its responsibilities to its endowment, the nation, and the world at large.

Like Oxford and Cambridge, setting in this respect an unhappy example which London has creditably refused to follow, Dublin gives her M.A. for money without examination. That eminently becoming dark-blue hood, which the Queen's or Royal University has had the questionable taste to adopt as also her badge of M.A., ought to mean something more and better than so many pounds sterling. It is, of course, true that M.A. implies B.A. and the examinations which precede B.A., but the higher degree ought undoubtedly to imply the higher examination. If men have not the leisure to prepare for it, or the brains to pass it, they should be able to do without it. London tells them this, and so enlarges the knowledge and raises the intellectual culture of others than "superior spirits" and "leisured classes" very appreciably.

It is pleasant to note that even the more able and cultivated portion of the Parnellite press of Ireland appreciate and are proud of the great Irish University. The Freeman's Journal gave utterance last June to some graceful and discriminating sentiments, which were worthy of the better days of that once truly national and respected organ of intelligent public opinion in the sister island. Dublin University “hath charms to soothe" even the Freeman.1

1 The Honorary Degrees conferred at the Dublin University Commencements yesterday were fairly and discerningly distributed through the various fields of literary and scientific eminence. Cambridge was well and worthily represented in the persons of Archbishop Trench and Mr. Munro; Oxford was represented by Mr. Ellis, Astronomy by Professor Brunnow, Electricity by Mr. Siemens, and Biology by Mr. Wallace. It was a capable, comprehensive, and sympathetic selection; and the University derives its own share of honour from the honours which it appreciatively conferred. The most attractive feature in these comitia for some years past has been supplied by the Latin speeches of the public orator, Dr. Webb, and probably he never spoke more classical Latin than he spoke yesterday. Some of his allusions and tropes were, perhaps, somewhat strained, and pitched into too high a key, and it was a bold rhetoric that undertook to introduce Lucretius in bodily presence for a T. C. D. degree. Dr. Webb, however, speaking out of his own classical culture, said of Mr. Munro, as Lucretius Redivivus, no more than what every classical scholar in the three Universities will endorse. Mr. Webb made a sort of graceful apology for the University's long delay in conferring its degree on Archbishop Trench, and we must add that the delay has always seemed to us unaccountable. Dr. Trench, English by educacation, is Irish by descent; and it is no false flattery to say that his writings have honoured both his birthplace and his education place. What the University, speaking through its eloquent public orator, has discovered now, the whole republic of letters knew more than thirty years ago and how Trinity College happened to be so late in the discovery we cannot pretend to explain. Late it is, but better late than

The number of degrees conferred at this Commencement, which is only one out of five in the year, was seventy-two B.A.'s, fifty-three Bachelors of other Faculties, including two Bachelors of Engineering, most ingeniously rendered by the authorities as Ars Ingeniaria, on the "canting" heraldic style, or simply punning ordinary style; one Licentiate in Medicine; one Master in Arte Obstetricia; forty-two Masters of Arts; one Doctor of Music; six Doctors of Medicine; nine Doctors of Law; and. seven Doctors of Divinity; making a total at this one Commencement of 192, besides the six Honoris Causâ degrees. In addition to these honorary degrees, the University grants stipendiis condonatis degrees to men less widely known who have done good work, more valuable than obtrusive, for God and man in various fields of missionary and other labour. English Universities might well follow so noble an example.

The Silent Sister has also trained many of her alumni in the "silvern" arts of parliamentary and preaching oratory, as will readily be admitted in memory of such names as Burke, Sheil, Cairns, Magee (Bishop of Peterborough), McNeile, and a hundred others who, out of no disrespect to their Alma Mater, the quondam "silent one," have made parliament houses, platforms, and pulpits ring with their "speech." It has been reserved for a graduate and professor of the University of Dublin to turn a deaf ear to all this pulpit eloquence, and to write about the "Decay of Preaching." Surely Professor Mahaffy, forgetful also of parliamentary glories, might with equal inaptitude write of the "Decay of Oratory;" or others, ignoring the Professor's musical and historical knowledge, which the world at large is so willing to acknowledge, might write of the "Decay of Historical Lectureship," but that the shade of Kingsley would frown; or of the "Diminution of Musical Taste," but that such an essay would seem to savour too much of "words, words." And all graduates of Dublin should, in writing papers and articles, especially beware of mere words, words," and make even an abrupt conclusion rather than yield to any temptation to indulge in them.

never.

S. B. JAMES.

Dr. Trench was born, the "Peerage" says, in 1807, and we suppose we may venture the conjecture that he is the oldest man that ever received either an ordinary or an honorary degree from the University of the "Holy and Undivided Trinity near Dublin."-Freeman's Journal, June 30.

VOL. VII.-NO. XXXVII.

D

ART. IV.-CHURCH DIFFICULTIES CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN.

