:

present to help and save and bless us, the Holy Spirit cannot be so known as that "the abundance of the heart” should wilfully blaspheme against it. Hence the force of our Lord's statement, "Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come" (Matt. xii. 32). The Son of Man is the Lord as externally known, and, more specifically, the Word as superficially understood; and the offences of the natural mind against this natural knowledge are comparatively light, because, springing in the main from ignorance or thoughtlessness, they involve no violation. of profound and sacred convictions, and may be rectified by clearer knowledge and a deeper intelligence. The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, is the Lord as inwardly acknowledged and the Word as spiritually discerned. Since, therefore, to blaspheme its sanctity is to defile the veriest inmost recesses of the soul, and wilfully to recede from an advanced state of regeneration, it occasions such a mingling of good and evil as admits of no after separation, but necessarily occasions hopeless condemnation. For when spiritual truth is understood, and the spiritual powers of the soul are at once developed and profaned, there exist no further or superior faculties by which to counteract the mischief. The frosts of winter never hurt the seed locked in the ice-bound earth; but if the seed has quickened, and its tender shoots are then chilled and withered, the whole plant dies. The case is similar with the soul. In its state of unconverted grossness the deepest guilt is impossible, and its sins are consequently remediable. Once vivified by the Holy Spirit, however, its responsibility increases, and the persistent choice of evil, after conviction and amendment, desecrates with a sevenfold increase of evil worse even than its unconverted grossness (Luke xi. 24-26). Against such deadly peril the Divine Providence most carefully guards each one, and actually opposes hindrances to any comprehension and confession of the truth, which would create a responsibility heavier than the feeble and unstable could sustain ; "that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand" (Matt. xiii. 13-15; Mark iv. 12; Luke viii. 10). Far happier is it for such to be thus kept in a condition of external thought and consequent comparative innocence, than that they should be raised to an eminence they would be unable to maintain, and whence their fall would be immeasurably ruinous. "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they should fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame" (Heb. vi. 4-6).

The dogma of the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit, though embodied in most of the creeds technically professed by the majority of Christians, is too vague to require any laboured refutation, and, if the reasoning employed in dealing with this portion of our subject merits any acceptance, may be considered as already sufficiently disposed of. That the Holy Spirit is a separate essential of the Divine Trinity, and as such not to be confounded with the Father and the Son, we have endeavoured to show; but this essential, together with every other constituent of Deity, is comprised in the One glorious Person of Him in whom dwelleth, bodily, all the fulness of the Godhead (Col. ii. 9). Thus, while our Lord commanded His disciples to baptize all nations "in"-or as the Greek eis (eis) more emphatically expresses it-"into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of

the Holy Ghost" (Matt. xxviii. 19), it is remarkable that they appear to have inaugurated their proselytes into His own name alone (Acts ii. 38; viii. 16; x. 48; xix. 5); thus indicating that this Divine Name does indeed include the entire Trinity, since within the glorified Humanity of Jesus dwells the Father (John xiv. 10), while from Him proceeds the Holy Spirit (John xx. 22). Indeed, the fact that the Lord uses the singular form "Name," rather than the plural, would imply that the three terms He employs must relate to the same Divine Being, although they of course distinguish three different functions or attributes which co-exist together, and unite to form His supreme perfections.

