with a reason for the belief that is in him; and with that reason a constant reference to the sacred Scriptures and his daily life in support of his position as a sectary-to the former in proof of his religious idiosyncracies, and to the latter in proof of the consistency of his daily walk and conversation—his practice with

his faith.

66

Thus much may be said with respect to the subjective religion of the sectary, and may be true; but, say our opponents, it is far otherwise with respect to his objective religion-his relation to the orthodox Christian, other sectaries, and to the unbelievers, or those commonly designated in the religious phrase, the world. Ask the sectary if he accords equal right to the private interpretation of the Scriptures, and he answers, "Every one is answerable to God alone for the opinions he forms from the book of God, and none have the right to withhold or interfere with the right of private judgment." Ask him if he lives in peace with other sectaries and the orthodox faith, and he answers, I give the right hand of fellowship to all who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and in truth." Ask him if he holds bigoted views with respect to the accuracy of his own creed and the inaccuracy of the creed of others, and he answers, "My conscience dictates to me the course I should myself follow, and not to walk in obedience to my conscience is sin. My fellow Christian_may differ from me, according as his conscience may dictate. He is responsible to God for the course he adopts, not to me. I believe him wrong; if I can, with the assistance of God's word, enlighten his conscience, I do him service; but I must esteem him none the worse although he cannot see eye to eye with me." Inquire his opinion respecting Christian effort in reclaiming the world from sin, and bringing the family of man into the fold of God; he will answer, "It is the duty of all who have felt that God has been gracious to them, to tell to others what a dear Saviour they have found; to preach Christ and him crucified as the sinner's hope and help in extremity; that Paul may plant, Apollos may water, but 'tis God who giveth the increase; that it is the height of folly, if not of sin, to preach to unbelievers Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, or Congregationalism, Protestantism, Wesleyanism, Baptism, or any other ism; the message of the gospel, in his estimation, is-Man is a sinner, and Christ is a Saviour, and whosoever will may drink of the water of life freely." Does the sectary rejoice or regret the success of orthodoxy or other sectaries ? Undoubtedly he rejoices at the success of all in the salva-` tion of the souls of sinners. He, with the angels in heaven, rejoices more over one sinner saved than over ninety and nine just persons who need no salvation, and never questions who nor what the instrument employed, feeling assured that his heavenly Father willed it; Christ had saved the soul, and the glory is

theirs, not the feeble instrument's. He rejoices with the instrument, but he glories in his all-sufficient Saviour and the Father's boundless love.

But it may be said, sectarianism destroys the unity of the Church, and exposes the Church of Christ to the taunt of the sceptic. These objections we deny as without any foundation. In the first place, such a unity as the New Testament requires is possessed by all Protestant sectaries, as all firmly maintain the essentials of Christianity; the saving doctrines of the gospel are held as their sheet anchor by orthodoxy and sectary. For Episcopalianism will not save, Wesleyanism will not save, and Baptism will not save, but repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone, no other name being given amongst men by which man may be saved. In the second place, it is not the principles of sectarianism at which the sceptic directs his pointed sarcasm, but the unsanctified prejudices by which individual orthodoxy and heterodoxy magnifies its own idiosyncrasy, and pushes it into greater prominence than the fundamentals of its creed, making a Shibboleth the sine qua non of religious faith and practice the passport to the empyrean, rather than the simple faith which is in Christ Jesus. The sectary and the orthodox equally deplore this, and are equally if not more severe upon it than the sceptic, regarding it as an abuse of principle attaching itself to the church militant, as an unhealthy excrescence, to be dealt with in the most relentless and inexorable justice.

Sectarianism says, repentance and belief are the sinner's sure foundations for permanent peace. Of these he must be certain; but of the thousand and one varieties of sentiment found among the sects let each be persuaded in his own mind. The word of God is placed in the inquirer's hands as his chart through life towards eternity; he may choose Church or Dissent for the route, but with penitence and faith-the former as ballast, the latter as compass he will not fail to arrive at the haven of eternal rest and joy, at God's right hand in glory.

Sectarianism thus contributes to personal consistency, piety, and knowledge of the Scriptures-preserves the unity of the gospel Church according to the scriptural model-produces emulation in the desire to save souls-disarms scepticism-and most impartially appeals to the unconverted. We therefore do not consider sectarianism obstructive to Christianity.

Birmingham.

L'OUVRIER.

WAR.-In ancient times, war was made for conquest. To these have succeeded wars for religion. The next pretext was for commerce; and lastly, for political opinions.-C. J. Fox.

History.

HAS THE PRESERVATION OF CASTE CONDUCED TO THE PRESENT REVOLT IN INDIA?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-I.

IF history is to be vindicated from the contempt which Johnson felt for it, and which Lord Plunket tersely expressed, when he declared it to be nothing better than "an old almanack," it must be by the consideration and discussion of questions like the one now before us. It is only by thus allying history with philosophy that the former comes to have any intrinsic worth, or rises to the dignity of a study. Truth may, in some rare and occasional instances, be stranger than fiction, but, in the long run, it undoubtedly is common-place, if we simply confine our attention to its bare facts; hence the mere narrative of history, however vivid and life-like, can scarcely compete in point of interest with the creations of historical romance. "Waverley takes a firmer hold on the imagination than any narrative of the rebellion it partially sketches; "Ivanhoe charms us far more than any sketch of the social condition of England in the days of Richard I. The biography of Ulysses and Æneas, and the true history of the Trojan War, would be sorry substitutes (in point of interest) for the "Odyssey," the Eneid," and the "Iliad."

