although both these dogmas can be got out of his epistles, but to certain practical duties. Observe that in his view, the preaching of Christ and the preaching of a holy life were never separated; he did not teach doctrine and practice, his doctrine was practice.

For instance, in the verse referred to above he is speaking to servants, the doctrine of God our Saviour to them was not to purloin; the doctrine of Christ to all men was, v. 12, ' denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, living soberly,' &c.

The word 'doctrine' occurs, 1 Tim. iv. I; here it means, false doctrine. What is that? iv. 2, 'Speaking lies, having the conscience seared with a hot iron.'

Who are they who act contrary to 'sound doctrine?' 1 Tim. i. 10, ‘Whoremongers, perjured persons.'

65. The kind of faith, then, according to Paul, which saves a man, is not a faith which leads a man's head always right; but one which leads his heart. A man may believe right and act wrong. A man may believe wrong and act right; but of these two cases there can be no doubt which Paul would have called the case of 'saving faith,' i.e. the man who believed wrong and acted right. Therefore, make the distinction between head-belief and heart-belief.

To hold intellectual error is always a misfortune, not always a fault. To hold moral error is to have a corrupt heart, a conscience seared with a hot iron. To be wrong-headed is venial. To be wrong-hearted is fatal. Nothing can be more mischievous than to

suppose that salvation depends upon an entirely correct intellectual belief. Intellectual unbelief alone never damned a man. Intellectual belief alone never

saved a man.

Observe now the different measures of severity applied by Paul to intellectual error and moral error.

Intellectual error, I Cor. xv. 12. There were men at Corinth within the Christian Church, calling themselves and living like Christian people, who denied the physical resurrection of Christ. We should have called them Socinians, or some other nickname, and turned them out of the Church.

St. Paul does not even deny their right to consider themselves good Christians! He did not think intellectual doubt to be a sin; if a man in doubt or in error was still walking in the footsteps of Christ and living as a Christian should, that was enough for fellowship, for communion; he was one in heart with Paul. Was his belief wrong? Paul would sit down and argue the matter quietly, try and see his difficulties about the resurrection, respect his own convictions and their grounds, but never dream of casting his brother out of the Church, because of some intellectual difference between them, because the proofs which seemed valid to him, Paul, did not seem valid to some of his converts, who were still his converts, if they reproduced the Christian life, whatever they might believe about the physical resurrection.

I Cor. xv. 12, 'Now, if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some of you that there is

M

no resurrection? But if there is no resurrection, then is Christ not raised.'

The tone of moderation is striking. Now contrast it

Cor. v. 5-13, where he is

Paul gives this man no

with the tone assumed I dealing with moral error. quarter at all, 'He delivers him to Satan.' He turns him out of the company of Christians. This man

had perhaps never doubted the resurrection, or any other doctrine, but he had done worse; he was an open deliberate whoremonger: he was an unnatural offender of the deepest dye.

In one place, Paul says that, I Tim. v. 8, if a man does not provide for his own house he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.

Now, what does this amount to? This; a man who neglects his family duties is worse than a man who denies the Christian faith; in other words, it is better for you to disbelieve the Christian faith intellectually, than to be a bad husband and a bad father.

Christ teaches similarly when, Matt. xii. 31, He says that disbelief, and even abuse of Himself as the Son of Man, shall be forgiven; but resistance to the Holy Ghost, the action of God's Spirit on the heart, was unpardonable : the one might be an intellectual mistake, the other must be a moral vice.

66. What then, it may be asked, is the use of a true intellectual belief? What effect, if any, has it on the life;

'N.B. An after life is not here denied by the objector, but the resurrection of the body.

The

what is the connection between head-belief and heartbelief? It has been said above that a man with a wrong belief may yet act right, but it was not said that he acted rightly because of his wrong belief. fact is nobody is all wrong in their belief, and what they do right is in consequence of what is right, not in consequence of what is wrong, in their belief; the more wrong it is, the more hindrances there are to the right elements of their belief triumphing; but they will often triumph, because the heart which is always hungry for truth seizes upon it and assimilates it. A good Mahomedan is not good because he does not believe in the supreme revelation of God in Christ; but because he holds there is one God, and he is right there. There is a great deal of religion to be got out of that truth when the heart has appropriated it. A little truth will often paralyse a good deal of error; and that is why we constantly see people who are better than their creed. Good Roman Catholics are not so because they believe in the Virgin, and conjuring performed at the high altar, but because they believe in the love of God, the life of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit; and there is enough there to paralyse a pretty considerable amount of error. Thus, it is the heart, not the head, that lives upon truth; it is the heart that drives us the right way, when the head is often busied in providing obstacles to our progress.

I see a ship upon the sea, it is going against the tide, its sails are spread, but the wind does not fill them; it is blowing hard against them, and yet the vessel makes

way. What is the secret? Why, it is a steam-vessel-the tides and the winds are mighty, but the power of steam is mightier. The heart is God's steam-power, and speeds the vessel of our life to the eternal shore, despite the winds and tides of intellectual error. Again, then, it is asked, is intellectual error so dangerous a thing in itself, seeing that it is so constantly counteracted in individuals?-in individuals, yes; but what becomes of communities? It is the community that suffers from intellectual error, whilst an individual here and there escapes. It is the community who are constantly drawing moral vice from intellectual error, whilst individuals are saved in spite of their error. If every man acted out his error logically, then intellectual error would become moral error at every step; but there is this difference between individuals and masses- -individuals are often illogical, masses are always logical. If there is something wrong in a belief, it comes out in blots on the mass; nine are smitten, although the tenth may escape.

67. A good woman believes her priest can loose her from sin, and practises auricular confession. She is a good woman, keeps her conscience pure towards God, does not mean to deceive herself, and is no worse for confessing. But how does auricular confession act on the mass of people? It breeds the popular conviction, that if you can induce your priest to utter a shibboleth you are loosed at that moment from sin; and so you esteem, sin lightly, which can be so lightly