views on Inspiration and Regeneration; and the other, a variety of Criticisms on the Greek of certain passages in the New Tes

tament.

And

It is almost an impossibility in noticing books which treat of the same subjects, to avoid some repetitions in argument. this difficulty is especially increased, when the subject is theological; for two reasons: (1) that theology is a Divine science, the rules and laws of which cannot change; and (2) that the whole fabric and theory of Christianity is based on one single rock, which so intermingles itself with the entire structure and system, running through and making itself felt at all times, that it is impossible to touch upon any one point without being conscious of the solidity and vitality which are alone imparted to it by its foundation, viz., the Incarnation of the Second Person in the Ever-blessed Trinity, Whose life in the flesh is the life of the whole world, and the sole root of all Christian doctrine. This is the mysterious power or password by which the scattered fragments of truth unite, and stand forth a living whole. What before, as the dry bones spoken of by the prophet, is unsightly and useless, and sends up but an earthly stench even before man, becomes instinct with life, and the breath of the living Church is incense before God.

We proceed at once to the subject of Inspiration, concerning which the author thus speaks :

"And lastly; when we have thus before us all the elements which from this source are available for the determination of the questions now eagerly disputed amongst us, I shall endeavour (chaps. vi. and vii.) to point out what conclusions may be safely drawn from the premises obtained, and what not; what consequently, all are bound to accept as truth, who regard the ascertained sense of Holy Scripture as authoritative in matters of faith, and in what men may be content to differ, on the ground that difference on points not revealed need not involve disparagement of that authority to which alone the inspired writers lay claim."-Pp. 6, 7.

Before alluding to the arguments used by Mr. Marriott to establish his statement, we would simply ask him on what authority any man can persuade himself that he is specially qualified to decide this momentous question-the exact points of division between the Divine and human elements in Holy Scripture? We should think that painful experience has taught us the danger of such an attempt from the result, viz., the terrible uncertainty and rationalism into which well-meaning men are being led, by such a theory. While, on the other hand, the acceptance of all Scripture as inspired, the belief that every word and letter therein is written by the will of GOD, and therefore cannot be dispensed with, because it must all be essential, can lead to no irreverent consequences. All discussions and criticisms thereon cannot but be commenced and

carried on in a spirit of submission and deference to the mind of GOD, as expressed in the Bible. At all events, it cannot be denied that so soon as a man begins to say, that this or that passage of Scripture is only the produce of a human mind, and therefore not essential to the faith; he takes a step that inevitably leads less reverent men than himself into infidelity. The one great mischief lies in the attempt to distinguish between the two elements in Holy Scripture at all. Though they both exist, yet it is impossible to put them asunder. We cannot do better than quote from the Athanasian Creed; for that which applies to the living Word, may also be applied to the written word of GOD, "Equal to the FATHER as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the FATHER as touching His Manhood; Who, although He be GoD and Man, yet He is not two, but One CHRIST." We find it has invariably been God's system, in dealing with men, to be known under two aspects or characters, viz., that which assimilates itself to man's weakness, as well as by His Divine characteristics; and though the Bible be couched in human language to suit the capacities of men, yet we may not doubt that by this means be conveyed the very mind of GOD, and that every word and incident there given is for a holy purpose. As well might we say that the human nature of CHRIST was not perfect, because it was subject to infirmities and death. We give one more extract on this subject:—

"This much on the other hand is, I think, plain, that they who make inspiration an equivalent term for infallibility upon all subjects whatsoever, give to the word a meaning which neither our Blessed LORD nor His Apostles have ever claimed for it. It is, of course, open to any to maintain that, in point of fact, that direct teaching from GOD which the inspired writers claim in respect of matters of the faith, did also extend to all matters of natural science, of history or of biography, and in short to all matters whatsoever that may be alluded to in any way by any of the sacred writers. But let those who do so remember that it is simply a human theory that they are maintaining, not one of the truths once for all delivered to the saints, and from that time to this ever maintained by the Church."—Pp. 44, 45.

A more inconclusive argument than this we could not conceive. In order that CHRIST should "claim" infallibility for His own words, what could have been more needless, than that He Who had said, "I and My FATHER are One;""He that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me;" Who prayed "that they all may be one as Thou, FATHER, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us," should make any other special "claim," or boast of infallibility? that He should use as it were logical persuasions to convince men that the words He had used were correct, is so entirely human, that, by such an act, we should certainly have been led to doubt His Divine authority altogether. What could be

The

more undignified than for even an earthly parent, or governor, to assure his children that he has spoken the truth! Therefore it cannot for a moment be entertained as an argument against plenary inspiration, that the Son of GOD should have stooped to vindicate His own honour, as it were. The same argument applies equally to the Apostles and writers of the Bible. As human agents in God's hands, they were perfect. It is a great mistake to state that by a belief in verbal inspiration the human element is merged in the divine. That is impossible: both are there, but both are perfect, inasmuch as they are inseparably one. writers, from consideration to human weakness and understanding while expressing the Divine mind, were permitted each to preserve his own individuality, as the various colours in a stained glass window reflect their own hues, though one light shines through all, and probably were not always aware of the dignity and importance of the words they were inspired to write. Not one of the inspired penmen gives stronger testimony to the power of Holy Scripture than S. Paul, though we find him, when not conscious of GOD'S direct revelation, apparently not fully aware of the sacredness of the words he was inspired to use in counsel. Of such is the passage, "But to the rest say I, not the LORD," though we also find him saying afterwards, " And I believe also I have the Spirit of GOD." We have noticed the same distinction between the commands of GOD (Elohim), and His counsels, as "Yahooh," where He pleads as a personal friend to man. We may be quite sure that if the inspired writers had been left to their own judgment, they would certainly have chosen other topics to write upon, even for their own reputation's sake. But that they should have irreverently mixed up their own statements and speculations with God's revelations, and leave man to decide concerning them, is most impossible. In the very apparent weakness of the human side of Holy Scripture lies its power and dignity, as none but Almighty GoD could have known the majesty concealed under the smallest recorded circumstance.