66

It is, however, to be feared that history is seldom regarded by the majority of its readers in its higher aspects. The schoolboy has scarcely the temper or capacity of mind to enter into its philosophical questions; his object is only to gain sufficient knowledge of its facts to serve as a basis for further study, or to enable him hereafter to sustain the character of an ordinarily well-informed man. And perhaps but very few ever afterwards turn to the pages of history with any definite purpose of studying its lessons. It is read really because it is interesting, while it enables us to lay the flattering unction to our souls, that we are engaged in useful study. But if no further use is made of the information thus gained, we think history might as well be laid aside for the yet more fascinating pages of the epic or the romance. The supposed utility of much historical reading is but a self-deception, except so far as it stores the mind with the materials for historical study in its really valuable aspects. We rejoice, therefore, that the Controversialist upholds the philosophical character of history, by bringing forward, from time to time, questions, the decision of which utilizes its facts, and exercises the minds of both writers and readers in the endeavour to

draw forth those lessons in citizenship and social policy which constitute its true value and glory. We cannot fulfil our duties to the age in which we live, and discharge aright the responsibilities which rest upon us in regard to the destiny and condition of those who are to succeed us in the future, unless we study the experience of our contemporaries and predecessors. History is a mere dry body of facts, unless we inquire into their origin, connection, and mutual influence, and thus endeavour to gain an acquaintance with the principles which, so to speak, inform those facts with life. There is a knowledge of history "and a wisdom of history, to which the words of Tennyson aptly apply:

"Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers, and he bears a laden breast,

Full of sad experience, moving towards the stillness of his rest."

66

It is only by musing and reflecting upon the full record of "sad experience" that nations (like individuals) learn wisdom, and move under its guidance to truer, nobler, and more peaceful eras of existence. Philosophy teaching by example" is a noble definition of what history is, and ought to be, to the earnest student; and it is well, when questions are raised, which compel us to dwell upon its examples, until we have eliminated from them those lessons of philosophy which they so surely and safely teach, but which are not always, nor indeed often, obvious.

A terrible and unexpected mutiny, like that which for months past has caused our very blood to curdle with horror at the fearful details of its atrocities and cruelties, and has made all England tremble for the existence of her mighty Indian empire, › must awaken every intelligent mind to an inquiry into its origin and causes. Like a whirlwind, scattering ruin and destruction, it has burst forth without warning, and has raged apparently without law or purpose. A frenzied thirst for blood and outrage, and a "ravening to destroy," seem to be not merely the characteristics, but almost the sole aim and purpose of the mutineers. One theory alone seems to account for their conduct; to wit, a ruthless, frenzied personal hate to every European. And yet the motive or cause of such a feeling is beyond conception; for, whatever the British rule may have been to the people of India, to the native soldiery it has been mild, generous, and lucrative. They have eaten our bread, been clothed in our uniform, paid from our treasuries. They have won glory under our flags, been humoured, and almost petted by us. It is true that the pretext of their revolt was a fear that we were about to attempt their conversion, and that the cartridges we served to them could not be used without breaking one of the sacred canons of their faith. But one single fact exposes the utter falsehood of the pretext. For ourselves, we know not whether the cartridges were really greased with bullock's fat, or no; but

one thing is certain, that those very cartridges were used without hesitation against us. The men who refused to use them on the parade ground, had loaded their muskets with them in private. We are aware that men may publicly profess their zeal for religious ordinances which they break without compunction in private; but the fanaticism which strives unto blood in defence of formalism is invariably honest. The history of Cambyses shows the true spirit of fanatical rebellion in all ages and countries. Cambyses, if we may credit the traditions which have survived, had but to place cats, dogs, sheep, and other sacred animals, between his besieging army and the city of Pelusium, to ensure success. The fanaticism of the garrison, true to its unreasoning blindness, precluded them from using the means of self-defence. The man who will revolt rather than infringe a ceremonial law of his faith, will die rather than defend himsel at its expense. All the history of human nature concurs to establish this position. The avowed origin of the Sepoy mutiny is evidently and assuredly a mere pretext in itself; how far it may be connected with the outbreak remains yet to be seen. The reason assigned for the commission of a crime, though utterly false in itself, may, and often does, afford a clue to the real motive or secondary influences which have led to the criminal act.

It is not our intention to argue out the real causes of the revolt of the Bengal army. Such an effort would be beyond the province assigned to us by the topic of debate, and of little real utility. Suppositions and conjectures without number have been hazarded on the subject, and much has been ably said and written in favour of some few of the more plausible theories. But we hold that the time for a decision has not yet arrived; we do not possess a sufficiently broad basis of admitted facts for really sound inductive reasoning. We can only at present argue hypothetically. It is in India that the only trustworthy evidence can be gathered, and in that country action must supersede mere judicial inquiry. Prevention had been better than cure: but now the disease is raging, and our first business is to stay the evil, not to reflect upon its origin. Statesmanship must wait its turn, until generalship has quelled the strife of civil war. We are told of the seizure of papers at Delhi and Cawnpore which throw light upon the causes of the revolt. We know, too, that evidence is in the possession of the Indian Government, which has been considered sufficient to justify the imprisonment and to evidence the criminality of the King of Oude. Any of these things may, when disclosed, be of such nature as to leave no room for candour to doubt as to the primary motives and origin of the mutiny.

But while we refrain from the attempt to establish any particular opinion as truth, there can be no objection to point out