incidence of opinion. They are represented (to serve a purpose) as disciples of such and such a leader. But there are three senses in which men are sometimes called 'disciples' of any other person: (1.) incorrectly, from their simply maintaining something that he maintains, without any profession or proof of its being derived from him. Thus, Augustine was a predestinarian, and so was Mahomet; yet no one supposes that the one derived his belief from the other. It is very common, however, to say of another, that he is an Arian, Athanasian, Socinian, &c., which tends to mislead, unless it is admitted, or can be proved, that he learnt his opinions from this or that master. (2.) When certain persons avow that they have adopted the views of another, not however on his authority, but from holding them to be agreeable to reason or to Scripture; as the Platonic, and most other philosophical sects; the Lutherans, Zuinglians, &c. (3.) When, like the disciples of Jesus, and, as it is said, of the Pythagoreans, and the adherents of certain Churches, they profess to receive their system, on the authority of their master or Church; to acquiesce in an 'ipse-dixit;' or, to receive all that the Church receives. These three senses should be carefully kept distinct."

One of the earliest of the assailants of Bishop Hampden's Bampton Lectures (a writer who afterwards seceded openly to Rome) distinctly asserted that Dr. II., Dr. Arnold, Dr. Hinds, Mr. Blanco White, and Archbishop Whately were 'united in the closest bonds of private friendship, as well as of agreement in doctrine.' Whether this was a known falsehood, or a mere random assertion, thrown out without any knowledge at all about the matter, one cannot decide. But the fact is, that Dr. Arnold never had any close intimacy with Dr. Hampden; and with Dr. Hinds, and Mr. B. White, he had not so much as a visiting acquaintance!

Now though the alleged 'private friendship'-had it existed —would have been nothing in itself blameable, one may easily see the purpose of the fabrication. That purpose evidently was, to impair in some degree the independent testimony of the persons mentioned, as to the points wherein they coincided, by insinuating that they had conspired together to found some kind of school or party; and that, in furtherance of such a

1 Eden's Theol. Dict., Art. 'Disciples.'

plan, they might possibly have been biassed in their several judgments, or have made something of a compromise.

How very probable such a result is, was strikingly shown, shortly after, by the formation of the 'Tract-party.' Of the persons who (deliberately and avowedly) combined for the purpose of advocating certain principles, some as they themselves subsequently declared-disapproved of much that was put forth in several of the Tracts for the Times, yet thought it best to suppress their disapprobation, and to continue to favour the publication, till the advocacy of unsound views had reached an alarming height.

The ingenuity displayed in many of those Tracts has given currency to doctrines in themselves open to easy refutation; and the high character for learning of some of the writers, doubtless contributed to their success; but their being known to have combined together (conspired,' is the term used by one of themselves) for the propagation of certain doctrines agreed upon, took off just so much of the weight of their authority.

And when ministers of the Church of England, and Moravians, and Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists, &c., are, all and each, without any concert, teaching to their respective congregations certain fundamental Christian doctrines, this their concurrence furnishes a strong presumption in favour of those doctrines. Of these religious communities, some coincide on all fundamental points, while others, unhappily, are, on many important points, opposed to each other: but as long as they are independent of each other, their spontaneous coincidence, where they do coincide, gives great weight to their testimony. But if they formally combine together (in an Association, Alliance, Party, or whatever else it may be called), and pledge themselves to each other to propagate these doctrines, the presumption is proportionably weakened.

It is very strange, that some persons not deficient, generally, in good sense, should fail to perceive the consequences of thus setting up what is in reality, though not in name, a new Church. Besides that, under a specious appearance of promoting union among Christians, it tends to foster dis-union and dissension in each Church, between those who do, and who do not, enrol themselves as members-besides this, the force of the spontaneous and independent testimony of members of distinct

Churches, is, in great measure, destroyed, by the unwise means used for strengthening it.

It is important that we should be fully aware, not only of the advantages which undoubtedly are obtained by this kind of union, but also of its disadvantages; for neither belong exclusively to any particular Church, or other community, but to every kind of party, association, alliance, or by whatever other name it may be called, in which there is an express or understood obligation on the members to give up, or to suppress, their own convictions, and submit to the decisions of the leader or leaders under whom they are to act.

This principle of sacrificing truth to unity, creeps in gradually. The sacrifice first demanded, in such cases, is, in general, not a great one. Men are led on, step by step, from silence as to some mistake, to connivance at fallacies, and thence to suppression, and then to misrepresentation, of truth; and ultimately to the support of known falsehood.