Once more, the Bible is God's gift to man, and He Who weighs the importance of our smallest words, and Who has said, "By thy words thou shalt be judged," cannot err Himself either in expression or in choice of subject. The strongest proof of the perfection of the whole is found, we are sure, in the variety of human opinions thereon. For among all the different shades of pseudo criticisms and speculations, we believe there would not be found two persons exactly agreed concerning this one point, viz., the line of separation between the divine and human elements. If the division is to be made, who then is to make it? Almighty GOD has joined them together, and man cannot separate them. To all eternity the words of Holy Scripture will echo through the courts of heaven, and penetrate the depths of hell, to the fuller

consummation of the bliss of the redeemed, or to the condemnation of the lost.

We come now to the second point in Mr. Marriott's book, viz., Regeneration, and on this subject we must necessarily be brief. The author's views, so far as baptismal regeneration is concerned, are correct, that the new or spiritual life commences in baptism,the second or Christian birth being exactly analogous to the first or natural birth; that the regenerate life, thus commenced, must be nourished and renewed, that it must grow, in point of fact, and go on from strength to strength till it attain the "fulness of spiritual growth." This "renewal or renewing growth," as Mr. Marriott calls it, we should say would be theologically expressed as the gradual "sanctification" of the new life, which term he does not appear to use at all. Upon the term "conversion," we cannot also quite agree with Mr. Marriott's definition. He has confused his terms and his subjects. "Sanctification" we consider to be the result of union with CHRIST in baptism, and expresses the gradual increase of holiness which is commenced in the soul when it is born again of water and of the Spirit, having received remission of sin. "Conversion," on the other hand, can in no way be made to mean the gradual conformation to the likeness of GOD." Here the term "renewal" would be correct. Conversion in its strict and theological sense takes place at Baptism, when once for all the child of wrath (be he Jew, Turk, infidel, or heathen) is changed into a child of GOD,-turned to GOD in CHRIST.

The following extract will give Mr. Marriott's view :—

"It was an error then (if the teaching of Scripture be admitted as the standard of right) to speak as though Conversion, properly so called, was a stage of the Christian life through which every truly Christian man must pass. So far is this from being according to the analogy of 'the oracles of GOD,' that in no one passage of the Acts, in no one portion of any Epistle of either S. Paul, or S. Peter, or S. John, are terms of Conversion applied in any way to the case of persons already baptized. The true law of Christian life is, as we have seen, in the language of Holy Scripture, New Birth followed by 'renewing change,' in other words, by growth in grace. And for any to maintain that on the contrary the law of life is, at least for all who are baptized in infancy, a state of entire alienation from GOD, of more or less duration, but extending at least (save in very exceptional cases) throughout the whole period of childhood; to say that at some such period subsequent to Baptism the Christian life, properly so called, commences, in all cases, by a conscious struggle, admitting of being defined by day and hour, a struggle that results in 'Conversion'-to teach that this crisis once past the Christian life attains at once to its perfection-this is to hold language, and to inculcate a teaching, entirely contrary to that of the inspired Word of GOD, as it is contrary also to experience.

"Such is one way in which terms of Conversion have been misap.

plied, while their proper meaning has been rightly maintained. But I must not omit mention of another error, of an opposite kind, of which that former error has been the parent. Out of motives of charity and conciliation, and a desire, praiseworthy in itself, to obliterate as far as possible the differences which separated good men, attempts have been made from time to time to give to terms of Conversion a latitude of meaning which does not really belong to them. In comparatively late years, for example, most of my readers must be able to recall statements such as these that the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration and the doctrine of Conversion are correlative the one to the other; that Conversion following upon Baptism is the proper law of Christian life. But then it will be found on inquiry that by Conversion is meant not what is ordinarily meant by Conversion, but a gradual conformation, in ever-increasing measure, to the likeness of GOD,' in other words, that which, as we have already seen, is expressed in Holy Scripture by åvakaivwois, or 'renewing change.'”—Pp. 144, 145.

Here we have a confusion of terms which renders the definition very puzzling. Conversion does not take place invariably in Baptism, Mr. Marriott tells us; and yet he says that in no one passage in the Acts-in no one portion of the Epistles-is conversion spoken of in connection with persons who have already been baptized. Another passage, which we quote below, shows still further where the confusion lies, viz., in using the term "renewal" for "sanctification." The former is really applicable to all Christians who, as the Collect for Christmas expresses it, need continually, nay daily to be renewed. Conversion cannot, save by accommodation, be applied to any change after Baptism. Such change is properly called Repentance.

"The progressive growth in grace of a child of GOD, his ever-increasing conformation to the image of his Creator, is one thing. The entire change in the course and direction of a man's life, when after living in alienation from God he turns him from his former ways and enters upon a heavenward path, this is quite another thing. And to use the same word' Conversion' for both one and the other, can only tend to confuse what it is of high importance to distinguish, and to obscure truths which need to be clearly held, and plainly and emphatically taught.

6

"The true remedy for this confusion is to reproduce in English the real import of those terms of Renewal which in Holy Scripture cover the meanings improperly assigned to 'Conversion.' And this may best be done by bringing out the true meaning of ȧvakaivwois as 'renewing change, or renewing growth;' and giving prominence in practical teaching to the Scriptural doctrine, that growth in grace, following upon New Birth, is the proper law of the Christian life, while Conversion is the appointed remedy for them in whom the Christian life has been, to all eyes but those of GOD, extinguished, or at least suspended."-P. 152.