Perhaps the most cogent arguments in defence of the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit are those based upon our Lord's allusions to the Paraclete (John xiv. xv. xvi.), which we have seen to refer to His own mediatorial work and spiritual presence with His disciples in all ages. Another assumed stronghold of this doctrine is the account of our Saviour's Baptism, at which it is recorded that "He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting upon Him" (Matt. iii. 16). But if this passage proves the personal separateness of the Holy Spirit, it surely proves in addition more than the most strenuous supporter of this hypothesis would wish to maintain. If its testimony to the distinct existence of the Spirit is to be received as a statement of literal fact, so, too, in all logical fairness, must its evidence as to the mode of such existence; in which case we should be committed to the belief that one of the supposed persons of the Divine Trinity is in the form of a bird! Nor could we even rest consistently contented with this remarkable conclusion, because, in other parts of the New Testament, the same Holy Spirit is exhibited under other and quite different aspects. Thus John speaks of "the seven Spirits of God" (Rev. i. 4; iii. 1); and describes these Spirits as existing under the semblance of "seven lamps" (iv. 5) and "seven horns and seven eyes" (v. 6). Evidently, therefore, these appearances, which all appertain to a state of vision, in which the seer is exalted to a capacity to behold the life and phenomena of the spiritual world, cannot be regarded as delineating the actual shape and being of any separate persons of the Trinity, but rather as constituting representative illustrations, in Divinely expressive and accurate symbolical forms, of the nature and operation of the Lord's Holy Spirit. Thus the supernatural occurrences at the Baptism of Jesus in the river Jordan (Matt. iii. 16, 17) indicated the progress then attained in the great work of His Glorification. The heavens which opened above Him implied a corresponding unfolding of the veil which had divided His human from His Divine nature, so that, even as to His Humanity, He was increasingly aware of the Divine life which constituted His inmost essence, and which was gradually fashioning even the uttermost principles of His being into conformity with Itself, that He might be at length rendered entirely One with the Father. And the descending dove betokened the gentle, peaceful, reconciling influences of that Divine Spirit which was flowing into His Humanity from the Father, and which, when the Humanity should be fully glorified, should thence stream forth to sanctify, regenerate, and bless the world. Again, the "seven Spirits" described by John (Rev. i. 4; iii. 1) indicate its supreme holiness, this being the scriptural significance of the number seven; while their representation under the figures of lamps, horns, and eyes (iv. 5; v. 6) reminds us that the Divine Spirit of truth is the great Source of enlightenment, power, and perception.

Thus the infinite and eternal Jehovah, who by Incar

nation became our Redeemer, having glorified the Humanity He assumed for this purpose, and thereby made it His eternal person in the same sense as that in which a man's body is the person of his soul, is from henceforth our Regenerator and Saviour; since from His Glorified Humanity perpetually flow the sanctifying influences of His Holy Spirit, to create us anew, and to enable us to receive the blessings of His heavenly kingdom.* Moreover, now that the Glorification is complete, and God is Man not only in first principles but likewise in ultimates, His resemblance to His human image and likeness is obvious and perfect. A man comprises the trinity of soul, body, and their combined. activity. In the Lord exists the corresponding Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: the Father being the essential Divinity, which is analogous with the human soul, and of which the Divine Humanity of Jesus constitutes the body; while the Holy Spirit is the Divine Proceeding or operative energy, which dispenses the benefactions of infinite truth and goodness in a form and measure suited to finite capacities and needs.

The purely philosophical Trinity of Love, Wisdom, and Power or Use referred to in the Creed † also necessarily continues, because these attributes are essentials of conscious, voluntary life. We must beware, however, of so connecting these two Trinities in our minds as to cherish the idea that the Father is exclusively Divine Love and the Son exclusively Divine Wisdom; for this would be to ignore the perfect union of the Father and Son effected by Glorification. For, by virtue of this union, the Word or Divine Truth, which in the beginning was with God and which was God, and which was made flesh and dwelt among us (John i. 1, 2, 14), was actually invested with all the treasures of Divine Love. Thus in the last most wondrous prayer of our Lord recorded by the beloved apostle, He is described as saying, 66 And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own self; with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was" (John xvii. 5). This glory was, of course, the glory of the Word in the beginning, when it was with God, or, in other language, the glory of Divine Wisdom in its original union with Divine Love. Since, therefore, it was the Word which was made flesh and dwelt among us, the Humanity, during its residence on earth, was necessarily in more intimate conjunction with the Divine Wisdom than with the Divine Love, and accordingly yearned for the full unition of its wisdom with that love, which would constitute its glorification with the Father's own self, and which was fully realized when such glorification was complete. Accordingly, as the result of this process, love and wisdom are alike predicable of both Father and Son, the distinction being that in the Father they exist in an infinite and internal manner, while in the Son they are outwardly manifested in an intelligible and visible form, and, by the agency of the Holy Spirit, are rendered practically instrumental in sustaining and blessing all orders of finite life.

