dispensation of faith, but which is, after all, somewhat out of accord with the spirit of the dispensation, or as if it were a thing which His Church has adopted on her own suggestion, as it were, apart from the direct leading of the Spirit of God. But this is a great mistake; for though infant Baptism, with its attendant grace of union with the Second Adam, may appear exceptional when viewed in connection with that part of God's dealings by which God requires faith in those who are able to exercise faith, before He blesses them, yet it is the reverse of exceptional when viewed in connection with that part of God's dealings whereby He permits that unconscious infants should receive moral or spiritual evil from their earthly progenitor. When viewed in this light the Baptismal Regeneration of Infants is the natural and fitting counterpart in the kingdom of grace to the transmission of original sin in the kingdom of evil.

All this is recognized very clearly by such a Father as Augustine, who writes :

"Therefore the Baptism of Infants is no more than is necessary: that they who by their generation are subject to that condemnation (i.e. of Adam) may, by regeneration, be freed from it. And as there is not a person in the world who is not carnally generated but from Adam, so neither is any spiritually regenerated but by Christ. The carnal generation is liable to that one offence, and the condemnation thereof: but the spiritual regeneration takes away, not only that for which infants are baptized, but also those many [sins] which by wicked living men have added to that in which they are generated." ("Epistle to Hilarius," ed. Bened. vol. ii. page 711.) Again, "that poisonous serpent stung the whole mass of mankind in the first man. No one passes from the first man to the Second, except through the sacrament of Baptism. In children born and not yet baptized, let Adam be recognized; in children born and baptized, and on this account born again, let Christ be recognized." (Sermon on 1 Tim. 15, Benedictine edition, vol. vii. p. 834.)

"If you understand this aright, you would with simplicity and truth acknowledge the grace of Christ towards infants, and not be driven to say things so exceedingly impious and absurd, either that infants ought not to be baptized, or that so great a sacrament is in their case so utter a mockery, that they are baptized in a Saviour and not saved, redeemed by a Deliverer, but not delivered; washed in the laver of Regeneration, but not cleansed.” ("Against Julian the Pelagian," iii. 11, Bened. ed. vol. xiii. p. 696.)

"If the child live after Baptism, and come to an age capable of obeying God's commandments, then he has that concupiscence to fight against, and with God's help to conquer, if he have not received His grace in vain, and

if he resolve not to become a castaway." ("On the Guilt and Remission of Sin," i. 69, ed. Bened, vol. xiii. p. 47, 48.)

The same principle is acknowledged equally clearly by our own Jeremy Taylor; thus he writes:

"The acts of Christ which were previous to the Institution of Baptism did prepare our understanding by such impresses as were sufficient to produce such persuasion in us, that Christ intended this ministry [of Baptism] for the actual advantage of infants as well as of persons of understanding. For Christ commanded that children should be brought unto Him, He took them up in His arms, He imposed hands on them and blessed them; and without question, did by such acts of favour consign His love to them..... And it is all the reason in the world that since the grace of Christ is as large as the prevarication of Adam, all they who are made guilty by the first Adam, should be cleansed by the Second. But as they are guilty by another man's act, they should be brought to the font to be purified by others; there being the same proportion of reason that by others' act they should be relieved who were in danger of perishing by the act of others (ie, the parents who brought them into being)." ("Liberty of Prophesying," vol. v. p. 541, Eden's edition.)

EXCURSUS III.

ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF JOHN V. 3, 4.

The last clause of verse 3, "waiting for the moving of the water," is omitted by , A., B., C., L., by Cursives 18, 157, 314, and Cureton Syriac, Coptic, and Memphitic. It is retained by D., later Uncials, most Cursives, Old Latin, and Vulgate.

Verse 4 is omitted by , B., C., D., 33, 157, 134, and an unusual number of Cursives mark it with asterisks as doubtful. It is retained by A., E., F., G., H., I., K., L., M., by other late Uncials, by most Cursives, Old Lat. (a, b, c, e, ff2, g,) Vulg. and Pesh. Syriac. Tertullian alone, of Ante-Nicene Fathers, quotes it: "Piscinam Bethsaidam angelus interveniens commovebat. observabant qui valetudinem quærebantur." ("De Bapt.") It is read by Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Augustine.

Very probably the words were a marginal note put in to account for the moving of the water, for the words of verse 7, "I have no

man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool," are in all MSS. It is quite certain from this that a moving of the water at uncertain times took place, and that it was supposed that the first person who was plunged in after this moving, and he only, was healed.

In considering this miracle in the notes, I have drawn attention to the fact that it is in no sense a miracle of the Lord's, and as far as I can see He in no shape or way recognized its reality, which I think He would have been careful to do if a messenger of His Father had actually descended, and by moving the waters was the occasion of the healing.

It may be rejoined, "If no angelic healing took place, ought He not to have disabused the people waiting there?"

Now, if He had told the people that they were under a delusion respecting the cure, it is certain they would not have believed Him; but He showed them very plainly that His own presence and power made their waiting there quite unnecessary.