WE

E live in very difficult times. The minds of men are in a state of unrest and agitation. There are difficulties both without and within; difficulties in politics, and difficulties in religion; difficulties abroad, and difficulties at home; difficulties outside the Church, and difficulties in the very heart and centre of it. Now, these Church difficulties are often the cause of the greatest perplexity to Christian minds. They harass Christian people more than those in politics. People do not see what they think they ought to see in the Church of God. They meet with grievous errors boldly taught by those who are the Church's officers, and who are sworn to maintain its truth; and, even amongst those who are faithful to the truth, they are constantly meeting with very sad defects. Now, if we had been led by the Scriptures to expect a perfect Church, consisting only of perfect men, we might well be disturbed by all we see; for we must all subscribe to the words of David, "I have seen an end of all perfection." We have to consider, therefore, whether this is the teaching of the Scriptures, and examine carefully what is the description there given of the true, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

With this view, let us examine into the first Epistle of John the Apostle. The date of the Epistle is not accurately known, but it is supposed to have been written about the year A.D. 81, and to have been one of the last, if not the last, of the Apostolic Epistles. It may give us, therefore, an insight into the state of the Apostolic church towards the close of the Apostolic government; and may also teach us important lessons as to the manner in which the Apostles treated the difficulties prevailing in their times. Let us study, first, the difficulties in the days of St. John; and secondly, the manner in which he treated them.

I. The difficulties.

(1.) There were great doctrinal heresies in his day, and these of the most alarming character. They did not merely affect nice points, or refined distinctions, but they struck at the very foundations of the faith. They were cankers on the root of the tree, and were of such a desperate character as to destroy the whole Christianity of the Gospel.

There were some who denied the Messiahship of our Blessed Saviour, and actually went so far as to maintain that Jesus was not the Christ, or the Messiah. To these St. John refers in ch. ii. 22 and ch. v. I.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son.

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

There were some who denied the Incarnation, and maintained that our Blessed Saviour had not really come in the flesh. To these he refers ch. iv. 2, 3, and 2 Epistle 7.1

There were others who denied His Divinity, and who did not believe in Him as the Son of God. To them he refers ch. iv. 15, and v. 5, 10.

(2.) Here, then, were three great terrible, doctrinal heresies, any one of which was sufficient of itself to destroy the whole foundation of Christianity. But this was not all; for in addition to this there was a terrible and most dangerous heresy in practical life.

The great heretics of those days were called, and, I believe called themselves, Gnostics. According to Bishop Wordsworth, writing on the authority of Irenæus (i. 6, 20), "They alleged that by reason of the spiritual seed in them, and of their superior spiritual knowledge and communion with the light, they were free to act as they chose, and were not polluted thereby, and were not guilty of sin." It was against this terrible, practical heresy that the Apostle aimed the main force of his Epistle. From one end to the other he is occupied in maintaining the practical results of true knowledge, or true light. To take one example, refer to that often misquoted passage in ch. iii. 6, &c. The one object of that passage is to show that if we have a blessed hope in the Lord Jesus the effects must be practical. Throughout the passage the word used is in the present tense, indicating habit. The sixth verse describes two habits in contrast one with each other, the habit of abiding in Him, and the habit of sinning. The word rendered "commit," or "committed," is the same as that employed in John vii. 19: " None of you keepeth the law." So that the whole point of the passage is that when there is a new birth there will be a new life; that he that doeth righteousness is righteous, and not merely he that talketh about it, or he that claims to have a certain spiritual knowledge, or yvwotę, raising him above the claims of practical conduct; that there is a clear, marked, visible, practical, difference between the sons of God and the sons of the devil; for that in practical and habitual life the one class do right, and the

I would throw out in passing the consideration whether the doctrine of transubstantiation is not a virtual denial of the reality of the manhood of our Lord.

26

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him."

other wrong. So he says, verse 10: 'In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness, is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." The passage, therefore, has not the slightest reference to the theory of the sinless perfection of the believer, but is aimed point-blank at the fatal Gnostic heresy, that if a man had light and knowledge he was raised by them above the claims of practical conduct, so that by virtue of the light that was given him, his practical misconduct would not be sin in him.

Now, I fully admit that we have a great many evils in our dear old Church of England. We have Rationalism and Ritualism, and ever so many other isms perpetually cropping up amongst us, and no one deplores them more than I do. Could ve not all weep fountains of tears at the cruel unfaithfulness by which the dear old Church of England, the faithful old witness for truth, has been disgraced and dishonoured by many of her sons? But is the Church of England now in a worse position than the Church of the Apostles in the days of St. John? I venture to express the strong opinion that our position, instead of being worse, is not nearly so bad. We have heresies taught amongst us, I fully admit. But are they worse than those in the days of St. John? Have we anything worse than the three great denials, that Jesus was the Christ, that Jesus had come in the flesh, and that Jesus was the Son of God? If we were to give up those three great truths, the Messiahship, the humanity, and the divinity of the Lord Jesus, what should we have left? And so again with reference to sin and sinlessness. We have had, I know, strange ideas put forth in modern times; but not worse than those of the Gnostics, though, I must say, apparently very much the same. We learn, therefore, with reference to difficulty, that there is nothing new under the sun. There was heresy then, and there is heresy now. There was Gnosticism then, and there is something very like it now. If there is any difference between the year A.D. 82 and 1882, it is rather in favour of the latter date, and it is not for the wise man to be unsettled, alarmed, and panic-stricken, because the old enemy is still at work with his old weapons. For 1800 years he has been using them with all his power, but he has not yet succeeded, and, as I firmly believe, he never will. So we are not to be terrified, as though some new thing had happened to us; but should calmly, peacefully, and hopefully buckle on our armour, and be prepared to contend resolutely for God.

II. Such being the difficulties in the days of St. John, our next business is to consider how he treated them, and so endeavour to learn lessons of practical wisdom as to our own conduct in these difficult times in which we live.