Therefore the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ stands forth revealed as "Jehovah in a glorified human form," our "Creator, Redeemer, and Regenerator." To Him alone we pray; in Him alone we place our trust and hope. He is the visible God in whom is the invisible; the glorious, Divinely-human Being who only hath ail power in heaven and in earth (Matt. xxviii. 18), and in whom indeed dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, insomuch that we are complete in Him who is

Many particulars connected with the Divine works of Regeneration and Salvation will be more fully discussed in our chapter on Salvation.

+ See Morning Light, pp. 81-83.

the head of all principality and power (Col. ii. 9, IO).

"I believe in One God, in whom is a Divine Trinity; who is a Being of infinite love, wisdom, and power; my Creator, Redeemer, and Regenerator; and that this God is the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who is Jehovah in a glorified human form." JOHN PRESLAND.

THE PURPOSE OF LIFE.

T is possible that some may not perceive fully what is involved in the fact that man's will is really his life; nor the inevitable conclusions in regard to the future existence which must result from it. These are that the future life is simply an expansion of our present existence.

"That which may be known of God is manifest to us, for God hath showed it to us. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by [or through] the things that are made." So says St. Paul; and we are justified by the whole tenor of the Bible in reasoning from things natural to things spiritual, till we gain, by the study of material things, true and rational light regarding our spiritual powers. This Physical world is but the "shadow of things to come." Every rock or mineral, every ocean and river, every mountain and valley, every tree and flower, every bird and animal, every insect and butterfly, are but the patterns or symbols of things and existences in that spiritual realm in which they find their raison d'être. Man himself in the present state of physical existence is, as regards his body, composed of material substances which we can analyze, examine, and separate into their component parts. Kill him, and the dead body retains still all its physical substances. Yet not a limb, not an eyelid even, retains one iota of life. That has left its every fibre. The real complete man, therefore, must be wholly spiritual, and spiritual in every part. Man, in fact, must have-or rather man is a spiritual form inhabiting every organ of his physical body. This spirit, therefore, is not without form and void, but underlies every portion of him to the minutest nerve or organa corresponding spiritual form as real, substantial, and recognisable to other spiritual men as his physical form is to its fellow-men. When, therefore, the glove of matter is withdrawn from the spiritual hand, that spiritual hand still exists, none the less a hand, nor in any way deprived of its power or deftness. Man, therefore, exists now as a spirit within a physical covering, drawing to himself, from the Great Source of all life, spiritual life whereby to animate and use the physical frame which he inhabits while in this world. Is this an irrational or unscriptural belief? "In God [or from God] we live and move and have our being" was quoted by Št. Paul at Athens from one of the ancient poets, and confirmed by him as true regarding himself and other men living in this material world.

The change, therefore, from the present life to the future state of existence is not so great as some suppose. It is but the continuance of our present life, with powers and facilities for working out our will, as much excelling our present powers as will and intellect excel matter. Is this extended power a rational conclusion? Does any one in this age of great engineering exploits, railways, electric telegraphs, and telephones, need to be told of the transcendent power of mind over matter even in this world, where the will must, perforce, act on and through matter?

Behold, then, the tenderness, the infinite gentleness and compassion of our Creator and Saviour, in beginning the development of our spiritual faculties in a material

world. Here in this world, clothed in the grosser form of matter, we learn to use them more safely, because our powers are limited by our physical form. Misuse of these powers here does indeed bring that consequent misery which is the inevitable result of departure from the laws of our being; but that misery is tempered and lessened by our feebleness in working out our will. The lesson is more easily learned. The wrong more readily righted. The spiritual man within us sees and feels at once where error tends, can cease at once to do that evil physically by ceasing to will to do it, thus ceasing to do it spiritually also. Thus physical good and evil are readily discerned "by their fruits," and spiritual good and evil in the inner will, or life, because at once perceptible. Thus we are gently, tenderly taught by a tempered, though often bitter experience, the regenerating power which is hidden in that essence of all true beginning of life-"Cease to do evil; learn to do well." Surely of a truth this demonstrates that the beneficent Source of all Life is Infinite Love revealed in Infinite Wisdom in His dealings with us and all His creatures.

