partly subjective, the subjective being occasionally produced, and yet indefeasible." We cannot follow Dr. Mellor through his conclusive refutation of these various theories as interpreted by those who hold them, and which betray their intimate relation to erroneous conceptions of priestly functions. The inconsistent and wavering statements of Waterland in support of the first theory are well exposed. The modifications of this notion by Dr. J. C. Vaughan and the late Mr. Robertson are also treated. Dr. Vaughan states his view clearly when he says that Baptismal Regeneration means, "That change by which a new-born infant is taken out of the world of nature, and transferred by an ordinance of Christ into the world of grace." Whether this statement is in harmony with his Church, may very well be doubted, though this depends very much upon the sense which is attached to the terms employed. If nothing more is meant than an incorporation of the child into the body of the visible Church, then we think that he is out of harmony with the baptismal service of his own communion, which so undeniably gives prominence to inner spiritual results as flowing immediately from the rite. It is very probable that Dr. Vaughan embraces much more than mere objective effects in his statement of the doctrine,-in which case the difficulty remains. If such effects only are meant, we see not how any one can object, as baptism certainly does alter the relation in which the child stands to the Church: there is at least a recognition of its relation to it in some form.

The second theory is the one of which Dr. Pusey may be taken as a principal representative. Where this notion is held, we should not be surprised to find in the case of persons who have not been baptized in infancy, that baptism is deferred to the close of life. It is only part of a system. The sacramentarianism of Dr. Pusey provides for the remission of sins committed after baptism: salvation becomes practically a priestly dispensation, which, to those who are conscious of their immediate personal relation to Christ, exposes the utter fallacy of the whole notion of sacerdotalism. The Scriptural argument in this connection is developed by Dr. Mellor. The expositions of Dr. Pusey are shown to be untenable; and various instances are produced in which baptism and spiritual renewal are shown to have been realized independently of each other, and that even in the case of adults Dr. Pusey's notion was not held in the Apostolic Church.

The third theory supposes the internal results of baptism to be only occasionally produced, but to be permanent in their continuance. This modification is obviously devised to meet the double requirement of a Church-system and a Calvinistic theology, which we think furnishes prima facie evidence against it. Were it simply held that in the case of those of ripe years, repentance and faith are the necessary conditions of baptism, and that where this faith exists simultaneously with the administration of the rite internal results will also be realized, we should have no objection to make. The probabilities are that where these necessary conditions are found, a saving effect has followed prior to the observance of the rite, which in that case would only be accompanied by a confirmation of the Spirit's work of grace. By the supporters of this view infants are supposed to be "made fit" for baptism "by the faith

and repentance of other persons being accepted as a substitute for their own." To say nothing of the fact that sponsorship has no foundation in Scripture, this is placing the salvation of the little ones on a most precarious basis, and one which violates the Gospel dispensation of grace, for the mere purpose of supporting a Church-theory.

We hold the baptism of infants to be right in the highest degree, but on other grounds than those held by the maintainers of the theories we have glanced at. To us the rights of children to the offices of the Church are founded on the fact of their redemption. In his parallel between the first and the second Adam, St. Paul, in our judgment, puts the ease conclusively: "By the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." The parallel is complete. All men as they are born into the world are involved in the consequences of the sin of Adam; so all men as they are born into the world participate in the consequences of Christ's redemption. Every infant, and so long as it remains an irresponsible creature, is held in a state of "justification" through the redeeming work of the last Adam. Through and in Him it claims a place in the spiritual family of God; and here is our best warrant for its admission by baptism into formal connection with the visible family. By the administration of this rite, the Church declares its belief in the fact of the infant's redemption and its relation to Christ, and also its obligation to receive and train it accordingly. We are thus relieved of all theories of baptismal regeneration in reference to children; and do fitting honour to the great redeeming work of the Lord Jesus.

