been baptized, and become a partaker of the Lord's Supper;" and again, Those who have never had the opportunity will not of course be judged for not having partaken of these ordinances."

66

Ecclesia" writes thus :-"We feel and are convinced in our inmost heart that the observance of the sacraments of the New Testament is incumbent on Christians and essential to salvationunless there are exceptional circumstances in any special case which hinder the due and proper engagement in the rites and ceremonies, simple and solemn as they are, which each of the sacraments requires." And further, "I think it may safely be affirmed, then, that the tenor of the teaching of the gospel is to the effect that the sacraments are essential to salvation; and that, though those who, having faith, have not had opportunity to engage in them, may, and indeed we should say will, be saved."

The words of P. R. are these:-"It is true, as S. S. observes, that we have instances of people being saved without baptism.”

P. S. A. wishes it to be understood that he does not affirm that God cannot and will not save any one who has not been baptized and become a partaker of the Lord's Supper. Now if, as P. S. A, implies, some may be saved without either baptism or the Lord's Supper, how can either of these sacraments be essential to salvation? This proposition-the sacraments are essential to salvation, is contradictory of the proposition-some may be saved without the sacraments. We have always understood that the word essential signifies necessary or indispensable; and we believe the word is universally so understood. Now, if baptism and the Lord's Supper are indispensable to salvation, how can any be saved without them? And if any are saved without these sacraments, they are, in the case of such, dispensed with; and therefore are not indispensable. Nothing can be indispensable, and yet at the same time be dispensed with.

P. S. A. believes that those who have never had the opportunity of partaking of these ordinances will not be judged for neglecting them. But what constitutes an opportunity of attending to these sacraments ? To whom shall we turn for information as to what does and what does not constitute an opportunity of attending to the sacraments? Shall it be to P. S. A., or to whom? And who is qualified, or who is an authority competent to direct us where to look for instruction on so important a point?

"Ecclesia" believes that the sacraments are essential to salvation, unless there are exceptional circumstances in any special case which hinder the proper attendance thereon. But what are these special cases and exceptional circumstances? Where are they defined? And if, as Ecclesia" believes, God dispenses with an attendance to the sacraments in the case of some whom He saves, how can those sacraments be indispensable to salvation ?

P. R. goes so far as to affirm that we have instances of people being saved without baptism; it follows, therefore, that baptism is

not essential to baptism. The argument is, as put by "Hiawatha," in a syllogistic form.

"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."

And we believe with "Hiawatha" that it will puzzle our opponents to disprove this syllogism. Our opponents having admitted the truth of that for which we contend, we might here bring our remarks to a conclusion. But, as the papers opposed to our views contain some show of argument, we will examine some of the reasonings comprised in them.

to

All that P. S. A. does is to show that Christ instituted the ordinances of baptism and the Supper, and that He commanded His followers to observe these ordinances. Having quoted scriptures prove this, P. S. A. says, "In the above passages the necessity of baptism and of the partaking of the Lord's Supper are shown; and these passages, as we incline to think, fully prove that these sacraments are essential to salvation;" whereas, proving that an observance of baptism and the Lord's Supper is incumbent on the followers of Christ, is a very different thing from proving that an observance of these sacraments is essential to salvation. We willingly admit that it is obligatory on believers in Christ to observe His ordinances of baptism and the Supper; but because the Scriptures declare of him who keepeth not Christ's commandments that the truth is not in him, to affirm of all who have neglected the sacraments that they cannot be saved is, we believe, contrary to the word of God. Far be it from us to even appear to excuse libertinism or a neglect of Christ's precepts in any who profess to love Him; but is there no commandment of Christ that is neglected by any who are saved? Has every saved person given his coat to the man who took away his cloak? Has every saved person given to every man that asked of him, and sought not again his goods of the man who stole them? Yet these acts are commands of Christ equally with baptism and the Supper. But does the omission of such acts necessarily exclude from heaven all who omit them? Have not these acts been omitted by some who yet keep Christ's commands in general, and whom it would be wrong to brand as those who keep not Christ's commandments? And if salvation is possible for those who in these respects have not kept Christ's commandments, why is it not possible for those who have neglected the sacraments? If obedience to every one of Christ's precepts be essential to salvation, who of us will be saved?