Future life, then, is but the opportunity to use in larger measure the life powers we have partially developed here. Future life is-must be-far more real, more substantial, far more potential for good or evil, than this life, because there our powers are granted greater opportunity. Let us begin here, then, the life we will to live in the future. Let us be up and doing-be useful here that we may be more useful hereafter. God's kingdom is a kingdom of uses here, and therefore hereafter. The will to benefit our fellow-men is the true life here. For God's sake for goodness' sake do it, because "forasmuch as ye do it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye do it unto Me." A sentimental beatified idleness is nowhere depicted in God's Divine Word as the "Kingdom of Heaven." And it is written in the laws of our being that “in keeping God's commandments there is great reward"-not the reward of merit, but the reward of the blessedness of a life whose every faculty is working according to its nature and constitution, finding every power respond harmoniously to every effort of its God-given will or life. "Cabined, cribbed, confined" this life may be while we exist in this world, but if begun at all here, even in slightest measure, it will grow and expand by added life from God, instilling into it a wisdom pure enough to guide and render useful an unbounded. charity.

ANOTHER CASUAL CONVERSATION.

H

AVING strolled out to contemplate the beauties of an autumn sunset on Hampstead Heath, I was sitting quietly enjoying my cigar, and the tints of glorious colour that dyed the western sky, when I was disturbed by the bow-wow, bow-wow of a large dog that came bounding towards me.

"Here, Toby, here, you bad dog!" was shouted by a voice some distance behind me.

"Bow-wow-wow," answered Toby, looking towards his master, and making a gambol of satisfaction towards him, and then back again to me, as much as to say, "Here he is; we know him, bow-wow."

"I trust my dog has not annoyed you?" said a gentleman, approaching the spot where I sat.

"Not at all," I replied; "I recognised the dog again, and am indebted to him for our present meeting."

"And I," said the gentleman, "much more so, for I wished to meet you again. I have been thinking over that theory of development which we discussed when we

If

met before, and I find that it involves much more than I at first thought; for if it were true that man is the result of natural development, the question would arise, Will he develop into something beyond man? or are we to conclude that he is the highest and last product of natural development? That seems to be the idea which this theory seeks to establish. It therefore involves the idea that when man dies he returns to the elements from which he came. Now if each of us were nothing but a mysterious development of atoms, possessing an individual consciousness, but destined by the laws of nature to return after the lapse of a few years to the condition of the mass from which we were formed, what possible object should we have to live for but our own selfish gratification ? We should all thus stand pitted against each other, every man for himself. This seems to be the law development ends with. But from the beginning that law does not seem to have worked very well as regards man; for the strong no doubt oppressed the weak, and hence men found it necessary to herd together, and make rules for their own protection from each other. From this came about what are called civil laws, but if I obey those laws I do so only from self-interest. Then, too, if I can avoid them, I have a perfect right to do so in my own interest, and so has every one else. What we call the criminal classes are therefore no more criminal than you and I; but they have the misfortune to be discovered-that is all-by the stronger party. they were the stronger party, why, then, what we call virtue and justice would be crime. It would have been better if development had stopped short before we became reasoning animals, for we might then have lived in some contentment and harmony, as the monkeys do, whereas we employ our reason, according to the grounds advanced, in the constant effort to deceive and get the better of each other, and the greater what is called refinement and civilization become, the greater adepts we become in the art of deceiving each other and keeping our self-interest out of sight. We are thus torments to ourselves and others. The greatest good of existence also centres in each one's self, and takes the form of a struggle as to who shall get the most gold. And when a life has been anxiously and wearily spent in scraping it together, what is the end? We are too old to do anything but sit down and contemplate our approaching annihilation; and ask ourselves, What is the good of having lived at all? For my own part, I am not at all thankful to nature for developing me if that will be the end. Besides, I have the misery all my life long of knowing that to such an end I am coming day by day. Better that this development theory had never been discovered. I could then have gone on believing in and striving to live for a future. state; dwelling in a fool's paradise, if they like to call it so, but pleasant nevertheless to dwell in. And if I went on in it to the end, why, I should not be any the worse off, for I should be past learning that it was simply a delusion. I must say the belief in a future life has had in all ages a wonderful influence upon the life of humanity, and has been a mighty power in the world for good. now there comes this new theory to work a revolution, not for a greater good, but to destroy what good there has been, for it leaves a man nothing to live for but himself. There is no God, there are no angels, no devils; the Bible is a delusion, Christianity is a delusion, all religion is a delusion; right and wrong are delusions, only so far as they affect each individual's self-interest-in fact, we are landed in a chaos of delusions as soon as we attempt to think of anything outside the region of nature. The whole human race has been deluding itself from the beginning that there is a future life. Think on the sub

