author's common sense saved him from this abyss of religious folly, but the injunctions which he adds in the appendix come as an afterthought. He concentrates his attention on the essentials of religion—the relation of the individual spirit to God, and moves wholly in this transcendant sphere: he has little thought of the human being as dwelling in a work-a-day world, and hemmed in by actual needs and greeds. And therefore while describing the highest spiritual attainment of the individual, he altogether forgets the means of grace by which frail human beings may be sustained in the effort after communion with God. There is no mention of the help which may be derived from common worship, or from fellowship in Christian duties, or, still more strange as it may seem, from the sacraments. He had painted the spiritually minded Jew as disregarding the older forms of service, and he seems to have felt himself and his readers on a height of individual religion where they could dispense with the Holy Eucharist, and had in consequence but little sense of union with a body of faithful men among whom the sacraments were duly ministered.

When we remember how strongly he condemns the actual performance of the divine injunctions among the Jews, we may feel sure that he would hardly sympathise with the institution of any rite in the Christian community it could only be justified to his mind in as much as it seemed an instructive type of Christ, and even in this aspect it was a retrogression to times when the truth was not yet clearly revealed. This mode of thought has reappeared to some extent in the Society of Friends in modern days; and we can see from the whole tone of the epistle that the silence in regard to the Holy Communion is no accidental omission, but

6. the language re

garding Baptism:

is in strict accordance with the general vein of his thought.

6. The case appears to be entirely different with regard to Baptism, as he seems to attribute an almost magical efficacy to this rite; but a little farther thought will show us that there is no real discrepancy in his views. We must remember that Baptism was a familiar practice among the Jews, and that even in pre-Christian times it was regarded as a sign of regeneration, and hence it was used by our author to denote the all important step of entering into the covenant relation. "We go down into the water full of sin and uncleanness, and come up again bearing fruit in our hearts, and with faith and hope towards Jesus." Yet it seems to me very doubtful whether there is any reference here to the performance of an actual rite1 as specially important. If it were necessary for partaking in the covenant relation, how could the Old Testament fathers have shared in it? He seems merely to use the well-known ceremony as a mere name for the grace of repentance, not to regard it as an "effectual sign whereby He doth work invisibly in us."

It is only in this way that we can understand the close connexion which there seems to be in his mind between Baptism and the Cross: the latter is the name he uses for Christ's triumph over death, the former is a name for the triumph over sin, whereby we become sharers in the covenant: it is only when Baptism is thus regarded that the fundamental thought of the whole epistle, that of the identity of the spiritual condition under the two dispensations, is preserved. He does not assert that we are regenerated by the act of Baptism, and that the actual performance of the rite

1 Donaldson, History of Christian Literature 1. 240.

is a condition of entering the covenant, but he used this as a name for the spiritual change which was essential.

Church:

7. The religious life which he contemplated was hid 7 the in the recesses of the human heart, and found no expression in religious ordinances. It is yvos and yvos alone which edifies the Christian, nor does our author recognise any other channel by which God would. communicate with the human soul. So too, the spiritual temple is the individual heart, not the "members fitly joined together." His one idea of Church life seems to be the meeting together for mutual advancement in knowledge, not for common worship but for individual edification. The over-estimation of preaching as part of the services of the Church has not been confined to our author and his times.

sions, and

8. We have here a very striking, if mistaken, 8. the omis phase of thought; we can wonder at the "spirituality" the positive teaching of of the man who could shake himself so entirely free the epistle; from all external helps, who did not accept the Christian ritual as necessary, while he had freed himself from the bondage of the Jewish one. But we can hardly tell how far his frame of mind represents the general tone of the Alexandrine church, and how far it is individual; we cannot tell whether the epistle is to be accepted as an important contribution to Church. history or not. One thing is to be noticed. It is by omissions that his teaching differs from Catholic orthodoxy; there is no positive assertion from which we can dissent in regard to the Holy Spirit, the Sacraments, or the Church; and the epistle might be very acceptable to a body of Christians who were perfectly orthodox on these subjects; so that it cannot be taken as proving anything about the general opinions. But where

and the

contrast of

day and Sabbath

there is positive teaching it is very different; this has a much greater claim to be considered as commonly received; so that we may fairly conclude that the teaching on the person and work of Christ was generally acceptable. This is still more the case in regard to any institution; whatever had ceased for our author, may be regarded as having passed away for his readers ; whatever he represents as being practised, was probably practised by the Church. And therefore it is that his the Lord's testimony in XV. on the subject of the Sabbath, is of the highest interest. He shows that the Church was in the habit of keeping the Lord's day, and of keeping it as a memorial of His resurrection, and of the new creation which thereby was accomplished. The chiliasm is a little confused, but it is decisive; there was in the author's mind no attempt to prove that a Sabbath on the first day was to be substituted for a Sabbath on the seventh day. The Jewish Sabbath was a type of the great rest which remaineth for the people of God, which we can partake of by sanctifying our hearts, and which will come at last in power, when the new creation is completed, and God can again rest from His work. The Lord's day is no type of a day of rest to come; but a memorial of the first day of a new creation, and to be kept by us with joyfulness. This is a very early testimony to the keeping of the Lord's day; and the reasoning by which the practice is supported, and the care with which the hallowing of this first day is distinguished from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, is not without interest.

Such were our author's opinions on these important subjects. It will be seen that they harmonise closely with the general position which has been ascribed to him;

and in particular his neglect (to call it no more) of much important Christian truth in a letter which claims to be complete, shows that our author's is no development of a definite system of Christian teaching; it is rather a struggling towards a Christian system. The Consciousness of the Church has been guided to greater clearness in many directions; it has found reason to deny the inspiration of books which he accepted as divine; it has learned to value means of grace which he neglected, and above all to recognise more clearly a Holy Spirit watching over it and guiding it into all truth.

The greatest value of the epistle arises from the striking testimony which it bears to the development of Christian thought in many directions, though some of the particular phases of doctrine which it puts forward have more than a merely historical interest for us. We may do well to listen to the voice from a distant past, which tells us that the Lord's day never was a Sabbath, and that spirituality of heart and righteousness of life are the marks of the true heirs of the Covenant.