providentially called, his answer is, I trust in the Lord's promise, that "as my day is, so shall my strength be," and in the gracious assurance given to us by St. Paul that "God is faithful, who will not suffer us to be tried above what we are able, but will with the trial also make a way to escape, that we may be able to bear it " (1 Cor. x. 13). Thus his practical object is not to arrest attention by exaggerated works of supposed extrameritoriousness; but quietly, steadily, and unostentatiously, in the appropriate duties of the state of life in which he is providentially placed, to keep the commandments of God; or, as it is expressed in our catechism, "to do his duty in that state of life to which it has pleased God to call him."

Which of these views, then, is the true one? which is in accordance with the mind of God, and therefore with real holiness in man? The question is momentous. How is it to be tried? By what standard is examination to be conducted, and judgment to be pronounced?

Our opponents in this controversy appeal to authentic biography of sainted men, or to living examples, or to that nondescript something to be found nowhere,-catholic consent, as a primary rule of faith. It is in the following terms that Mr. Ward commends what, in his opinion, is the only thread which can guide the inquirer aright :

"In the present profoundly disturbed and unsettled state of theological sentiment, no one who has not the happiness of resting with secure and undoubting confidence in some safe harbour will allow himself wilfully to shut his eyes to any exhibition of virtue and self-denial, from whatever quarter it may present itself; by so doing, he incurs serious danger of losing hold of that thread which can alone guide him safely through the bewildering labyrinth of opinion which surrounds

But how, it may be asked, is the inquirer to form his judgment

1 See Deut. xxxiii. 25. And for the Christian application of such promises, see Joshua i. 5, and compare the apostle's appropriation of it, and confidence derived from it, in Heb. xiii, 5, 6.

2 Ideal, etc., p. 208.

of the exhibitions before his eyes? How to distinguish between exhibitions of virtue and self-denial, and exhibitions of pride and self-conceit? May he not mistake the one for the other, and so be involved in still more embarrassing labyrinths? By what standard shall he test any exhibition set before his eyes, whether in the histories of ascetic saints, or in the examples of living members of some visible Church, to ascertain whether its most striking features be those of virtue or vice, of real holiness or subtle corruption, of genuine humility seeking God's glory, or self-complacent pride seeking its own glory, and name, and fame, for austerity or singularity among men? Is the private judgment of the inquirer, on all such exhibitions, to be safely depended upon for a just and true discernment between good and evil? If not, Mr. Ward's only guiding thread may lead astray. It cannot possibly perform the valuable office he assigns to it, except on the principle of private judgment being safe and trustworthy. Again, we ask, by what standard is the examination to be conducted, and judgment pronounced? If appeal be made to a supposed innate sense of right and wrong in all mankind, our answer is a counter-appeal to experience. Some sense or feeling of right and wrong, at some point of separation, is indeed universally found among men, but it is not innate, as appears by the fact that it is not uniform; it varies in different countries, and in different stages of civilization, and is manifestly the creature of circumstances. Its verdict is not to be depended upon, being much more frequently and extensively false than true. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."1

But, thanks to God, we are not left without a genuine standard which may always and everywhere be depended upon. He who is indeed infallible has spoken unto men, and has caused to be written and preserved for our own use such an amount of what He said as is sufficient to make every man who believes it wise unto everlasting salvation (St. John xx. 31; 2 Tim. iii. 14— 17). Looking to the word of God, not to the exhibitions, of men, I would re-write the above paragraph thus:-In the

1 Prov. xvi. 25.

present profoundly disturbed and unsettled state of theological sentiment, no one who has not the happiness of resting with secure and undoubting confidence in some safe harbour will allow himself wilfully to shut his eyes to the Holy Scriptures, which are given by inspiration of God; by so doing he incurs serious danger of losing hold of the thread which alone can guide him safely through the bewildering labyrinth of opinions which surround us.

Appealing, then, to the Holy Scriptures, which of the abovementioned views of man in his natural state will be found in accordance with our only infallible standard? Here, of course, we must exercise our private judgment on the texts of Scripture; and is this unlawful? May an inquirer, with much advantage, exercise his private judgment on exhibitions of men who may possibly be hypocrites, and may he not do so on the word of the God of truth, who cannot deceive?