It is scarcely necessary to say that I do not advocate the opposite extreme, the too common practice of exaggerating differences, or setting down all who do not completely concur in all our views as 'infidels,' as 'altogether heterodox,' &c. The right maxim is one that we may borrow from Shakespere: 'Nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice.' But it is worth remarking, that what may be called the two opposite extremes, in this matter, are generally found together. For it is the tendency of party-spirit to pardon anything in those who heartily support the party, and nothing in those who do not.

'Men ought to take heed of rending God's Church by two kinds of controversies.'

Controversy, though always an evil in itself, is sometimes a necessary evil. To give up any thing worth contending about, in order to prevent hurtful contentions, is, for the sake of extirpating noxious weeds, to condemn the field to perpetual sterility. Yet, if the principle that it is an evil only to be incurred when necessary for the sake of some important good, were acted upon, the two classes of controversies mentioned by Bacon would certainly be excluded. The first, controversy on subjects too deep and mysterious, is indeed calculated to gender strife. For, in a case where correct knowledge is impossible to any

and where all are, in fact, in the wrong, there is but little likelihood of agreement; like men who should rashly venture to explore a strange land in utter darkness, they will be scattered into a thousand devious paths. The second class of subjects that would be excluded by this principle, are those which relate to matters too minute and trifling. For it should be remembered that not only does every question that can be raised lead to differences of opinion, disputes, and parties, but also that the violence of the dispute, and the zeal and bigoted spirit of the party, are not at all proportioned to the im portance of the matter at issue. The smallest spark, if thrown among very combustible substances, may raise a formidable conflagration. Witness the long and acrimonious disputes which distracted the Church concerning the proper time for the observance of Easter, and concerning the use of leavened or unleavened bread at the Lord's Supper. We of the present day, viewing these controversies from a distance, with the eye of sober reason, and perceiving of how little consequence the points of dispute are in themselves, provided they be so fixed as to produce a decent uniformity, at least among the members of each Church, can hardly bring ourselves to believe that the most important doctrines of the Gospel were never made the subject of more eager contentions than such trifles as these: and that for these the peace and unity of the Church were violated, and Christian charity too often utterly destroyed. But we should not forget that human nature is still the same as it ever was; and that though the controversies of one age may often appear ridiculous in another, the disposition to contend about trifles may remain unchanged.

Not only, however, should we avoid the risk of causing needless strife by the discussion of such questions as are in themselves trifling, but those also are to be regarded as to us insignificant, which, however curious, sublime, and interesting, can lead to no practical result, and have no tendency to make us better Christians, but are merely matters of speculative curiosity. Paul is frequent and earnest in his exhortations to his converts to confine themselves to such studies as tend to the edification of the Church, -the increase of the fruits of the Spirit, the conversion of infidels, and the propagation of the essential doctrines of the Gospel. And these doctrines are all

of a practical tendency. While all the systems framed by

human superstition, enthusiasm, and imposture, whether Pagan, Romish, or Mahometan, abound, as might be expected, in mythological fables and marvellous legends, it is one of the most remarkable characteristics of the true religion, that it reveals nothing that is not practically important for us to know with a view to our salvation. Our religion, as might no less be expected of one which comes not from Man, but from God, reveals to us, not the philosophy of the human mind in itself, nor yet the philosophy of the divine Nature in itself, but (that which is properly religion) the relation and connection of the two Beings;-what God is to us,-what He has done, and will do for us, and what we are to be and to do, in regard to Him. Bacon, doubtless, does not mean to preclude all thought or mention of any subject connected with religion, whose practical utility we are unable to point out. On the contrary, he elsewhere urges us to pursue truth, without always requiring to perceive its practical application. But all controversy, and everything that is likely, under existing circumstances, to lead to controversy, on such points, must be carefully avoided. When once a flame is kindled, we cannot tell how far it may extend. And since, though we may be allowed, we cannot be bound in duty to discuss speculative points of theology, the blame of occasioning needless dissension must lie with those who so discuss them as to incur a risk that hostile parties may arise out of their speculations.

'Men create oppositions which are not, and put them into new terms so fixed, as whereas the meaning ought to govern the term, the term in effect governeth the meaning.'

So important are words in influencing our thoughts, and so common is the error of overlooking their importance, that we cannot give too much heed to this caution of Bacon as to our use of language in religious discussion. The rules most important to be observed are, first, to be aware of the ambiguity of words, and watchful against being misled by it; since the same word not only may, but often must, be used to express different meanings; and so common a source of dissension is the mistake hence arising of the meaning of others, that the word misunderstanding is applied to disagreements in general: secondly (since, on the other hand, the same meaning may be