But

ject how I will, I have come to the conclusion that the theory is radically wrong, that the outcome of it would be universal atheism, which instead of elevating humanity would press it down to the condition of a thinking brute. Let those who will believe the theory if they can; for my part I entirely reject it."

"Well," I replied, "I am glad you have given the subject so much thought, and also have arrived at the conclusions you give. I perfectly agree with you that the theory, if true, would land humanity in universal atheism. Human reason, with all its wonderful capabilities, so long as it depends upon itself and believes in nothing but itself, must of necessity be in a constant state of vacillation, and driven here and there by every current of thought; be, in short, ever seeking truth, yet always failing to grasp it. It is curious to remark how new theories seize upon the mind, and for a time throw a spell over it, completely blinding it to everything in existence but what can be seen through its own one window. So if we take up the idealistic school, of which Bishop Berkeley is still the leading exponent, and follow it out, everything is non-existent, outside of mind; if we take up the theory of development and follow it out, everything is non-existent, outside of matter. Human reason is like a little child without Divine revelation; with it, it becomes a giant. I grant our system of theology is a dark and benighted one which will not stand the test of human reason, and that is perhaps the reason why some enlightened and thinking minds put all theology aside as a delusion. The advanced state of thought in this age demands a rational theology, something that can be understood. It will not rest satisfied with being told that it must not reason upon the dogmas in which theology has wrapped itself, and which evidently had their origin in the darkest of the dark ages, while our religious teachers have nothing to offer but a blind faith in creeds and beliefs that the human mind sees to be against all reason and contradictory in themselves. I must say I am not surprised that men lose their reverence for religious teaching, and with it their reverence for that Book from which such teaching is professedly drawn; for men see that truths in nature, so far as they are able to understand them, are harmonious, and that law follows law in unbroken and unvarying order. The natural deduction therefore is that God's truths in nature and God's truths in theology cannot stand opposed to each other, as they are supposed to do; and since we can understand the one, we cannot accept the other unless it can be presented to us in a form which we can understand, and that is just where the prevailing system of theology fails. Think over the subject, my friend, and you will find that the great failure lies in the want of a true and consistent system of theology, that is to say, right ideas of God, and of the end and purpose for which He created worlds that they might be inhabited by human beings, and I think you will come to the conclusion that the prevailing ideas among Christians regarding God must be radically wrong. It therefore follows, that the systems of religious belief that have been woven from a wrong conception of God in the first instance, must also be wrong; and neither the authority of the early Fathers nor the antiquity of the belief can make it true. Think over it, friend; and if you give as much attention to it as you have done to the development theory, you will, I believe, arrive at the same result-that is, you will reject the false theories of theological science, as you have rejected the false theories of natural science."

"Well, I must say," replied the gentleman, "that I am a little surprised at your observations. The doctrines

of Christianity, as you yourself admit, are drawn from the Bible; how, then, can we be wrong in believing what the Bible teaches? It is true that men differ upon some small points of doctrine, but on the whole you must admit the principal doctrines of Christianity to be beyond dispute."

