and, judging by their experience, we have no reason to fear for the great cause of "our Master and only Saviour, Jesus Christ." For ourselves, it is of primary importance that we should defend what we believe to be His truth, with "meekness of wisdom;" and not defend only, but restate that truth also, with all plainness of speech; remembering that Christian knowledge is not hereditary, and that the real source of danger from the heresy of the few, is to be found in the ignorance of the many.

The writer of the following pages has addressed himself to direct teaching, rather than direct controversy; and his standard of ultimate reference for all his teaching, has been the holy Scripture. With a cordiality which words can but inadequately express, he agrees in the statement that "what we find there (in holy Scripture) is a part of Christianity, whether recognised as such or no, in after ages: what we do not find there is no part of Christianity, however early, or however general may have been the attempts to interpolate it. If this be not so, we must change our religion and our master; we can be no longer Christians, servants of Christ, instructed by Him and His own apostles; but Alexandrianists, Syrianists, Asianists, following the notions which happened to prevail in the Church, according to the preponderance of particular local or temporary influences, and following as our master neither the wisdom of God, nor even the wisdom of men; but the opinions of a time and state of society, whose inferiority in all other aspects is acknowledged."

To a mind duly sensible of its own infirmity in grappling with questions of abstract truth or falsehood, and a conscience awake to the solemn responsibility of influencing other minds, every fresh reflection tends to enhance the value and the to us, of God's written word.

mercy

It is difficult, perhaps impossible, for us to form strictly

Arnold's Fragment on the Church, p. 47.

accurate judgments of our fellow-men; to examine fully, fairly, and impartially, the operations of mind, the workings of affection, the conflicts of passion, the calculations of interest which compose the complicated machinery of a human character; to trace with nice discrimination the boundary lines between the sincerity which deceives self, and the hypocrisy which deceives, or aims at deceiving, others.

Our difficulties in so doing arise from various causes.

First, these elements of character are evanescent. They fluctuate. They do not, like masses of matter, present always the same aspect to the inquirer. Rather they resemble the clouds, ever changing their forms before the wind, and their colours in the rays of the passing sun.

Moreover, secondly, they are deceitful, frequently presenting appearances which are not real, like the clouds again, exhibiting fantastic shapes of mountains, castles, battlements, or even of living beings. Neither are our difficulties confined to those causes only which belong to the things to be examined.

They arise, thirdly, from the state of the examiners. We also ourselves are fluctuating and deceitful. If Adam, in all the perfections of his unfallen nature and unclouded understanding, had been brought to the investigation of such a creature as one of his fallen descendants, doubtless his glance would have been penetrating, and his knowledge derived therefrom extensive and accurate. The glass would have been steady in the hand of the enquirer, and whatever inaccuracy might have arisen in the process, would have been occasioned exclusively by the movement in the object of his examination. But in all our enquiries the case is different. We are ourselves involved in the movement. The hand which holds the glass is unsteady, as well as the object to which the glass is directed. The subject to be investigated is dark, and the investigator is a partaker of that darkness. The human character is deceitful, and the human student of character

also is deceitful. Man as the subject of an experiment is morally blind, and man as the acting experimenter is morally blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Such, in brief and in truth, is the history and character of all human philosophy of the human mind, unassisted by the enlightening teaching of the Spirit of God. Such indeed is the undesigned confession of philosophy. The celebrated saying of one of the celebrated sages of Greece was, know thyself. He was wise enough to find out that he did not know himself; and he holds up self-knowledge as the climax of wisdom attained by none, to be desired and aimed at by all. No man knows himself, and how then with fewer opportunities for examination can he know others, who, in all the essentials of their nature, are like himself?

Here, in the impotence of man to detect himself, or investigate his fellow, we discover another reason for devout thankfulness to our God for the inestimable treasure of holy Scripture, the living and lively oracles of truth. "For the Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. iv. 12). Jesus Christ is the Word of God. In Him is more than the created wisdom of Adam in its best estate. He is "the wisdom of God." Of Him it is truly written that, " He knew what was in man." He sounded all the depths of man's mind. He penetrated the most secret recesses. He detected the most deceitful appearances. He arrested the most fitful and evanescent operations. He fixed, embodied, condensed, so as to exhibit to our view, and hold fast for our investigation, the cameleon character of man.

Refraining then from the masses of abstract theological metaphysics, in which it is easy to be elaborately useless, and learnedly lost, I have endeavoured in all simplicity to use the

Word of God as "a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path" (Psalm cxix. 105), while engaged for my own satisfaction -and that, I trust, of my readers also-in an investigation of the truth concerning the Church of God in Christ, and the Churches of Christ militant here on earth.

On the subject of what is called "the notes of the Church," I have been much struck with the justice and force of some observations in an anonymous discourse, attributed to Dr. Sherlock, in refutation of Cardinal Bellarmine's celebrated treatise. The writer urges the important distinction between the inquiry, "What is a true Church?" and the inquiry, "Which is the true Church?" He describes the right use of "notes" to be, to ascertain what it is which makes a Church a true Church; which he affirms to be necessary for all Christians to know, that they may take care that nothing be wanting in their communion which is essential to a true Church. And he charges the cardinal with having introduced and discussed quite a different question, viz., how, among all the divisions of Christendom, we may find out that only true Church which is the mistress of all other Churches, the only infallible guide in matters of faith, and to which alone the promises of pardon and salvation are made; and by some notes and characters of such a Church, to prove that the Church of Rome is that Church.

He says, "Let us now consider the cardinal's way, by some certain marks and notes, to find out which is the true Church, before we know what a true Church is. To pick out of all the Churches in the world one Church, which we must own for the only true Church, and reject all other Churches which do not subject themselves to this one Church. To find out such a Church, on whose authority we must rely for the whole Christian faith, and in whose communion only pardon

of sin is to be had. That is the use of notes in the Church of Rome, as I have already shown you; and truly they are very pretty things to be proved by notes; as, to consider them particularly:

"To find out which is the true Church before we know what a true Church is. This, methinks, is not a natural way for inquiry, but is like seeking for we know not what. There are two inquiries in order of nature prior to Which is the true Church, viz., Whether there be a true Church or not, and what it is. The first of these the cardinal takes for granted, that there is a Church; but I won't take it for granted, but desire these note-makers to give me some notes to prove that there is a Church. There is, indeed, a great deal of talk and noise in the world about a Church; but that is no proof that there is a Church; and yet it is not a self-evident proposition that there is a Church; and therefore it must be proved. Now, that there is a Church must be proved by notes, as well as which is this true Church, or else the whole design of notes is lost; and I would gladly see these notes which prove that there is a Church before we know what a Church is. To understand the mystery of this, we must briefly consider the reason and use of notes in the Church of Rome. According to the Popish resolution of faith into the authority of the Church, the first thing we must know is, which is the true Church; for we must receive the Scriptures, and the interpretation of them, and the whole Christian faith and worship, from the Church; and therefore we can know nothing of religion until we have found the Church. The use, then, of notes is to find out the Church before and without the Scriptures; for if they admit of a Scripture proof, they must allow that we can know and understand the Scriptures without the authority or interpretation of the Church; which undermines the very foundation of Popery. Now, I first desire to know how they will prove that there is a Church without the