deception; and a stranger to our sphere would hardly be able to believe that Jacob Behmen and Joe Smith had inhabited the same planet. Mormonism is a sewer for the bad passions, blasted reputations, and broken fortunes of the vile. Yet, judging by the fruit, we must call it the twin sister of spiritualism. Heaven hasten the day of their death and burial!

We would have wished that Mr. Vaughan had shown somewhere in his masterly work the amount of truth in the higher forms of mysticism. At this there are hints, and but little more; because, no doubt, he felt his province to be historical rather than doctrinal and didactic. But the Christian student will naturally inquire, after closing this romantic contribution to the history of religious opinion, How much truth is there after all in the quietism of the best Mystics? Can it be that Behmen, Madame Guyon, and George Fox were altogether deluded by their fancy? Is there not a stratum of scriptural truth underlying all this luxuriance of theory. We firmly believe there is, though men are accustomed to consider mysticism and madness synonymous. The Scriptures claim for man a higher attainable state than of being in the paradoxical condition of sin and righteousness at the same time. This elevated state is the focal point of all biblical doctrine, the essence of an intimate union with God. John Wesley termed it perfection, not for the want of a more Scriptural but of a more unexceptionable word. In his own day he witnessed some gross perversions of the term; and in his writings he expresses forebodings here and there lest it might be still more. misapprehended when it was no longer possible for him to define its limits. More than a century has passed by, which time is long enough for the world to test a doctrine, and the Church that dates its organization from his judicious mind and earnest heart has found no reason to expunge that doctrine from its creed. Nay, Methodism as firmly maintains it now as eighty years ago, despite the thrusts of her avowed foes, and the still more dangerous ones of her own household. This truth is what the noblest Mystics sought. Their error lay in part in the way they sought it, for many relied too much upon the untrusty utterances of philosophy, and too little upon the purer teachings of the word of God. Others did not fail here, but their professedly intimatę union with God exercised the passive to the neglect of the active virtues. The Bible was to them a book rather teaching how to suffer and be calm than to labor zealously and fight courageously in the struggle for salvation; prescribing a state of holy quiet, but not inciting to vigorous action; filling the heart with unutterable joy, but leaving the body in seclusion and lethargy. This we conceive to be the grand mistake of the

Coryphei of mysticism. Madame Guyon approached nearest the truth, but no one reached it. Sadly enough do they all illustrate Adam's confession to Raphael:

But apt the mind or fancy is to rove
Unchecked, and of her roving is no end,

Till warned, or by experience taught, she learn
That, not to know at large of things remote
From use, obscure and subtle; but to know
That which lies before us in daily life

Is the prime wisdom. What is more is fume,
Or emptiness, or fond impertinence;

And renders us, in things that most concern,

Unpracticed, unprepared, and still to seek."

In the study of Hours with the Mystics we have discovered no parade of research and learning. The author's unobtrusive nature, and the dialogue form he adopted, could alike preclude the possibility of such a misfortune. The gem-seeker shows you his treasure, but tells you nothing of his previous toil. Lest he might lose something of value, Mr. Vaughan studied, in addition to the Greek and Latin of classical times, the French, Dutch, German, Alexandrian Greek, Mediæval Latin, old German, and Provençal French. So greatly was Dr. Tholuck surprised at his familiarity with the old German, that he affirmed in a letter that there were not more than one or two scholars even in his own country who could boast so great an acquaintance with their own mother German. From such a quarry did he get his marble; but with it he has built a superstructure so firm, harmonious, and stately, that an English admirer compares it, not very unsuitably, to a Gothic Cathedral.

ART. VII. THE CHURCH RELATION OF INFANTS.

IN a former article we spoke of the "moral condition of infants;" in the present we propose to speak of their "Church relation." The object of the former article was to show what was the state of our common humanity, by virtue of the atonement, prior to any responsible act of the creature; the object of the present article is, to show what is the condition in which our human nature should be placed, according to the prospective designs of redemption, in order that its responsible action may be suitable to the will of God, and that the grace of childhood may be rendered effectual to the early and continued salvation of the child. What we are before responsible action,

by the unconditional benefits of grace, is one thing; but what are the possibilities of our nature by the efficacy of that same grace, under appointed instrumentalities, through all the developed grades of moral action, is quite a distinct question.

We propose to discuss the present subject under the following heads: I. The nature and force of the Church relation of children. II. The method by which the spiritual blessings of this relation become available to the child. III. The efficacy of an early and faithful use of the appointed means for the salvation of childhood.

I. 1. A perpetual cause of stumbling to the faith of the Church is, that the nature and force of the Church relation of infants are not clearly comprehended. Children are related to the Church spiritually, really, vitally. It is no figure of speech, but a first truth in the divine economy. When our Lord said that "of such is the kingdom of heaven," he affirmed a spiritual relation. He did not predicate their membership in his kingdom of the simple fact of their baptism or their circumcision, but of their being redeemed children. Their relation to the "kingdom" arose from their relation to the King, and it applied to all children as such. Baptism is only the sign and seal of membership; the spiritual relation, which is the real one, precedes the emblematic and the conventional, and is the moral ground of the latter.

