century the Hebrew learning of Origen had cast a considerable shade of suspicion upon the divine authority of the Book of Enoch and of the Septuagint version :134 while in the succeeding century, the still more profound erudition of Jerome no longer hesitated to pronounce the former altogether apocryphal,135 and to point out that the occurrence of a quotation from it in a canonical epistle, no more conferred a title to inspiration upon the Book of Enoch, than upon certain heathen poets of whose productions St. Paul had made a similar use. 136 At the end of the same period John Chrysostom treats the second fall of the angels as a mere fable,137 and thenceforward it was no longer believed or taught as a doctrine of the church.

But though the error itself was thus early exploded, the later fathers do not appear to have considered that it exercised a very powerful influence upon the other parts of the theology of their predecessors. It is for this reason, that we had rather speculate upon some previous probationary state of existence through which the angelic nature has passed, than admit, for a moment, into our system even its elementary doctrine; that of the present free agency and peccability of the angels of God. There is scarcely a revealed truth which this notion does not interfere with and vitiate: but especially, upon that vast range of important questions which regard our duties to God and God's dealings with us, the mind is perfectly bewildered in endeavouring to disentangle clear perceptions, from the inextricable maze of contradiction and confusion which this error introduces. It was therefore plainly

134 Contra Cels. p. 267, 268, Ed. Spenc. epi Apav, lib. 4. cap. ult., &c. 135" Manifestissimus liber est et inter Apocryphos computatur."Hier. Comm. in Psa. cxxxii. 3.

136 Comm. in Tit. i. 12.

137 μvdoλoyía.—In Gen. vi. Hom. 22.

F

impossible, that the opinions of the early fathers upon these and other points of Christian doctrine, should not have been materially modified by the grievous mistakes into which they fell regarding the angels. Yet were their opinions, though grounded in acknowledged error, implicitly adopted by their successors for many ages, with little or no alteration. And thus again, the errors generated remained in the church, long after the generating error had passed away.

CHAPTER VI.

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS.-BAPTISM.

THE visible church has long halted between two opinions upon the nature of the Sacraments which Christ has ordained therein. One of these opinions, which would seem to have a considerable advantage over the other, on account both of its antiquity and of the present number of its adherents, maintains that there is a spiritual efficacy inherent in the elements of either sacrament; and that, provided they be administered according to the divine institution, the receiver must necessarily partake of the benefits they are intended to convey. The waters of baptism undergo a certain change, which renders them instrumental to that inward washing from corrupt and evil dispositions, of which the rite itself is the symbol; so that regeneration follows baptism, as effect follows cause. In the same manner, there is an actual transmutation of the elements themselves in the other sacrament; they become, during the performance of the eucharistical service, the material body and blood of Jesus Christ, of which he who partakes is therefore necessarily apprehensive.

The other opinion, which, according to its opponents, was scarcely heard of before the Protestant Reformation, and which, even now, has but few adherents, in comparison of the former, asserts, that the elements are

the mere outward, visible signs of certain inward and spiritual benefits, the communication of which depends altogether upon the will of the blessed and eternal Spirit who is the giver of them. Consequently, the sacramental graces are imparted with exactly the same regard to the frame of mind in the partaker of the outward rite, as obtains in all the other ordinances and means of grace prescribed by the New Testament. The unworthy receiver, neither experiences spiritual regeneration in baptism nor discerns the Lord's body in the eucharist; for the same reason, that the prayer which goeth forth of feigned lips fails to obtain the answer which God is pleased to give to the right performance of that Christian duty. We shall presently review the whole of the Scripture testimony to the point in question: independently of it, however, the latter opinion would seem to be most in harmony with the general spirit of the Christian doctrine; which, in the matter of distribution of gifts and graces, always brings prominently forward the divine omniscience, regarding scrupulously the heart of him who seeks, and giving or withholding them, accordingly. This analogy is certainly violated, if we account the sacramental elements as means of grace in themselves necessarily efficacious. But the inconsistency is greatly heightened, when, after the example of a large and authorative portion of the Christian church, we arrange the two sacraments under different categories; and make the one efficacious when rightly administered, the other, when rightly received; or in other words, when we assert baptismal regeneration, and deny eucharistical transubstantiation. We readily grant, that the Scriptures alone can ultimately decide the question; but, nevertheless, there is so plain an inconvenience in the want of an analogous system of theology, that we may fairly argue a

priori, from the improbability of a revelation from heaven being so circumstanced. How this consistency is to be maintained, without assuming the sameness in nature of the two sacraments, I must confess I cannot comprehend. Again, let this hallucination be permitted in our theo logical scheme, and there is an end of all argument upon the nature of either sacrament: since our logical deductions in favour of baptismal regeneration, will equally prove the real presence in the eucharist; while on the other hand our deductive refutations of this opinion, will be, to the same extent, refutations of our own, regarding baptism.

We now proceed to compare the scripture doctrine upon each sacrament, with those which have been advanced by the early fathers. Though, in raising these much-tossed questions, we abjure all idea of rekindling the unhallowed fires wherein they were once enveloped; but which (as we hope) the Spirit of God, dropping as the rain and distilling as the dew upon his church, has now quenched for ever. Our only desire is, to afford a contribution of help, however feeble, towards that brotherly adjustment, which is so evidently the mind of Him who prayed, that his disciples might be all one, even as he is one with the Father.

1

"Sacraments," says Hooker, "by reason of their mixed nature are more diversely interpreted and disputed than any other part of religion besides." And though the controversy occupies less of the public attention and is disputed with less acrimony now, than it was two hundred years ago, yet the opinions of the various sections of the church upon the subject remain nearly in the same state as when Hooker wrote. He then that goeth about to

1 Eccl. Pol. b. 5. § 57.