But, to me, the strongest reason against verse 4 is, that if the healing by the angel be true, it would be the one case in which God interfered in favour of the rich who had many friends to assist them into the pool, and passed by the poor and friendless. The fact that a periodical miracle of such a character is not mentioned by Josephus is not absolutely conclusive, but it has its weight.

The reader will forgive me if I quote an extract taking a view of the probability of this miracle which will be most likely new to him. It is from a very able treatise by a Romanist writer (the Rev. J. E. Bridgett) on "The Ritual of the New Testament," and has the imprimatur "Henricus Eduardus, Archiep. Westmonast." The writer is answering an objection to the miracle as being unlike anything else recorded (which it is), and he remarks:

"If the miracle was not real, yet whence could the popular supposition of healing powers arise? It can only be attributed to its likelihood in the minds of the people of Jerusalem. If such a miracle were altogether unlike anything else recorded as happening in a great city like Jerusalem, how came the people of Jerusalem to expect it? The truth is, that it is only unlike anything that happens in Protestant London. You would not expect to find a multitude of poor cripples waiting for the stirring of the waters of the New River head in [near?] London, but you would not be at all astonished at finding a multitude of poor sick people at St. Winifred's Well in North Wales, or St. Bridget's Well in West Clare. The Catholic tradi

LL

tion of holy wells makes this history of St. John read very naturally to Catholics; the Protestant tradition against any such order of miracles makes it read very unnatural to Protestants." (P. 209.)

The worthy writer's illustration goes very far in accounting for the concourse, but not for the miracle.

EXCURSUS IV.

ON SOME QUESTIONS ARISING OUT OF THE WORDS OF THE LORD IN JOHN VI.

In ascertaining the relation of the Lord's words in John vi. respecting the partaking of His Flesh and Blood, to the Sacrament of His Body and Blood, one consideration, besides those which I have mentioned, must be taken into account, as it must necessarily have considerable weight in deciding the Eucharistic significance of the chapter. It is this: Certain words of this discourse are the most startling in the whole range of Scripture. If words have any meaning they betoken some very remarkable benefit indeed conferred upon the Christian. There is nothing in all Scripture which can be compared with "He that eateth My Flesh, and drinketh My Blood, dwelleth in Me and I in him." Now, they who have seen a sacramental reference in the terms "eating the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drinking His Blood," have constantly used this sort of language when describing the close and intimate union subsisting between Christ and the Christian. And they who have seen no reference to the Holy Eucharist in the characteristic words of this chapter, but have explained them as expressing the inward realization of the Atonement, apart from any sacramental partaking, have, as a rule, when speaking of the union of Christians with their Lord, studiously avoided the use of the terms in question. Christians whose theology leads them to consider the Eucharist as the means of partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, freely and naturally make use of the expression in the discourse, and other Christians, who evince the most undoubted love to their Redeemer, but whose prejudices lead them to disconnect, rather than otherwise, these words of Christ with the Eucharist, have avoided the use of the peculiar language of this chapter. They have used freely Scripture

expressions which betoken other aspects of Christ's love, as, for instance, His leading His people as a shepherd leads his flock, but not of His giving His Body and Blood as their spiritual food, so that the Lord's most startling and impressive words find no place in their practical or experimental theology. Thus they tacitly confess that the Eucharist is practically the only means by which the mystery of this chapter is brought within our reach.

(2.) A second question is this: Are we to be content with resting in faith on the words of the Lord respecting "eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood" as words which cannot be divested of their deep mystery, or are we through fear of their misapprehension in favour of Romanism, to attempt to express them in other words which are the clothing of more spiritual or intellectual ideas? The following are instances of this from the writings of divines of the Church of England:-"All that are saved, owe their salvation to the Salutary Passion of Christ; and their partaking thereof (which is feeding upon His Flesh and Blood), is their life." (Waterland.) "To eat the Flesh of Christ, is to realize in our inward life the mystery of His body now in heaven-to digest and assimilate our own portion in that Body. To drink His Blood is to realize in our inward life the mystery of His satisfaction for sin-to digest and assimilate our own portion in that satisfaction, the outpouring of that Blood." (Alford.) Or again: "It was now revealed [in this discourse] that life was to be gained by the personal appropriation of the virtues of Christ's Life and Death." (Westcott.) I have taken these extracts from writers who do not by any means deny an Eucharistic significance in this discourse. Moreover, these extracts set forth a necessary truth, that we must personally realize, each one of us for ourselves, our part in the Death and Passion of our Saviour Christ. But the question now is, Do they mean what the Lord meant when He spake about eating His Flesh and drinking His "Blood"? In considering this, let us remember that our Lord proceeds from that which is less to that which is more mysterious; from that which is capable, as He expresses it, of an intellectual apprehension, to that which, as He expresses it, is not capable of such intellectual apprehension. When the Lord says, "I am the Bread of Life," if we take these words by themselves, and proceed no further, it is evident that He sets Himself before us to be apprehended intellectually or spiritually. If we were asked how a person can be bread to us, so that