that he had a rooted prejudice against some doctrine which he wished to pervert or explain away; and that he was more intent to confirm his doubts and carry his point, than to multiply evidence and become established in the faith? Of this there can be no question; and this helps us to answer what makes a heretic.

1. Subjectively. Heresy starts in the will; in unsanctified reason; in arbitrary human opinion, as opposed to faith and all rightful authority. It is a positive force engermed in the soul, and almost certain to develop in a certain way. It is a previous condition of the mind and heart which, by prevailing bent, swings away from some part of Scripture. Orthodoxy is not its goal, nor does it commit itself to the natural flow of the current towards it. It has another point to reach, and means to push around whatever stands in its way. It is the preference of something which is more agreeable to nature, or which appears more consonant with reason to that which is taught in the Scriptures. It is of choice, to add something which they exclude, or subtract something which they contain, or so to interpret, change or modify, as to make them harmonize with a preconceived opinion or theory.

A heretic, we say, is such from will and desire; not that he wills to be a heretic, but he wills to be that which makes him heretical. Thus Milton: "Heresy is in the will, professedly against Scripture." And in the "I will not be a heretic," of Augustine and Hooker, they show it to be a matter of volition, as opposed to error which is unavoidable. "Heresy," says Hooker, "is heretically maintained by such as obstinately hold it, after wholesome admonition."

Self-will then, obstinacy, dogmatism, enter into the radical idea of a heretic, and help to give him that character.

Here, we shall not forget that heresy may be the natural outgrowth of the prevailing religion or philosophy; or, that it may arise from pure speculation, as in the case of Sabellianism; or, that it may be a reaction from harsh or erroneous opinions of the church, and impelled in the defense of some dogmatic interest, as in the case of Pelagianism; and that while many persons appear to have been possessed by a pious and an honest zeal, as, for instance, Nestorius, Arius, and Pela

gius, others have been heretical, unconscious, to themselves, and out of compulsion; as witness multitudes in the Romish Church. All these circumstances, perhaps, must enter in to modify the offense; and, it is a nice question to determine. how far conscientious conviction may palliate heretical opinions. But, when all is done, heresy proceeds from some other point of departure than that of Scripture, and, as a rule, is of choice, to arrive at other conclusions.

But more particularly: A heretic is such from a willing misuse or abuse of reason. He submits that to the understanding which is plainly above it, and reasons where the subject precludes it, or, he tries to disprove what, though more or less evident, he is unwilling to believe. Like the rationalist, he demands too much of reason on the one side, and like the sophist, he directly abuses it on the other. Hence, as Hooker observes, "Heresy prevaileth by a counterfeit show of reason."

Here we have no desire to limit the use of reason, but only to confine it to its proper sphere, and to have it employed in a legitimate manner. But, it is the highest part of reason to know to what it applies, and how to use it lawfully; and, never is it more irrational than when it transcends its limits, or seeks to invalidate positive evidence.

It is in the nature of a heretic, still further, as he over-estimates reason, to underrate the authority of Scripture. This, of course he denies. But how else had it been possible to father on the Bible so many absurd and contrary dogmas? Witness the speculations of the Gnostics, who ever interpret and bend the Scriptures to meet their philosophy. In the language of Trench: "They only came to the Scriptures to find a varnish— an outer Christian coloring for a system essentially anti-Christian; not to learn its language, but to see if they could not compel it to speak theirs. They came with no desire to draw out of Scripture its meaning, but to thrust into Scripture their own."

And always, heresy appears in a disposition rather to guide the Scriptures than to be guided by them. They seem to be regarded as incomplete, and as needing some sort of revision or emendation. The Bible, so far from being thought infalli

ble, has been rummaged like the books of ancient archives, and subjected to every species of torture to prove a point; giving rise to the well known sneer:

"This is the book where each his dogma seeks;

And this the book where each his dogma finds."

Still, we have no desire to limit the right of private judgment; least of all, to commit the Scriptures to the keeping of a church. We have seen enough of priestly wardship and ecclesiastical orthdoxy, and are quite willing to intrust the Bible to the people at large. Let the heretics torture and corrupt the Scriptures as they will, they can do no worse than popes and councils, with their wretched dogma of tradition.

It enters, still further, into the composition of a heretic that he underrates the authority of those who, by their piety and learning, have been best fitted to judge of Scripture, and who have always agreed touching its fundamental teachings. "Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri," says old Burton, "is one of the first symptoms of a heretic;" and while a man is not bound to swear by the opinions of others, it is dangerous to swear by his own. There is a just medium between servility and assurance. "We are afraid," says Mr. Burke, "to put men to live and trade each on his private stock of reason; because we suspect that the stock in each man is small; and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages."

