and Apostolical succession. As far as I see, it can only be accounted for by their rejection of that sacramental doctrine which is at once the great witness to, and safeguard of, the doctrine of the Incarnation.

Their anti-sacramental principles led them to explain away, or make void, on Rationalistic grounds, certain of the strongest statements of Christ. The door was consequently thrown open to Rationalism. The Spirit was grieved, for the most startling words of the Saviour were made of no account. And so they who began with making void those statements of Christ, which set forth a new birth of water and the Spirit, or that we must eat His Flesh, or that as His Father sent Him, so sent He His ministers, were permitted to stumble at those sayings which set Him forth as the Only-Begotten of the Father, and the Atoning Lamb of God.

CHAPTER XI.

THE EVANGELICAL SYSTEM.

1N the preceding pages I have set forth a part of the evidence for the truth of Church principles, which we derive from the word of God.

I have brought forward direct Scripture assertions for all that I have advanced respecting the historical form of the Gospel, the grace of the Sacraments, and the functions of the Christian ministry.

It is difficult to see how such statements can be set at naught, and yet they are deliberately pushed aside by a very large number of religious Englishmen.

It will be needful to consider what pretext professedly enlightened men have for refusing to entertain so many direct Scripture assertions.

I have read much of the popular religious literature of the day, and in it I find one ground in particular, which is tacitly rather than avowedly taken by the opponents of Church principles, which it may be well to examine.

It is assumed that we have in the Scriptures a fully. developed scheme of doctrine called the "Evangelical system," with which system the holding of Church principles is absolutely inconsistent.

It is assumed that it is a principal work of the Holy Spirit to give the truly-converted man a right perception of the several parts of this scheme, and of their relations to one another.

Now, in answer to this, I say that there is not a single

book of the New Testament which could possibly have been written by one who took that view of " the Truth,” which in a former generation was taken by such men as John Newton, Thomas Scott, or Romaine, or the Haldanes, and which is taken by the popular leaders, preachers, and tract writers of the party calling itself Evangelical of the present day.

There is not a single Epistle of St. Paul, which, if it came now to light for the first time, would not be pronounced by these men to be the work of a very partially enlightened man.

I will first examine the Epistle to the Romans. If the popular Evangelical scheme is to be found anywhere in the Scriptures, it is to be found here.

Now we have, in this Epistle, statements which no modern Evangelical would have thought of writing on such all-important matters as-first, "a saving apprehension of Christ;" secondly, the means by which we are to be individually assured of an interest in the death of Christ; and, thirdly, the final perseverance of those who "stand by faith."

1st. The Apostle does not write as men do now on such a matter as the very object of that faith by which the sinner is justified, for he asserts that the sinner has "righteousness imputed to him," not when he is "enabled to close in with God's offers of mercy," or when he believes that Christ died for him in particular, but when he believes in God the Father Who raised up God the Son. For we read: "Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but for us also to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." (Rom. iv. 23, 24.) Not once, but twice is this asserted in this Epistle: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt

believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Rom. x. 9.)

I have never found in any modern treatise any statement at all like this respecting what we are to believe in order to be justified.1

In the Apostle's mind, God the Father raising up God the Son is the Supreme Object of justifying faith.

So also He is in our Lord's words: "He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life." (John v. 24.) This place, it is to be remarked, is the Gospel in the Service of the Communion of the Sick. So also in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "He is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him" (Heb. vii. 25); and in St. Peter: "Who by Him do believe in God, that raised Him up from the dead, and gave Him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God" (1 Peter i. 21). In accordance with this, St. Paul says: "Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my Gospel."

In the next place, the Apostle does not accord with the Evangelical system when he implies that we have a veritable interest in Christ's death, formally made over to us in the Sacrament of Baptism, for how otherwise can we understand his words, "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by Baptism into death"? Therein we are planted with Him in the likeness of His death, and so are bid to "reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive to God," and therefore we are not to allow sin to have dominion over us. (Rom. vi.)

I have so fully shown the bearing of this place in a

There is no such statement, for instance, in so elaborate a work on Justification as that by Bp. O'Brien,

former chapter (III., page 56), that I can only now refer the reader to what I have there written.

In the third place, would any one who held the views now current respecting Calvinistic Election, have ever put into a treatise at all bearing on such a topic, such a passage as the following: "Thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear. For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee. Behold, therefore, the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in His goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off"? (Rom. xi. 21, 22.)

Here the salvation of those once 66 standing by faith” is assumed to be uncertain, and contingent on their "abiding in God's goodness." So that if we could

imagine such a thing as this Epistle coming to light now for the first time, it would be at once pronounced by our Evangelical party leaders and newspapers to be "unsound" on three such points as "justification," "union with Christ," and "final perseverance."

Again, would any Calvinist have thought of drawing such a parallel between the effect of Adam's sin as reaching all, and Christ's righteousness as reaching all, as we find in the latter part of the fifth chapter? Let any reader who has Thomas Scott's Commentary within his reach, just turn to this good man's remarks on verses 15-19, and see the difficulty he has with them. I am not here asserting that there is no difficulty about the passage, or that the solution offered by Scott is wholly beside the mark; but what I say is this, that one who had Scott's views of "The truth" would never have penned a passage which required so much explanation and so much. modification.

A man whose views were conformed to so rigidly ex