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) shalldeclare 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 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).*

* 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 in 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.

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 enquiry 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 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 this-belief or trust in THE CHRIST, 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 the 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 himself—that conjectures about the nature of the 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 metaphors not so familiar to our minds. I had, indeed, frequently dwelt upon that passage; but its meaning remained always enveloped in a mist, till, as it were, by the innate attraction of truth to truth, the result of my thoughts on Orthodoxy and these remarkable words of Paul ran, like two kindred drops, into each other, forming, in my mind, a clear, full, and definite notion. This cannot be the effect of chance.

LETTER II.

ON HERESY AND ORTHODOXY.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

NOTHING weighs so heavily upon my mind, when engaged on theological subjects, as the constant fear of being misunderstood, and the habitual conviction, that no care on my part can possibly avert that danger. A most distinguished writer on the theory of morals (Sir James Mackintosh) complains, in a striking manner, of the almost insuperable difficulty which popular language presents to the philosopher who undertakes to throw light on the subject of man considered as a moral, responsible, and improvable agent. Yet that obstacle, in philosophy, appears reduced to the dimensions of a molehill, when compared with the mountain which the popular language of theology, and the prejudices inseparably connected with it, cast up in the way of any man who, in the examination of Christianity, ventures to leave the beaten path of scholasticism. The most important words of the New Testament have not only received an indelible false stamp from the hands of the old schoolmen, but, those words having, since the Reformation, become common property in the language of the country, are, as it were, thickly incrusted with the most vague, incorrect, and vulgar notions. Thus the word faith (for instance), which, at the hands of the

C

Romanist divines, had been nearly deprived of its original meaning, trust, which is directly and most exclusively conveyed by TiT, is still further perverted, by common usage among Protestants, to signify an enthusiastic ardour in asserting what they can neither prove nor express to themselves in definite terms. The faith preached by the Roman Catholics, as the only way to salvation, is an act of mental obedience to the Catholic Church, that infallible judge which they suppose to exist somewhere. The faith of many Protestants is an act of passionate asseveration grounded only upon the feelings of each individual, and rendered unalterable by the stubbornness with which they close their eyes, that they may not see any reason to waver.

Now, under such circumstances, can misunderstanding be avoided? The investigation of truth, as in theory it is universally acknowledged, demands perfect composure of mind, and the absence of all disturbing passions. But is it possible for a writer who does not flatter popular notions in divinity to obtain many readers in that state of mind? Can a man who calls upon people, urging their duty to examine their religious notions, and to take the necessary trouble for separating truth from error, avoid giving offence? No. The strongest tendency of the human mind, in respect to religion, is to save itself trouble, either by embracing a superstitious and indiscriminate system of belief, or by dismissing the subject as totally unworthy of attention. Nearly hopeless, however, as this latter state of mind must appear to the theological writer, it is, in reality, preferable to that of the impassioned believer. The most frequent cause of unbelief, which I have observed in this country, is disgust; produced, on the one hand, by misrepresentations of Christianity, which defy reason