The second subject treated in this series is that great truth which is the basis of all Christian faith, and without which the Christian system loses its Divine vitality. It is impossible for us here to speak of the Incarnation as we could desire. This primary article of our faith is presented by Dr. Alexander in an appreciative form. From the style of treatment, we presume that he wrote this essay rather with reference to intelligent general readers, than to the students of scientific theology; and for such it is well adapted. We cannot do better than give a brief analysis of it. The primitive acceptance of the doctrine is shown by the testimony of the early Church-fathers. It is very clear that they believed in Christ as a Divine-human Person, though they had not advanced to a perfect definition of the truth concerning Him as such. The Scriptures are held to be the source from whence our knowledge of this truth is to be obtained: it is necessarily a doctrine of revelation. The course of its development in the apprehension of the Church is traced. The fact is revealed, not for purposes of speculation, but because of its relation to our spiritual interests, being required for the purpose of atonement; for the full manifestation of Divine love; and for the presentation of perfect moral excellence to mankind. Speculative reasons for the Incarnation are recognized. It is rupposed that God must have willed, apart from sin, a full manifestation of Himself in humanity. Incarnation offers the only appreciable mode for such manifestation. God thus becomes really known to man. A perfect development of humanity is also obtained, which may well be regarded as a necessity in relation to human interests. The Incarnation

was demanded for the purpose of providing a grand centre around which a holy universe might be gathered,―a Head of the kingdom of God as a Mediator, uniting the creature to Himself, and through Himself to God.

The sacramentarian notion of a continuation of the Incarnation in the Lord's Supper is shown to be delusive, on the ground that in the administration of His kingdom the Redeemer is ever represented by the Holy Spirit, who as "the Spirit of Christ" dwells in the Church; and so the same Spirit is the revealer and the dispenser of Christ in the Sacrament to the believing communicant. Numerous other points of great interest and importance are discussed by Dr. Alexander in the course of his essay. He declines to accept the idea of Incarnation apart from the object of atonement, with the design of crowning human nature with a predestined perfection. The apparent limitation of knowledge in Christ as to the time of the final judgment, is regarded as an intimation by Him that that time was among the things which it was no part of His Messianic mission to reveal to mankind. If such solution be not accepted, the difficulty may be allowed to remain, in the presence of so many evidences of the omniscience of Christ whilst on earth. The unity of the two natures in the one Person of Christ leads Dr. Alexander to the acceptance of Theopaschitism. He says, (note, p. 94,) " that the Incarnate God should suffer does not seem to me more incredible than that God should become incarnate at all." This admission is the result of an imperfect apprehension of the relation of the two natures in the one Person of our Lord.

The Incarnation is undoubtedly a mystery, a sore stumbling-block to unbelief, and a profound enigma to that philosophy which professes to explain all things; but yet also a truth of revelation. A careful study of Scripture alone can conduct us to a right apprehension of the subject. It is not greatly surprising that the minds of men, in the earliest ages of the Church, oscillated from one extreme to another, and sought points of compromise, in their attempts to understand the Person of their Lord and Saviour. The Jesus of the Gospels is truly God, in opposition to Gnostic and Arian limitations. He is perfectly man, in opposition to all forms of Docetism and Apollinarianism. The two natures sustain no change in the unity of the one Person. The Divine nature remains in its absoluteness, and the human nature continues in its completeness. Neither does there, therefore, ensue a change in the two natures by which Christ would become a Person formed " of" two natures, and not one Person "in" two natures. The error of Theopaschitism springs from the want of a clear perception of this important point. The natures are not so divided as to present two persons in one; neither are they confused one with the other, so as to affect the distinction of each. The Christian system requires that we believe that Jesus Christ is both God and Man, and yet the one Divine-human Person. We will here quote from Mr. Pope's admirable "Fernley Lecture," recently delivered. "Christ is truly' God, 'perfectly' Man, 'indivisibly' one Person, 'unconfusedly' two natures. Again, with more express reference to the union of the two natures in one personal agent, these last two adverbs in the Chalcedonian Council became four: the natures are said to be

united: dovyxúros, without any commixture such as would produce a a third nature unknown to God or man; årρénтws, without transmutation or the turning of one nature into the other; adiapéтws, undividedly, so as not to permit two distinct personal subsistences; axwpíorws, inseparably, so that the union shall never be dissolved, being indeed incapable of dissolution." The great object of the Incarnation is thus rendered possible of accomplishment. The redemption of mankind could be effected by the all-sufficient atoning mediation of the God-Man Christ Jesus. In His glorified humanity He is mediator and sovereign; and will for ever remain such, notwithstanding the completion of His redeeming work so far as time and the present world are concerned.

