death," for it is not he which doeth these things "but sin which dwelleth in him." We opine that this is the only true sacrament, this sinking of self into Christ, and that this includes all the sacraments. Thus understood, not only is it necessary to salvation, but forms a very integral portion of that transaction. There is indeed no salvation in any instance without the baptism of the Holy Ghost, or without the drinking of the cup of the blood of the Son of man.

But the openers on both sides have not taken this spiritual view of the sacrament. They both simply treat the question in relation to the outward ceremonies which pass under the name of sacraments in the churches of the present day; and as we suppose that is the view that will be taken by most writers on the subject in this magazine, we most unhesitatingly and uncomprisingly range ourselves on the negative side; for not only do we deny that these "sacraments" are in any way essential to salvation, but we go much farther, and deny even that their observance is in any way binding on the Christian of the nineteenth century.

The argument taken up by S. S. is so self-evident that it is need less for us to go over the same ground again. Briefly and syllogistically it stands thus

If the sacraments were essential to salvation, they could not be dispensed with in any instance.

The Scriptures furnish instances of persons having been saved without observing them.

Ergo-they are not essential.

This argument, we think, is so strong that it will much puzzle the upholders of ritualistic salvation to disprove it. Yet there remains a great deal in the argument of P. S. A. and "Ecclesia," viz., that "the sacraments being holy ordinances of Christ," all those who truly love Him will keep His commandments; and therefore those who neglect the observance of His ordinances negatively prove their want of love to Him. And we suppose no one on either side of this controversy will deny that any who willingly and knowingly live in open want of obedience to the commands of the Great Shepherd can hardly be sheep of His fold, or else would they know His voice and follow Him.' But we do not believe that Christ commanded or intended His followers to continue these outward ceremonials He is supposed to have instituted; and if we can prove that He did not, we shall at once dispose of P. S. A's. and "Ecclesia's" arguments, and also of the very question itself.

66

First, then in regard to Baptism. This word, like many others of frequent occurrence in the New Testament, is therein used to express two extremely different ideas; the first and literal being the baptism by water, as practised first by John the Baptist, and continued by some of Christ's disciples. The name given to this outward ceremonial was often used by Christ and His apostles to represent that spiritual regeneration and washing away of sin dependent on salvation through Christ: the baptism of the Holy

Spirit. The only difficulty arises when we confound these two most distinct meanings of the word; and it is all the more singular that this should ever be done, because in the symbolic language of the Bible the name of the substance is so frequently taken from the shadow-of the antitype from that of the type. Thus Christ is called "the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world," "an High Priest," "the second Adam," and many other names taken directly from the objects of which He was the antitype. We never hear now of any one mistaking and confusing these ideas. The Jews of old may have looked for a Messiah who would be a temporal as well as a spiritual David; but no one now reads in Revelation that "the Lamb in the midst of the throne shall lead them," and thinks of the Mosaical sacrificial lamb. And yet most illogically the majority of nineteenth century Christians persist in confounding the seen and the unseen, the natural and the spiritual, whenever they think of the sacrament of baptism.*

The origin of baptism by water seems to be very obscure, it having been performed occasionally by the Jews, as well as many

* We add, from a paper by W. O. H. C., for the whole of which, as it is uncontroversial, we have not space, the following passage in relation to the question of baptism.-Ed. B. C. :

"If one passage or one class of passages stands in bolder relief from the sacred page than another, it is those which proclaim the tidings of salvation, and the one among them which has perhaps obtained the greatest prominence of all is the often quoted, but never to be hackneyed, answer to the Philippine jailer's question 'What shall I do to be saved.' The answer, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" stamps at once the character of the salvation sought.

"Another and perhaps equally prominent passage is the words of Jesus Christ, He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life.' The fact that the thief, crucified with the Saviour, went to Paradise simply by virtue of his belief and acknowledgment that Jesus was the Son of God is again decided and plain. Some of the last words of the Saviour were an injunction to go into the world, preaching the gospel to every creature, 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.' This passage has excited some difficulty in my mind; but I think that not only do some of the instances I have cited set it on one side, but that baptism is not essential to, but simply a result of belief (which is synonymous with salvation), is clearly shown by the fact that non-baptism is not represented to be essential to damnation.

"The sixth chapter of Romans, a part of that masterpiece of profound reasoning by the Apostle Paul, clearly and simply expounds the whole of baptism, showing it to be the public acknowledgment by the Christian of his non-identity with the world, and his position as dead to it and to sin and alive unto God; at the same time, I believe, typifying the washing from original and previous sin which he has already undergone by virtue of his belief in Christ's atoning work.

"There is certainly a distinct baptism, which was practised by John, but that this is not similar to the baptism subsequently practised is evident from Acts xviii. 25 and xix. 3."