"Ecclesia" writes as follows:

"The opener on the negative of this question took an ingenious method of acquiring credit for liberality of sentiment, exhaustiveness of statement, and pertinence of debate, combined with ease of victory, when he took the word in its most comprehensive sense, and treated the discussion as one referring to sacraments of all sorts; for he thus secured that, among by far

the larger proportion of his readers, he would have five-sevenths of his case at least granted to him without any contention, however ineffective his arguing might be. We do not think this a fair way of putting the query. All Protestants-except, perhaps, the members of the Society of Friends-agree that the sacraments of the New Testament are two, and two only-baptism and the Lord's Supper; and though in the Church of England certain forms of ritual which are by Romanists regarded as sacramental are retained; they are retained by the large majority of its officiating ministers as religious observances, fit and convenient, by their solemnity, to impress and improve, but are deprived in their usage of them of their sacramental character. The Ritualists in the Church of England only go so far as to recommend, not to enforce, a belief in the Romanistic sacraments; and even the Church of Rome itself does not declare that the seven sacraments are, to all and each, essential to salvation. In this way it is easy to gain an apparent victory, but it cannot be a real conquest in augmentation. It sweeps a vast field, it is true, with the warfare of words; but it comes in contact only with the forces of the opposition at two points-those of the Lord's Supper and of Baptism.”

Now so far were we from putting the query unfairly, that before we offered any argument in defence of our own views, we allowed both the Ritualistic section of the Church of England, and also the Church of Rome, to speak for themselves, giving the very words of each party as published by them, and in our quotations from their publications, they are represented as maintining precisely that which "Ecclesia" speaks of them as maintaining. The light in which "Ecclesia" represents them is precisely that in which we ourselves had previously represented them. How, then, can "Ecclesia" view us as having been in this matter guilty of unfairness? The arguments employed by "Ecclesia" to show that the sacraments are essential to salvation are in substance the same as those of P. S. A., to them, therefore, our remarks already made in this paper in answer to P. S. A. are a sufficient reply.

P. R. asserts that we represent the sacraments as worthless and unimportant. But no such statement is contained in our paper, nor can the inference be fairly drawn from our remarks that we view the sacraments as either worthless or of no importance. We do not so view them. We believe them to be of great importance. Because we will not admit that a certain drug possesses sedative properties, it does not follow that we believe it to be worthless or unimportant. Neither does it follow, from our belief that the sacraments are not essential to salvation, that we view them as of no value. It appears to us that P. R. mistakes the meaning of 1 Cor. xii. 13. We believe that baptism with water is not here intended, for not all who are baptized with water are baptized by the Spirit, as is shown by the case of Simon Magus and that of many others. But all those whom Paul is speaking of are declared to be baptized by the Spirit, which baptism by the Spirit is the same thing as the drinking into one Spirit which is mentioned at the close of the verse. But not all who are baptized with water drink into one Spirit, or partake of His graces; there is, therefore, no scriptural

ground for the remark of P. R., "It seems plain, then, that Paul regarded baptism as an essential to salvation, and attached a supreme importance to it."

With regard to the Lord's Supper we would remark that when Jesus said, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you," He did not speak of eating bread, or of drinking wine, but of feeding on His sacrifice, in a spiritual manner by faith in Him.*

Our work now draws to a close. The affirmative and the negative writers in this debate are agreed that persons may be saved without an observance of the sacraments. Such is the force of truth, that those who commenced writing with the intention of doing battle with our arguments, have yielded to us the point for which we contended. That is equivalent to a confession that the victory is ours. The verdict is unanimous. The conviction that salvation is possible without an observance of the sacraments is felt by all engaged in this controversy, on whichever side they are ranged. Even our opponents have assisted in confirming our views. May we not then conclude-seeing such an unanimity of belief amongst the debaters-that the readers of The British Controversialist are with ourselves convinced that the sacraments are not essential to salvation ?

