Thousands of ancient bishops, priests, and councils may not be regarded as superseding the Personal Christ. When the Son of God speaks, let so-called priests and bishops be silent. What the Saviour says is divine; what these priests affirm is human. Thousands of self-constituted hierarchs, whether Roman, Greco-Roman, Anglo-Roman, Nevinistic, or heathen, can in no sense secure or hinder the saving of a single soul. "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."

This Mercersburg scheme would have priests to mediate between an abstraction, said to be an objective reality, and the subjective life of personal beings. The Apostles knew of no such visionary church. These heroic servants of Christ, speaking as moved by the Holy Ghost, do not say that the soul is enabled to love the Saviour through any such priestly mediation. This pantheistic scheme, like Romanism, would substitute a slavish subjection to a priestly abstraction for personal freedom in Christ. The Christian Church is not a PERSON. By necessary consequence, a priestly scheme can stand in no right relation to Christianity. Very properly does Dr. Nevin ask: "Is not God the last ground of personality?"— See Mys. Pres., p. 173.

Christian philosophy stops not here. Does not Dr. Nevin know that ground and condition are correlated terms? If personality has its ground in God, it follows that the condition is also in God. A pantheistic philosophy cannot admit this. A mediated life is not a conditioned life. This scheme is shut up to the necessity of teaching a pantheistic notion. Dr. Nevin says: "In every sphere of life, the individual and the general are found closely united in the same subject. . . So in the case before us, the life of Christ is to be viewed under the same twofold aspect."-See Mys. Pres., pp. 160–1.

It is easy to say that the life of Christ "is to be viewed also under the same twofold aspect." But where is the absolute authority? Dr. Nevin can do no more than appeal to German Rationalism. Starting from an assumption, Dr. Nevin goes on to say: "Christ's life, as now described, rests not in his separate person, but passes over to his people; thus constituting the Church."-See Mys. Pres., p. 167.

"As now described." Here is the secret of this pretentious scheme. As Dr. Nevin describes Christ, so must the Christ be! This is extravagant enough, surely. The Gospel view of the person of the Saviour is denied the moment any human "idea or theory" is affirmed to be identically the Divine. It has already been remarked that the Christian Church is not a person if not a person, then must it follow that the personality of man can in no sense stand related to the Church. Salvation is not conditioned in that which is impersonal. Certainly Dr. Nevin will disown the legitimate issue of his pantheistic scheme. He says: "It is not a system of subjec tive notions born only of the human mind, a supposed apprehension of supernatural verities brought into the mind in the way of abstract thought."-See Vindica. of Lit., p. 66.

Will Dr. Nevin say that his "idea or theory" of a whole is not "born only of the human mind?" This is an "abstract thought "having no foundation in the sphere of Christian philosophy, and infinitely far from being the Gospel of the Son of God. Christ is himself in his own blessed person both the ground and the condition of salvation. "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." The parallel is clear. The relation sustained to Christ is direct: it is personal. This is the Gospel view: this is the view recognized by all true Protestants. Dr. Schaff says: "Protestantism goes directly to Christ." The relation of the soul to Christ is here admitted to be direct and personal. This is primitive Christianity. The divine Redeemer is allowed himself to say to the sinner: "FOLLOW ME." Dr. Nevin constructs a scheme which ignores the possibility of direct relation to Christ. He seems to think that his abstract church can, in some mystical way, supply the Presence of Christ. It is only necessary, he imagines, to follow his church. The Saviour may not be followed without the intervention of a priestly order. This is extravagantly false. Does Dr. Nevin suppose that there are priests in the Church triumphant? If not, then surely there can be none in the Christian Church militant.

Dr. Nevin is sadly mistaken in supposing that his objectivism " passes over" through the mediation of his imaginary priests into the souls of men. The Christian Church may not

be confounded with this pantheistic scheme. A phantom notion of what constitutes sacramental grace may not be allowed to pass for the Gospel view of "GRACE." It is proper, under all circumstances, to entertain high views of sacramental grace. No mistake could be more fearful than to imagine that a human "idea or theory" of sacramental grace is identically the divine grace itself. Dr. Nevin would explain how the Christian life originates. As well try to explain how God creates the soul. The Saviour says: "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

The scheme originated by Dr. Nevin directs its so-called priests to say to the applicant for baptism: "You have come hither seeking deliverance from the power of the devil, the remission of sin, and the gift of a new and spiritual life.”—See Order of Worship, p. 199.