We must pass on to notice Dr. Reynolds's elaborate paper on “The Catholic Church." There is undoubtedly much in a name. The right to an exclusive use of this designation has been the occasion of long and fierce contention, the end of which we have no hope of seeing. Those who agree in denying a place within the Catholic organization to many Churches which undeniably exhibit their Christian character, are not less hostile to each other's claims. The inquiry, "What is the Catholic Church?" receives a separate reply from the various parties in the Anglican Church. Representatives of the "traditional" party, of the "Rationalizing" party, and of the "Scriptural" party, each give a different and more or less conflicting answer. To obtain a just conception of the true Church of God we must pass beyond and above all "party" considerations. "There is a kingdom of Christ which is not included in any one community of Christians, nor in any section of similarly-constituted communities, nor in the entire range of all so-called Churches taken together." This sentence gives the key to Dr. Reynolds's solution of the inquiry. The means for obtaining the communion of saints have been substituted for the true Church. There is no demur by even the Romanist to the belief that the invisible spiritual Church is conterminous with the organic company of the faithful. In defining the Catholic Church on earth it is intimated that “writers have been too apt to limit themselves to the mere formation of earthly societies," while there are "wider indications of the existence and vitality of the Holy Catholic Church than those which are furnished by the organizations, the creeds, the establishments that pass under its name."

The visibility of the Catholic Church is not here denied; but it is maintained "that there is a visible Catholic Church outside, or rather independently of, all so-called communions. "The manifestation of the Divine life in humanity" is the fundamental idea from which is derived the view of the Catholic Church which is here advocated. That Church is composed of every individual in whom the Divine life is manifested, within the limits of Christendom or otherwise. It is held that many instances of the realization of that life have occurred outside the range of revelation, which were in no sense the mere developments of human nature. They are illustrations of God's revelation of Himself to souls that were striving after the attainment of their highest ideal of

"The Person of Christ," p. 27.

goodness. (It would be more evangelical in its form of expression at least, to say that these are cases in which the hearts of men respond to the work of the Spirit of God in relation to them,-respond to a work of grace which is bestowed upon all men through the redeeming work of Christ.) The working of the Holy Spirit in humanity produces great changes in the relations existing between those who are subjects of it and those who are not; new and sacred affinities arise between those who are alike its subjects; and indirect results are produced in general society by the existence within it of such manifestations of true spiritual life in men. These particulars are descanted upon by our Essayist at considerable length. The conclusion arrived at is, that in consequence of the diversities in the mode of apprehending truth which characterize men, "unity of organization" is impossible and undesirable. "Without unity of dogmatic utterance, without unity of organic form, there is abundant room for the true unity, the absolute oneness of the visible Catholic Church."

There may be little to question in Dr. Reynolds's idea of the true Church of Christ, invisible and visible; but we conceive that he leaves the question in a state of serious incompleteness. His view of the Church is certainly latitudinarian and destructive in its tendency. He allows it is in Christendom that the full force of the Divine life in man is most clearly discernible. This must be, then, in connection with existing Church-organizations. That individual spiritual life of which he speaks is promoted and extended by the action of these organizations especially. We hold them to be, as to the fact of their existence, in accordance with Christ's intention. The immediate result of the Holy Spirit's action in His pentecostal manifestation was the communion of those who were the subjects of His renewing power. Communion, a communion involving organization, is the typal form of the Church of Christ. Dr. Reynolds's view, as he leaves it, tends to the dissolution of Church-organizations; and is thus, in our conception, faulty and inadmissible. In perfect harmony with our own views of redemption, we gladly recognize all in whom there is the saving work of the Spirit of God as members of Christ's mystical body; but we must further maintain that this idea of the Church must not be allowed to encourage indifference to membership and open association with it,-in such form as may best suit the judgment of the individual. The Catholic Church is composed of all Christian communities that hold the Head and the truth as it is in Him, and that manifest the presence and prevalence of His life-giving Spirit among them; while it embraces all in whom the Divine life exists, though they lie without and beyond those communities.

A very able article follows on "Art and Religion," by Mr. Gilbert. The history and development of art in its relation to religion are dwelt upon at considerable length. "The connection between art and religion may be traced to symbolism; to the desire to express, to record, to exemplify ideas respecting unseen power, and its relations to man." The idol is the invention of art; whose manifestations in heathenism were greatly influenced by race, and period, and scene. Its relation to Christianity is discussed by Mr. Gilbert in a broad and able manner. Its