S. S.

*We greatly regret that pressure of space and the usual arrangements of our controversies prevent us from doing more than making the following quotations from papers in our hands:

Christians are the household of faith. Faith is the one essential to salvation. Faith is the source of all Christian efficacy, of all holy hope, of every grace of the Spirit. The only genuine communion of saints is communion in faith. "By grace," said St. Paul to the Ephesian believers, "are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Ephes. xi. 8). "The just shall live by faith" (Heb. x. 38). It is therefore the baptism and fellowship of faith that we require, and these are not attainable by outward observances and formal ceremonies; they are spiritual gifts.

H. S.

In regard to the Lord's Supper, the Scriptures do not record any one instance with approbation and sanction, except when the communicants at the Lord's Supper are Christians; neither do they teach that it is essential to the salvation of any one person that he should first partake of the Holy Eucharist; thus indisputably affirming that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is not essential to salvation; but it is the Christian's duty and privilege in this service to "keep in remembrance" Christ's sacrifice, and "show the Lord's death till He come." GEORGIUS D. E.

:

"It is the spirit," saith Jesus, "that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." This proves that the mere eating of the bread and drinking of the wine in the communion "profiteth nothing," and that the sacrament as an ordinance is not essential to salvation. If the Lord's Supper were so important in the salvation of men, why do the Scriptures omit to include it in the gospel message? This silence concerning the Lord's Supper proves incontrovertibly that it was not essential to salvation. GEORGIUS D. E.

History.

HAS THE FINANCIAL POLICY OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY BEEN, ON THE WHOLE, JUST AND WISE?

AFFIRMATIVE REPLY.

Ir is to be regretted that the quotation made at the head of the article by "Samuel" did not give the whole of the definition of "Finance" as stated in "Chambers' Encyclopædia." It is on this definition of finance that I maintain the correctness of the assertion I made in starting, and which I now repeat, that “Free trade is the distinctive feature of the financial legislation of the present century.

The entire definition referred to is as follows:

“Finance, a French word incorporated with our language, means the art of managing money matters, the person who professes this art being called a financier. Finances, in the plural, is often used for money itself, but still with a reference to the purpose to which it is to be applied, as where the finances of a country are said to have improved or fallen off, that is to say, have become abundant or scanty according to the expenditure of the country. Sometimes the word is applied to private wealth, but it is properly applicable to public funds. We use it in this country rather in a political and economic sense than officially, but in France there have been, from time to time, comptrollers-general of finance, councils of finance, bureaus of finance, &c. Many statesmen have been spoken of as great financiers, from the talent which they have shown for adjusting national revenue and expenditure, such as Colbert, Turgot, and Necker in France, and Godolphin and Peel in Britain. As a branch of statesmanship, finance is intimately connected with other branches. In questions of national policy—such as whether a State can go to war or not-the financier is the person who is expected to count the cost, and say how the necessary funds are to be obtained. In the question whether an unpopular or oppressive tax is to be abolished, the financier is an authority on the question, whether the Government can do without it. Hence there is a special connection between finance and taxation, which has become closer and stronger since the progress of political economy has shown that the taxes which are the most productive, and even the most easily collected, are not always the best, looking at the gain or loss of a nation in the long run. Turgot said that finance was the art of plucking the fowl without making it cry. On this notion the principie of indirect taxation achieved its popularity. For instance, customs duties seem to fall on no one. The importer and the retailer add them to the price of the article, and the ultimate purchaser only knows that the article is dear without experiencing the sense of hardship felt by one who pays out money directly in the shape of a tax. But