Christian baptism stands in no relation whatever to this pantheistic notion of a mediated life. Going to a priest of an "idea or theory" is infinitely far from being a Christian. The issue is clear. Personal beings are to love Christ himself supremely. Ancient so-called fathers may have their creeds: modern philosophers and metaphysical dreamers may entertain their own notion, theory, or idea of these creeds. All will not avail. Christ is infinitely more to the soul than the church can ever be either in idea or in reality. Theories fall worthless to the earth, where they properly belong. Christ is related to the sons and daughters of the race: the Church stands in no such relation. The Saviour is the Personal Redeemer the Church sustains no directly personal relation to the soul. The Son of God requires no one to yield obedience to an abstraction. To go to a human priest, supposing that by this means an entrance into the true kingdom of heaven can be secured, is a fearful delusion. The scheme that puts forth such pretensions is of the spirit of Antichrist.

The Gospel calls persons to a life of true freedom, not according to the dictations of priests, but in Christ. "If the Son, therefore, shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." There is no room to conceive of any necessity for submission, VOL. XLII.-NO. IV. 38

blind, ignorant, and slavish, to a so-called priestly order. Subjection to priests is abject slavery. Truth is always free. In vain attempt to defend a pantheistic philosophy, as though this could be identical with Christ himself. How can the finite mind comprehend personal being? If man cannot find out the mystery of his own person, how infinitely less can he comprehend the Person of the God-man. The Gospel is personal: it is not an idea: it is not a mere doctrine: it is Christ himself, the Saviour of sinners. The Apostles do not preach an "idea or theory" of Christ; but Christ himself. These holy men knew the Saviour: they loved him supremely. The same is true now.

The Apostles do not speak of their "priestly functions." They make no pretension to being a mediating priesthood between Christ and the human souls. None of this. Only when men have a human "idea or theory" to serve is there any need of priests. An advocate of this Mercersburg scheme says, "A priest is one whose sole object is to bring the people near to God."-See Mer. Rev., vol. xv., p. 477.

However this may be, what minister at all conscious of his responsibility to Christ, will ever put confidence in an abstraction which demands what the Saviour does not authorize? Dr. Nevin may imagine that his pantheistic notion of a whole is in harmony with facts. It may be allowed to pass for what it is worth as a philosophical curiosity: it may not be regarded as having any reality in the sphere of that which is divine. As well suppose that Plato or Aristotle preached Christ, as to think of this Mercersburg notion being in any sense identically the Gospel. An "ideal church," founded upon a pantheistic philosophy, is no more the church of Christ than Confucius is Paul, or Zoroaster the loving John.

Dr. Nevin seems to think that his so-called Christo-centric notion is profoundly Christological. All admit that it is well to study the Gospel in the light of philosophy; human conceptions, however, are not to be confounded with divine realities. Here is where Dr. Nevin mistakes the calling of a minister of Christ. His so-called Christo-centric "idea or theory" is simply his own philosophical conception; and, as such, is subject to the vicissitudes of that which is human. His prin

ciple compels him, in the construction of his scheme, to ignore the Gospel view of the relation the sinner sustains to Christ.

This Mercersburg scheme, it is imagined, is profoundly philosophical. Dr. Nevin assumes an unwarranted degree of self-confidence in supposing that his so-called Christo-centric abstraction must be received as the divine. This self-confidence, in time, works marvellously in the minds of his stu dents, who do not perceive the principle upon which the superstructure rests. These do not seem to perceive that it is heresy to teach that priestly mediation, in the interest of a human "idea or theory," secures eternal salvation. Well, to pause and consider, no matter how fair or captivating a scheme may be, when such pernicious consequences follow. As servants of the Gospel, ministers will do well to have regard to their responsibility to Christ himself and to him only. This phantom Mercersburg invention, like Romanism, must necessarily ignore the Gospel view of personal responsibility in its direct relation to the Saviour, substituting the notion of priestly authority. The Apostle says: "God commendeth his love to us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." The Gospel is plain; even a child can understand.

Well may Dr. Nevin say that he does not confound God with the world, nor Christ with the church. All know that he does not intend to do so. Nor did Fichte intend to confound his "Ego" with God; yet he lived to perceive, though not until in his old age, the utter falsehood of his phantom "idea or theory." The same may prove to be true in this case. Dr. Nevin may come to see, sooner or later, that his imagination has led him far from the truth as it is in Jesus. His so-called Christo-centric abstraction is infinitely far from being the divine. His philosophy is fearfully rationalistic. A life mediated through priests is little better than the doctrine of an emanated life as taught by Zoroaster.-See His. Philos., Bruckeri, Leip. ed., tom. i., lib. 2, cap. 3.

This speculative scheme, like Romanism, will prove a delusion. Founded upon a purely philosophical abstraction, it can have no power in the sphere of self-consciousness. There can be no intuitive knowledge, certain and sure, of that which is