"My friend," I replied, "that is just what I do not admit. I deny that the commonly-received doctrines of Christianity are to be found in the Bible. I know that men think they are, because they have been taught so; and have also been taught that they must not question the truth of those doctrines. The mischief is that men have been taught from their infancy that they must not reason upon religious doctrines, but accept them as infallible truth; they may reason upon all things under the sun, but to reason upon religious things is considered impious. Hence it follows that whatever may be the progress made in natural science there can be none in religious science. Religious men seem to think that all is known that can be known; they thus regard with suspicion and distrust every thought that does not run in the orthodox groove."

"Then am I to understand you to mean, sir," said the gentleman, "that the whole Bible is wrong in what it teaches us about God, heaven, hell, salvation by Jesus Christ, the creation of the world, and the day of judgment? If we cannot believe the Bible, what foundation has Christianity to rest upon?"

"None at all," I replied; "but you have somewhat mistaken the point, I think. It is the doctrines men have formed from the Bible to which I object, not to the Bible itself; for I believe it is, what it professes to be, the Word of God to man. But the human mind seems to be suffering from paralysis, so far as the Bible is concerned. There seems to be an idea current among religious people that we must not try to understand it; but must accept as infallible, dogmas that were formed by men a thousand years ago, when the light of intelligence, compared to what it is in this age, was like a candle to the sun. The framers of these doctrines did their best, no doubt, according to the light they had; but they seem to have been doubtful of the soundness of their own theories, for they stamp them with the name of mystery not to be understood by reason. Why, friend, there is no mystery, and there can be no mystery in God's Word any more than there is mystery in God's works in nature. A thing is only mysterious so long as we do not understand it. We employ our reason to investigate everything in the natural world, and arrive at absolute truths; but everything that concerns the spiritual world, men shrink from exercising their reason upon, as if God had something to hide from us. But if we would only use the reason God has blest us with, and try to understand the character of the Bible and the purpose for which it is given to man, we should see the mystery is of our own making. But instead of looking for the fault in the weakness and short-sightedness of our own perceptions of spiritual things, we virtually say, Oh no; we see clearly enough; we have not misunderstood the Bible. the mind is closed against all progress in spiritual knowledge, and a banner is raised, not bearing the strange device Excelsior, but the inscription, 'As it was, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.' Men mostly think of God as being influenced by like passions as they are themselves, only all-powerful; thus they have blundered into the sad errors that overshadow the Christian religion, and the worst feature is the blind persistency with which they defend these errors."

Thus

"Well, sir," said the gentleman, "I admit there are some things in the Bible that must be given up. The

account of the creation of the world, for instance,

and

"Mind," I replied quickly, "that is your admission, not mine. I do not consent to give up a single word of the Bible. If it is God's Book it must contain in every sentence infinite truths. We may have lamentably failed to see that truth, but that does not prove the book to be wrong. The account of creation in Genesis was never intended to instruct us about the creation of natural things, but treats of an altogether different subject, which is the creation of spiritual things, the first states, progress, and development of the human mind thousands of ages before the date fixed by man. In fact, the Bible was not given to us to instruct us at all in natural things, but to instruct us in spiritual things; and we must look beyond the mere letter, if we would understand what the greater part of the Bible means. Take the book as a whole, and the largest part is without meaning to us; thus, for instance, if simply and literally understood, who can understand the Book of Revelation and the prophecies?"

"Then," said the gentleman, "you would spiritualize everything in the Bible."

"Well, my dear sir," I replied, "is not that what every minister of religion is trying to do in his pulpit every Sunday? but unfortunately they have no fixed system of spiritual interpretation. Every one follows his own fancy, and so long as he keeps within the general boundary of religious thought, his interpretation of any passage is accepted as the teaching of the Bible, when in reality it is simply the man's own interpretation made to fit into the doctrine he advocates."

"But how," said the gentleman, "can there be a fixed system of interpreting or understanding the Bible? That would almost imply that it was written according to a fixed system."

