own untaught efforts, as a trained one of his experience. In each case, true piety will rectify the evil; the Christian learns not to lean to his own understanding; and he who is most fully taught of God, has the least amount of selfconfidence. Paul, the philosopher, was as humble (at least) as Peter the fisherman."

each-which must include all."

to save all, or that he No, but he remembers,

My friend then started off to another point-"Why speak of saving only one of a class? How wrong to lead a teacher to aim at no more than this; Why not all?" "Common Sense did not bid you aim at no more. On the contrary, he told you to strive and pray for Yes, but why express or instil a doubt as to all being saved?" "Let me remind you of St. Paul's expression in 1 Cor. ix. 22. He says I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save SOME.' You will not suppose that the apostle did not long thought salvation was not offered to all. as Common Sense bade you remember, the enemies and obstacles. I would not say one one word to chill your ardour; on the contrary, it is lest you should indulge unreasonable hopes that I repeat his words, 'Try to save all your class - pray for each and all, and plead with each and all.' But if at the parting, you find some going from your care, apparently unimpressed, or even hardened, the effect of your own view might be despondency and even unbelief -the effect of his would be the use of greater earnestness and diligence for the future."

We parted, but I fear for him. He expects that no seed from his hand will fall by the wayside, or be choked with thorns. I know that he will be disappointed; will he give up the work?

To

Far different was my other friend-mature in age, calm, quiet, unimaginative, very full of common sense (as he thought himself), and accustomed to look at the shady side of every picture; a Christian man, but one whose heart had been cast in a cold mould. him, the Sunday school appeared one of the forlorn hopes of the Christian world-its deficiencies were seen through a telescope-its success deemed a fit subject for microscopic examination. I must fill up his words with some of his unuttered feelings, and I am sure that had he seen his thoughts in black and white he himself would have condemned them.

"Are you not making too much fuss about your Sunday school? It is all very well, but. People have many other things to attend to. And what comes of all this? I have been teaching now for some years, and I can see no good at all as regards my own class. High-flown speeches are for platforms and meetings, but what are the results of all such effort? I might prepare my lesson, but I doubt if my boys would attend any better-they only come out of habit, or for the sake of the company of their school-fellows; they will soon be gone, and what will all your teaching have done for them? As for conversion, do you believe in such a thing for children? They may play the hypocrite for what they can get."

I argued for some time with this teacher, though I fear without much effect, for he evaded the application of truths which he could not deny. I asked him if he really thought that a child could not love God. He shrank from such a dreadful idea. Did he mean that his boys could not love God? This, also, he repudiated. Another step-If they could be brought to do so, did he suppose that God would or would not probably employ human agency? The Bible compelled the reply-God has committed his Gospel to "earthen vessels." "How shall they hear without a preacher ?"

Again then, Did he feel that he himself was incapable of being employed by God as the instrument? Unworthiness, I reminded him, was not the point that he must feel like the apostle himself-but was he incapable? He mused at this awhile, but dared not say it was so. How, then, could he evade the appeal to try and save children's souls ?

He shifted his ground. That might be; but was it likely ? was it to be expected? I asked him whether a Sunday school was excluded from any participation in the privilege, "Where two or three are met together in my name, there am I in the midst of them; "" or in the promise, My word shall not return to Me void?" No, it could