and then so cemented that no Sacraments can add anything to it, and so they are only means of proclaiming it.

Such teaching is at direct issue with Apostolic teaching, especially with St. Paul's.

66 one

For the Apostles do not teach that a man is saved as soon as he believes, even though he exercises the most lively act of faith. His salvation, if he be a heathen, is in some sense suspended till he receive the "bath of New He has to "eat Birth." (Titus iii. 5; 1 Peter iii. 21.) the flesh of the Son of Man, and to drink His blood,” if he desires to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him (John vi. 56). He must partake of the bread"—the "communion of the body of Christ," if he is to have assurance of his continuance in the one body (1 Cor. x. 16, 17). He must keep Christ's commandments if he would abide in Christ's love (John xv. 10). If he bears malice or hatred in his heart, then he has not "eternal life abiding in him" (1 John iii. 15). He must walk in the light as Christ is in the light, if the blood of Christ is to cleanse him from all sin (1 John i. 7); and he is "made partaker of Christ, if he hold the beginning of his confidence steadfast unto the end" (Heb. iii. 14),

So that the question really is, not whether the ministers of Christ are preachers, and not priests, but what, as preachers, have they to preach and teach about such things as the Church and the Sacraments.

If the ministers of Christ will but preach and teach what Christ and the Apostles taught about the Church, and the means of grace, there will be little room (amongst true believers, at least) for instituting comparisons between their various functions, and little inclination to dispute about the name of their office.

CHAPTER XIII.

CHURCH PRINCIPLES AND FREE THOUGHT.

WE shall now briefly consider how far such matters as "free thought," the "higher criticism," and "progress" affect Church principles.

Church principles are founded upon those statements of Christ and His Apostles which set forth the grace with which God is pleased to accompany the right administration and reception of the Sacraments, the ministerial commission and functions of the Apostles and subordinate ministers, and the spiritual status and privileges of the members of the mystical body.

Now I assert that all the results of modern criticism put together do not in the least degree affect the interpretation of these statements.

Of course, if the "higher criticism" were to affect the trustworthiness of the whole Bible as a reliable record of what Jesus and His Apostles said and did, it necessarily would take from the value of particular statements found in the Bible.

But beyond this, I cannot see that the proof of Church principles which we derive from Scripture is at all affected, or likely to be affected, by the results of modern criticism.

For instance, the Church, to a great extent, rests her doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration on our Lord's wellknown words in His discourse with Nicodemus. If the progress of " enlightened criticism" tends to throw doubts on the historical accuracy of St. John's Gospel as a whole,

then, of course, this saying of Christ shares in the general uncertainty. The same criticism which would lead us to question the authority of John iii. 5, equally tends to shake our faith in every other matter which this Gospel reveals; as, for instance, the Incarnation, the Resurrection of the body, and the General Judgment.

But, if it be granted that the third chapter of this Gospel contains an accurate account of what our Saviour actually said, then no modern criticism can in the least degree affect the interpretation of John iii. 5, or weaken its force on the side of the Church view of Baptism. No manuscript gives any other reading. No ancient version gives any other rendering. No difference of translation can be honestly suggested. It is quoted as referring to Regeneration in Baptism by writers as old as Hermas and Justin Martyr. When Faustus Socinus, three hundred years ago, said that the word "water" should be under stood to mean repentance, he went as far as a man can well go on the side of rationalism or "free handling.”

If the Evangelist gives a faithful report of the words which Christ used, then nothing can be made of them except what the Church has made, for on the Church theory you have every word in its natural meaning taken into full account.

Rationalistic, or Puritan principles of interpretation can give no reason why our Lord, by introducing an allusion to the material element, should have set forth a less spiritual and less intellectual interpretation of the term New Birth, when, on rationalistic grounds, He ought to have given a more spiritual one.

Modern criticism or "free thought" is powerless against this statement of Christ's. It can contemptuously push aside the Church view; but, taking the words as they stand, it can suggest nothing new-nothing which older

unbelief has not long ago suggested, and which the Church has long ago rejected.

And so with the Eucharist.

All that can possibly be said in favour of the merely memorial or figurative view, was said three hundred years ago; and after all has been said, the fact remains, that on this view Christ's words are an exaggeration, for they are suggestive of some unspeakable blessing attached to the reception of His flesh and blood, when all that He really is supposed to mean is the ordinary blessing of illumination, which is derived, not from His flesh, but from His Spirit.

These Eucharistic words are far above the reach of criticism.

Manuscripts, ancient versions, accounts of Jewish customs at the celebration of the Passover, Hebrew and Syriac philology-all these, as far as I can see, throw not one ray of light upon the mystery.

The Rationalism of the nineteenth century can say nothing which the Socinianism of Poland did not say three hundred years ago-nothing, I mean, to the point; and THE point is, that Christ chooses words which seem to attach certain benefits to the communion of His lower nature of flesh and blood, when words attaching the same benefits to the communion of His higher nature of mind and Spirit would have been more intelligible, would have obviated every difficulty, and saved the Church from eighteen hundred years of misconception.

So with absolution.

Such words as "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them seem too plain for criticism. You might as well apply criticism to the Ten Commandments or to the Beatitudes. But the plain signification of these words is unpopular, and so the line taken is to put forward

something about them which sounds evangelical, or broad, or liberal, which, in the present state of feeling, is pretty sure to be accepted, but which evades the whole difficulty. For, after every possible limitation has been taken into account, the fact remains, that the persons to whom these words were spoken had power given to them to remit or retain the sins of their brethren.

Now exactly the same objections stand against an Apostle remitting sins in the first century, as stand against any ordinary minister remitting sins in the nineteenth.

If God remits sins now altogether independently of the action of any ministry which He has ordained, so He would have done then.

If God then chose to convey forgiveness wholly or in part through human agency, so He will now.

These statements of Christ respecting Absolution and Sacraments, have to do with the conveyance of grace from God to man, and so they must be unalterable in their application.

However outward circumstances may change, the things which relate to forgiveness, and the conveyance of grace from God to sinners, cannot change. All the progress of mankind since the Crucifixion of Christ has in nowise altered the state of matters betwixt God and man.'

"It is plain, therefore, that in divinity there cannot be a progress analogous to that which is constantly taking place in pharmacy, geology, and navigation. A Christian of the fifth century with a Bible, is neither better nor worse situated than a Christian of the nineteenth with a Bible; candour and natural acuteness being, of course, supposed equal. It matters not at all that the compass, printing, gunpowder, steam, gas, vaccination, and a thousand other discoveries and inventions which were unknown in the fifth century, are familiar to the nineteenth. None of these discoveries and inventions has the smallest bearing on the question