By our definition of orthodoxy, we cannot require a man to feel bound to the dictates of any particular person or church, considered as final authority; because what is particular is liable to be narrow and exclusive; and we made the highest authority to rest in those who, from their piety and learning, would not be likely to err as individuals, and who could not possibly err by common consent. Now, not to regard the opinions of such, is the part of conceit. It is to presume that one is wiser than all the fathers. "Omnes patres sic, atque ego sic," as Burton has it.

This, we think, has been the vice of heretics: that they have not been given to test their opinions by the conclusions of others, and that they have assumed to be more competent to judge

of Scripture than all who have gone before them; and it is this reckless self-assurance and spirit of dogmatism by which so many have swung from the Scriptures and made shipwreck of the faith. Thus much as to a heretic on the subjective side.

2. It now remains to determine what makes a heretic from the objective standpoint. For, though a heretic is such by virtue of his inner contents, yet the church must judge him according to his outer belief, and in view of his departure from the standard of orthodoxy. And here, as intimated, we prefer to indicate what that standard is rather by negation than affirmation, so as not to fall into those statements and definitions concerning orthodoxy which are peculiar to an age, indvidual, or church. We wish simply to conform to the words of Hagenbach, that "the definitions of doctrines have been undergoing constant change, while the great and essential truths which they teach remain the same in every age."

Orthodoxy, then, in the understanding of the most pious and learned in all ages of the church, has not been that view which denies the inspiration and divine authenticity of the Scriptures, with many of the Gnostics, in respect to the Old Testament and much of the New; or the fall, depravity and ruin of the human race, in consequence of sin, in an important sense, with the Gnostics, Pelagians, Socinians, Unitarians, &c.; or the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, with the Marcionites, Manichees, and others; or which affirms his humanity to the exclusion of his supreme divinity, with the Ebionites, Eunomians, Socinians, Arians, &c.; or his divinity to the exclusion of his humanity, with some of the Gnostics, Apollinarians, &c.; or which denies the personal distinction in the Godhead, with the Patripassians, Sabellians, Marcellians, Socinians, and Unitarians; or the doctrine of the two natures, with the Eutychians, Monophysites, &c.; or redemption and atonement in consequence of Christ's sufferings and death on the cross, with the Manichees, Marcionites, Socinians, and Unitarians; or regeneration through the personal agency of the Holy Spirit, in an important sense with the Pelagians and Unitarians; or justification by faith, with the Gnostics, and, in an essential sense, with many of the Papists and Pelagians; or the endless punishment

of the wicked, with the Universalists; or which affirms their annihilation, with the Destructionists; or an offer of salvation after death, with we know not whom.

To accept, then, any of these views as the genuine teachings of Scripture, goes to make a heretic-a heretic, because it is to pervert and corrupt their essential truth; and this not on the authority of any individual or church, but on the authority of those who, in every age of the church, have arrived at just contrary. conclusions, and who, by their piety and learning, their honest and unshackled spirit, and by their free surrender to the Spirit's influence, were, and are, best fitted to apprehend the truth of Scripture. We pretend not to deny that such an one may be a Christian, nor that there are many degrees of heresy; but simply affirm that when tried by the highest test, he, in an essential sense, departs from the faith. In fact, it is easy to show that the heretics are able to stand no such test as this, nor to furnish any similar criterion among themselves.

While, on the one side, there has been singular harmony and consistency touching the great and fundamental truths of Scripture-not so much in any form of words, perhaps, as in respect to that which manifold forms of words convey-or, aside from formulas, in respect to that which is expressed in meditations, hymns, and all methods of devotion; while, standing on common ground, all true believers are marshaled under one banner, inspired by one watchword and engaged in one conflict; while, in every age, it has been one Lord, one faith, one baptism, on the other side it has been endless diversity and disagreement. The heretics cross each other in every direction. Hence, a master of scoffing mentioned in Lord Bacon, in a catalogue of books of a feigned library, sets down this title of a book: "The Morris-dance of Heretics." "For," says Bacon,

every sect of them hath a diverse posture, or cringe by them selves, which cannot but move derision in wordlings and depraved politics, which are apt to contemn holy things."

Witness the difference between the Ebionites, the Docetæ, and the Gnostics, in respect to the character and mission of Jesus Christ; and also the endless diversity among the Gnos