It appears to me to be the doctrine of Scripture that man in his natural state does not, and cannot, in anything, serve or please the true God. There is no such being in his thoughts. Whatever notions he may have of the physical attributes of a great First Cause, he has, and can have, no correct idea of the moral character of Jehovah, God in Christ, the only God who has any real existence. Every man, therefore, in his natural state, who has not become an infidel, is an idolater. So far as he has religion at all, his mind and affections are engaged with a phantom or phantoms of his own imagination. The character ascribed to this idol, or idols, varies exceedingly, from the bloodthirsty Juggernath, whose monster car crushes its thousands of

The part of Mr. Ward's book which appears to betray the recklessness of a partisan rather than the conscientiousness of a humble Christian, is that in which he insinuates that the question of the inspiration of the Scriptures is a doubtful one. Does he really mean this, in the face of the evidence adduced and corroborated? Or is it only a new version of the old Roman Catholic cavil which would deprive the mind of reasonable evidence altogether (even for the origin of Scripture), thereby seeking to cast it prostrate on the authority of the Church? I have said for the origin of the Scripture, because I know and feel that for many important contents of the Scripture we cannot have reasonable evidence; but then, having such evidence for the divine origin, the mind reposes for such contents on the authority of God, not of men.

prostrate votaries on the banks of the Ganges, to the soft conniver at sin worshipped by the philosophical Unitarian or Socinian in civilised Christendom. But the true God is nowhere discovered but in Jesus, and no man can say, or know, or believe, that Jesus is the Christ but by the Holy Ghost (St. John xiv. 6; 1 Cor. xii. 3). In other words, a man must be taught by the Holy Ghost, that is, he must cease to be in his natural state, before he can have a single correct thought of God. "No man knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him" (St. Matt. xi. 27). "The Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness or hardness of their heart" (Eph. iv. 17, 18).

And while their mental state is thus described as one of ignorance and blindness as it respects God, their moral state is described as being accursed of Him. It is only in the gospel that any blessing is announced or given to the heathen. This was promised to Abraham, and as many in all nations as hear and believe the gospel are blessed with faithful Abraham. But as many as are of the works of the law, that is (clearly by the force of the contrast) all who do not hear, or, hearing, do not believe, the gospel-to wit, all men in all countries who are in their natural state-are "under the curse;" for it is written, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them " (Gal. iii. 8-10).

This is precise; and who of the race of Adam has ever been able to extricate himself from this curse? "The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God." And what was the result of His search? Did He find any who had cultivated their natural powers, so as to work themselves into a congruity for His grace? The answer of truth is, "They are all gone aside, they are altogether become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one (Psalm xiv. 2, 3). When St. Paul cites this and other similar passages, to prove concerning Jew and Gentile that they are all under sin, in his application of the whole he prostrates all

pretensions to congruity for grace in any, by the solemn declaration that in respect of acceptance with God, which was his subject, and is now ours, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, for that all have sinned (Rom. iii. 9-22). St. James, also, estimating sin by the principle and not the quantity of disobedience, says, "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (Jas. ii. 10). Every man, therefore, who is not in Christ, is guilty of all in the sight of God, however his character and conduct may exceed those of other men in the sight and estimation of society.

These and such passages of Holy Scripture seem to me to justify wholly the statements made in our Articles upon this subject; and to exclude what Mr. Ward calls "the catholic doctrine of congruity," as a vain fiction and a dangerous flattery.

Objections are urged against the conclusion thus arrived at! Of course; where is the truth against which no objection is urged? The most important, as being derived not from general reasonings, neither from the dicta of uninspired men in any age, but from the Scripture itself, are those grounded upon the histories of the amiable young ruler whom Jesus loved, and the Gentile centurion, Cornelius?

I proceed to consider these.

First, the Ruler (St. Mark x. 17—27).

He came to Jesus, kneeled before Him, and asked Him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? I suppose this man to have been sincerely desirous to attain eternal life. He had done much for the purpose according to his own principles. He had carefully, and, as he seems to have thought, perfectly fulfilled all his moral duties; and supposing he had found in Jesus a teacher, who could set him right if there was anything still wrong, or anything defective, he came to Him. His coming to Him, and calling Him Master, contained a profession at least, and in this case there is every reason to say a sincere one, that he esteemed Him qualified to teach. His high opinion of Jesus, indeed, led him to use an expression for which he received a reproof-" Why callest thou me good?”

Ideal, etc., p. 195.