heathen nations, with varying significations. As instituted by John the Baptist, however, it had a very special intent. John proclaimed himself to be a messenger coming before the Messiah "to prepare the way of the Lord and make His paths straight." All who were awakened by his preaching and teaching to a realization of their sinful position before God, and announced themselves to be penitent, were passed by him into the new society he was forming by the initiatory rite of baptism by water. This seems to have been looked upon as an outward sign of the renunciation by the baptized one-whether Jew or Gentile-of his former views, and his taking up the position (at any rate externally) of a follower of the new gospel. Under this same sense the rite seems to have been performed by some of the disciples both of Christ and of John. But its importance never seems to have been urged upon the convert by any one after the close of its founder's ministry. In fact we are told that "Jesus baptized not,” and St. Paul "thanked God that he had baptized" no more than he had done, which would hardly have been the case had the ordinance been looked upon by either of them as a very important one. Necessarily at that time the rite was only performed on those who believed the new faith, and upon their households, who, according to the Jewish and Roman ideas, were presumed to have no views but in accordance with the head of the house. A family once baptized into the new faith the ordinance lost its significancy, their descendants of course being born nominally Christians and not requiring an outer rite to make them so; and though, with the human love for deeds and ceremonials, water baptism has been kept up by Christian Churches till the present day, it is not in any way more necessary now than for negro children born in freedom to have writings made out to prove that fact, because, forsooth, their ancestors some ages ago lived in a state of slavery. Looking at the ordinance as now administered we should think it exceedingly doubtful if it is not far more injurious than beneficial in its tendency, and instead of its being in any way binding upon a Christian now, we believe that it would long before this have been entirely given up by all the most intelligent Christian bodies had it not been for the unfortunate confusion of ideas about the baptism of water and the baptism of the Holy Spirit to which we have referred. Though how it can be possible to do so after an unbiased perusal of the New Testament it is very difficult to comprehend. From John the Baptist, who pointed to Christ as "He who should baptise with the Holy Ghost and with fire," in contradistinction to his own formality; and Christ himself, who proclaimed that all "who believed and were baptized should be saved;" to St. Paul, who teaches "One Lord, one faith, one baptism;" again," By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body," and again, "As many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ "they one and all clearly infer that the real binding and essential baptism was spiritual, supernatural, and divine. Alas that ever such essentially differing ideas should be confounded! but still more melancholy the fact that

some of our blinded teachers should even seek to substitute the shadow for the substance, and by exalting the rite degrade the very idea of one of the holy mysteries of God! Oh! may we pray! pray! pray for more light and discernment; that we may allkeeping to the Scriptures as our guide and rule of faith-see clearly and understand the there revealed "truth as it is in Jesus," and never wrest it to our own destruction.

Of the observance of the ceremonial Eucharist we need say very little. The arguments we have been advancing respecting baptism apply to it with a tenfold force. It does seem almost incredible that Christ should be mistaken by any one when he says, "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed;" and again, "Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life;" "Do this in remembrance of Me." Do what? Eat bread and drink wine blessed by a priest, or unblessed by a parson, either in small portions-homoeopathic doses-as is the custom to-day, or in inebriating quantities, as appears to have prevailed with the poor Corinthian Church? Does this give eternal life? or does Christ mean that those who live in spiritual dependence upon Him-who have His very Spirit infused into their spirits are they who have the true life within them? Verily, whosoever drinketh of this wine shall thirst again, but whoso drinketh of the wine that Christ shall give him, it shall be in him a well, springing up unto eternal life. Thou Bread of Life! thou Fountain of living waters! illuminate our minds and souls, that seeing we may perceive and understand, and that the wayfaring man, though a fool, may not err in the comprehension and application of Thy own eternal truth!

HIAWATHA.

THE GOSPELS.-As the four Gospels were originally intended for divers circles of readers, so at present may one reader prefer to peruse this evangelist and another that; and just as the first three appeared sooner and the fourth later, so also is it advisable (for those who would read the Gospels one by one) to begin with the first three, and afterwards to advance to the fourth. For this purpose they have been intentionally placed in the order in which they now stand. In point of fact, the Gospel of St. John is in some degree more for advanced Christians, by which, however, we do not mean persons of learning so much as persons who have some sense and relish for the fellowship of Jesus Christ. The other three are in some measure more for beginners in Christianity. Just, however, as even the earlier Christians were not satisfied with the single Gospel which first came into their hands, but made a collection of the whole four, because they wished to possess and to use them all, so ought we also, in the special use we make of them, to advance as far as John, and learn aright from him the life that is in Jesus, as from the Son of God, who both is the life, and has it to bestow; and partly also in general ought we to peruse all the four Gospels contemporaneously and proportionally-or, in other words, in harmony, because only in this way can the complete image of Jesus be formed in our souls.-W. C. Barth's " Bible Manual."

Philosophy.

CAN HIGH EDUCATION COUNTERACT THE EAGERNESS OF THE SENSES ?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-IV.

Ir is to be regretted that the several writers who, up to the present time, have taken part in this debate are not agreed as to the precise meaning of the terms in which the question is couched. Each succeeding writer expresses his dissatisfaction with the significations given to the terms by those who have preceded him, and proceeds to discuss the question from that point of view indicated by his own definition of the points in dispute. Georgius objects to B. L. K.'s definition of the meaning of the expression "high education; but we strongly suspect he has not succeeded either in proving it to be erroneous and untenable, or in advancing a more correct and comprehensive definition. Georgius defines high education as being "a phrase used by the aristocracy to denote a high, polished, classical, and finished' education." For our part, we much prefer the definition of B. L. K. to that of Georgius. We are of opinion that high education is distinguished from general education not so much by a difference in principle as in degree. B. L. K. defines high education to be "that sort of training which is given at school and college, which enables a man to enjoy with some relish the graces of letters and the activities and results of thought." Georgius criticises this by remarking that "this is only the true character of education." So far from endorsing the opinion of Georgius, we contend that the words of B. L. K. express, not only the true character of education, but also the true character of high education. The mind which has received a high education must necessarily be more complete in its culture, and possess a wider range of attainments, than the mind whose education has been conducted on a narrower scale. To us, it is inconceivable that a man should be highly educated, without having first become master of that area of knowledge which is comprehended in a common or general education. High education is a completion of general education-it is, in fact, general education reaching a fuller development and a higher perfection. We conceive, therefore, that in proportion to a man's growth in high education will be his capacity to enjoy "with relish the graces of letters and the activi