"That is just the point, my friend," I replied; "that is what I contend for. Once understand the spiritual signification of the narratives, histories, persons, and things mentioned in the Bible, and it will at once be perceived that the most obscure passages are full of Divine instruction; and the figurative language used will in all cases have a fixed and definite meaning. The subject is too long to go into now, but remember I contend for the whole Bible; I give up none of it; not even the first chapters of Genesis, but I do give up the literal interpretation. It is by confining the mind to it that the mass of error and superstition that darkens all our theology has arisen. Think over the subject, and do not be afraid to bring your reason to bear upon a doctrine, however old it may be. Ideas have been reverenced for their antiquity although they have had no basis in facts."

"Well," said the gentleman, "I shall give the matter my best consideration, for I feel great interest in it; and as I shall be about this spot every fine evening during the coming month, I hope I may again encounter you here. I hope you will make it convenient to stroll in this direction again; for I assure you I shall be most pleased to have some further conversation with you." T. PLUMMER.

CONFIRMATION IN THE NEW CHURCH.

AVING read with interest the various articles which have appeared in the columns of Morning Light on the subject of Confirmation, I desire to say a few words on the subject, in which to give some reasons for deprecating the introduction of a rite of Confirmation, or anything analogous thereto, into the

services of the New Church. But first I would call attention, like J. D. B., to the uses supposed to be associated with this rite, the religious instruction which precedes and leads up to it. This is indisputably a most highly important use, but it is no necessary part of Confirmation. ALL Churches regard it as highly important to educate the young in their religious tenets, and some Churches which have no such rite are-judging from their practice-more diligent and more successful in instilling the teachings of their creeds than those Churches which possess it, the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland witnessing to this fact. To bear testimony, therefore, to the importance of religious instruction is not necessarily to bear testimony to the value of a rite of Confirmation.

But J. B. says, "We are not to reject the Trinity because these Churches teach a Trinity of three separate Divine persons; nor the Resurrection because these Churches teach the resurrection of dead bodies." He says further that "the New Church does not reject Baptism because of the error of Baptismal Regeneration. Why, then, should we not seek the uses of a rite of Confirmation, with the teaching and training connected with it, while at the same time rejecting any errors or superstitions associated with it in darker times?" To these questions the answers are plain and simple in the extreme. We accept the doctrine of the Trinity of Divine essentials because it is taught in Scripture and in the Writings of our Church. We reject the doctrine of a Trinity of separate Divine persons because we believe it to be contrary to the teachings of Scripture and reason. We accept the doctrine of the resurrection of man because such is the teaching both of the external and internal senses of Scripture, and because it accords with reason and our common perception. We reject the ordinary view of the resurrection because it is antiscriptural and irrational. In connection with these doctrines we see that they are direct teachings of Scripture and of the Writings of our Church. We therefore, in the exercise of our reason, accept the teaching of Scripture and of our Church, rejecting only the erroneous interpretations which have been based upon Scripture in times past. But what, may we ask, is the case for a rite of Confirmation, when a parallelism is drawn between it and the sacraments instituted by our Lord and the doctrines of faith taught in His Word? The analogy from the instances adduced by J. B. is that we should accept the true teaching of Scripture and of the Writings of our Church respecting Confirmation, and reject "the superstitious views in relation to Confirmation taught in the Anglican and Greek Churches." To this no one who respects the New Church standards can have any possible objections. Let us have the true doctrine from Scripture and the Writings, and we shall be willing to acquiesce in the statement that a rite of Confirmation should be instituted for the use of the Lord's New Church. But this doctrine we cannot find. It is contained neither in the Word of God nor in the Writings of Swedenborg. The main use of such a rite, and therefore the chief argument for it, is in the religious instruction which precedes it, but this, as we have shown, is no integral part of it, and may even (as we have seen from the instance adduced) be better enforced without such a rite. But if we find no teachings on its behalf, and if we find the real use associated with it as adequately or more adequately fulfilled without it, what, we ask, can New Churchmen find to adduce in its favour? We think the reply of the thoughtful man will be, There is nothing to say in its favour. There are indeed two additional advantages quoted as likely to attend the adoption of such a rite, which are that (1) it fixes a period when it should be