will to the will of God, according to the view of that divine will which is obtained by trust in Christ's example and teaching, which is faith; a pardon of sins independent of harassing religious practices, sacrifices, and ascetic privations—these were "glad tidings of great joy," indeed, to all who, caring for their souls, felt bewildered between atheism and superstition*. As this Gospel was, and must always be, the very essence of Christianity, to deny it, or (what amounts to the same) to substitute another in its place, must, for ever, be contradictory of the denomination CHRISTIAN. Now, it is well known, that those who had deceived Paul's Galatian converts taught the necessity of circumcision, for that salvation which the Gospel promised to repentance. Nothing, therefore, could be more natural, nothing more directly flowing from the commission he had received, than to declare his abhorrence of those who practically abolished the very Gospel which it was the dearest object of his life to spread. The Gospel, in fact, being one single announcement, warranted by Christ, namely, remission of sins upon repentance, and eternal life to those who embrace these "glad tidings;" to promise these same things on any other condition, is an endeavour to render the true Gospel useless to mankind.

Similar to this is the principle which the apostle John applies to some of the Gnostics. Paul pronounces anathema on any one who should preach another Gospel, which, as he declares, "is not another," i. e. is no Gospel, no glad tidings at all. John, proceeding on the same principle, applied the name of ANTICHRIST to any one who denies that Jesus is the Christ. It is, besides, of importance for the right understanding of some such expressions of St. John, to know that, of the Gnostics, who, from the notion of the natural impurity of all matter,

* "Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations.”—Luke xxiv, 46, 47. This is the commission given to the apostles by Jesus himself.

↑ It is hardly necessary to observe that, by saying "which is not another," Paul intended to say which is not a Gospel. He could certainly not mean that it was the same.

denied that the Messiah had a body, a considerable number embraced also the practical error, that it was the duty of those who aspired to perfection to give up the body to all kinds of impurity, out of contempt for the evil principle, the author (as they believed) of the material part of the universe. That even the common civilities of life should not be interchanged by Christians with such practical Antinomians, is perfectly consistent with a total absence of orthodox intolerance*.

Such, as I have just described it, was the UNITY OF THE FAITH among the truly apostolic Christians. Let us never forget that FAITH means TRUST, and we shall readily perceive that the unity of trust, in regard to spiritual safety, must have been UNITY OF FAITH. The acceptance, therefore, of the "good tidings," namely, remission of sins upon repentance, and eternal life by trust in Christ, as the moral KING promised to the Jews, to deliver them from the condemnation of the law, and to the Gentiles, as their " light," and their "Saviour,” who was to rescue them from vice and the darkness of idolatry, the acceptance of this Gospel was all that the apostles and their assistant messengers of salvation demanded. But as this belief was a living principle, bearing in itself that peculiar spirit or influence which Christ had promised to his sincere followers, it would naturally extend its activity to all the mental faculties, and make them converge their powers to that centre of the soul's new life. Studies of all kinds, especially the study of the Scriptures, would be carried on within the powerful attraction of the great truth,-Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, the Saviour or great benefactor of mankind: happiness, here and hereafter, depends upon trust in his promises, and faithfulness to his precepts. When, therefore, a point of contact between the one essential principle of Christianity, and any other result of reflection or experience, offered itself to view, it would be greedily seized for the purpose of confirming or illustrating that principle. Some of these views would have a real foundation in the one original truth of Christianity; some would be plausible or fanciful deductions, but harmless; others would be false, and

* See note at the end.

perhaps dangerous, to that great truth, if followed up too closely and too logically. Yet all this was deemed consistent with the profession of real Christianity. Such is, indeed, Paul's view of the subject, as any one will find who shall study with an unprejudiced mind the third chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians.

66

No one acquainted with that scriptural document will deny that "the envying, strife, and divisions"-the HERESIES, in the scriptural sense of the word, which agitated the Christian society at Corinth, had their source in the peculiarities of the additional doctrines by which different teachers wished to distinguish themselves. It follows, therefore, that Paul had such doctrines in view, while he was earnestly urging his Corinthian children in Christ" to put aside these sources of discord. Let us now attentively consider the manner in which Paul treats these differences of DOCTRINE. He certainly does not (as subsequent theologians) appeal to some supreme tribunal in the church; he does not urge his own inspiration, and the consequent duty of taking his words as divine oracles on all occasions; he does not (as many at present would expect) claim to himself the right and authority of stopping the mouth of those teachers. His words throw the clearest light on my subject. I insert them, with such transient paraphrases as, I trust, the context will support. I only beg you not to forget, that the point which the apostle had to settle was, the practical question of variety of doctrine in the church of Corinth.

"According to the grace of God which is given to me (he says) as a wise master-builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon; for other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man (St. Paul proceeds) build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, every man's work shall be made manifest; for the day (i. e. time) shall declare it. Because it (the work thus done by men) shall be revealed by fire (by close and searching examination, arising from the vehement contests of Christians), and the fire shall try every man's work of what

C

sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward (in the assistance he shall have given to the Gospel, and in God's approbation : secondary views in conformity with the foundation will stand). If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss (additional doctrines, which must perish like stubble and wood by fire, will be a loss, a fine or penalty to the injudicious preacher); but he himself (if he has not given up the foundation, Jesus Christ, or betrayed it for another) will be saved (will be acquitted notwithstanding his errors), yet so as by fire" (with difficulty and the loss of his labour)*.

If such be the true meaning of this to many obscure, to others delusive, passage (and I believe the interpretation here given cannot easily be shaken), the question of orthodoxy, with all its practical difficulties, is at an end. And here let me observe, that the coincidence of my preceding argument with this remarkable passage was not at all prepared by my taking a clue from the passage itself. The inquiry which I have been pursuing began by the examination of a NEGATIVE fact-a kind which is ascertained with more certainty than the POSITIVE. I searched for the appointment of a judge of ORTHODOXY. A direct and definite appointment was not found; and this is enough to establish that NEGATIVE FACT beyond doubt. This step enabled me to conclude that ORTHODOXY and SAVING FAITH must be two different things; else the salvation of sincere men would have been made to depend on means attended with the greatest

* I had originally followed what I believe is the general notion, that by fire, the apostle meant persecution. But taking for my guide the clear assertion that TIME would be the great instrument for removing the false notions which philosophical teachers were then mixing with the foundation of the Gospel, I feel pretty certain that the fire, which is figuratively added as the more proximate instrument of the separation, must have an analogy to time, in regard to the predicted effect. But if time can bring about the separation of error which has been mixed up with truth, it is because it allows sufficient space for discussion, and the struggle of contending views. Persecution (which is the common signification given to fire) could not produce that effect; on the contrary, it generally confirms the errors of the persecuted.

uncertainty. As a well-grounded conviction of the truth of Christianity did not permit me, from this seeming deficiency in its plan, to conclude against the divine origin of the Gospel, I proceeded to examine what is left, after excluding all those theological questions on which the most learned as well as most pious persons are divided; all questions, I mean, which cannot be settled without a judge of orthodoxy; and I found thisbelief or trust in Christ as the moral king and instructor of mankind. This is the only point (besides practical precepts) which admits of no doubt among those who receive the testimony of the New Testament: this is the only preaching of Christ's immediate disciples, which requires no unerring interpreter. I concluded, therefore, that this belief, this acceptance of Christ as a moral Lord and Master, is the only condition of being a CHRISTIAN. I was led besides, by numerous considerations, to the persuasion, that other views, more or less connected with this surrender of the individual will to the will of God, as we know it through the teaching and example of Christ-that conjectures about the nature of Christ himself, and respecting the manner of the Divine existence; that notions relating to our future state, and theories innumerable on the world of spirits and our relations with it, would, at all times, but especially immediately after the publication of the Gospel, when the human mind was full of the most visionary systems of philosophy, attach themselves to the great and fundamental truth of Christianity. Considering, however, that the Gospel might co-exist with errors which did not directly oppose its influence on the will of man (else the Gospel could not have been preached till mankind had been completely enlightened by philosophy and science), I felt no doubt that it was the intention of Providence that secondary or collateral religious views should have free course among Christians, leaving such views to the operation of time, which would finally discover their proper value. Having gone through this mental process, it occurred to me, that, without at all intending it, or having previously thought of the above passage of St. Paul, I had said in other words exactly what the apostle had stated in expressions and meta

C 2