So also when our Lord says, Whoso receiveth one such little child in my name receiveth me," (Matt. xviii, 5,) he completely identifies little children with himself and his spiritual family, the true Church. In Mark ix, 41, the phrase, "in my name," is explained to mean, "because ye belong to me." This is decisive of the sense. On no other ground could they be "received in Christ's name." And this he affirms of little children, such as one could hold in his arms, as Christ then held that little one. (Compare Matt. xviii, 2, etc., with Mark ix, 36.) Now, this "receiving" one in Christ's name is an act of Church fellowship, a recognition of true discipleship, and draws after it an acknowledgment of all the duties arising out of that admitted relation. Here is no hyperbole, no exaggeration, no strong language that needs to be pared down and qualified till it suits the sentiments of a remiss or a godless Church; but a literal and glorious declaration of the Head of the Church, a command to Now recognize them as legitimate members of the spiritual commonwealth. It is an instruction officially delivered to the apostles, to be transmitted to the Church through all ages; and for the fulfillment of the same both Church members and officers will render an account to the Master. Of the same import is the

official instruction and command: "Suffer little children and forbid them not to come to me." The quibbling of Tertullian, that they must wait till they are grown up in order to "come," is unworthy a Christian minister. These children were of an age too tender to come to Christ from personal conviction. They were "brought" to him, and the command to the apostles and to the Church to "suffer them to come," is a command to "bring" them. It is a duty now, as then, and will remain a duty while there are children and a Church of Christ upon the earth. And this duty of "bringing" them to Christ, and of "receiving" them "in his name," is a duty to do for them all that their age and wants demand, in order to their earliest knowledge of Christ, and their continued enjoyment of the spiritual blessings of his Church.

2. When the apostle says to the believing husband, or wife, that the two are sanctified to each other, so that, although one of them does not believe, yet they are to live together under the sanction of Christian law, and not separate, as the Mosaic law would oblige them if one were a heathen, he offers this fact, publicly known in the Church, as proof that the Christian law sanctions the union, namely, else were your children UNCLEAN, but now they are HOLY." (1 Cor. vii, 14.) Here holiness is affirmed of the children, but it is affirmed on the ground of the faith of one of the parents, and therefore is not a moral holiness, but simply an ecclesiastical, or ceremonial one. As if the apostle had said: "Else were your children [reckoned as] akolaρTα, heathen, but now are they [counted as] ȧyia, saints, or members of the Christian community." The children, says Tertullian, were designed for holiness (sanctitati designati) by baptism. "Every soul," he adds, "is reckoned in Adam, till it be anew enrolled in Christ, and so long unclean till it be enrolled." "Their children," says Bishop Burnet, "were not unclean; that is, not shut out from being dedicated to God." This baptismal holiness, this external admission to membership in the Christian family, is only a conventional recognition of a spiritual and pre-existent relation to Christ, a relation directly created by Christ.

3. The design and purpose of God in the constitution of the Christian Church is, as Paul states it in Eph. i, 10, "that he might gather together in one [body, or community] all things in Christ." The apostle here does not intend inanimate "things," as the neuter gender of the pronoun та паvтa might seem to indicate. The neuter is sometimes found," says Winer, "where persons are signified, when the writer would express his meaning in a general way." It is not of things, but of redeemed human beings, that Paul is speaking. And he is speaking of a particular class of these human beings,

namely, та Tavта EV TW XQIσTw, the all [who are] IN CHRIST." These, says the apostle, it is the "mysterious will and good pleasure of God, which he hath purposed in himself," "avareḍaλaiwσaodai, to bring together under one head. This "head" is Christ, and all who are "in Christ" are to be brought together in one family, and comprehended under this one headship. This is the design of the Christian Church. All who are in Christ have a real and spiritual connection with his body, which is the Church. Christ is head over all to the Church, which is his body." Eph. i, 22. "Christ is the head, from whom the whole body, fitly joined together, . . . maketh increase," etc. Eph. iv, 15, 16. "Christ is the head of the Church.

66

The Church is subject to Christ." Eph. v, 23, 24. "Christ is the head of the body, the Church." Col. i, 18. "Of whom [Christ] the whole family in heaven and earth is named." Eph. iii, 15. That is, saints in heaven and saints in earth. "Christ as a son over his own house [household] whose house [household] are we." Heb. iii, 6. "The house [household] of God, which is the Church of the living God." 1 Tim. iii, 15. This doctrine runs through all the New Testament. Those who are Christ's in a spiritual sense, saved by his merit, are of his "body," his "Church," his "family," his "household." They are comprehended under one headship. When Paul would describe the definite limit and number of "the general assembly and church of the first born;" that is, the New Testament Church, he simply says, "whose names are enrolled in heaven." Heb. xii, 23. And this enrollment of names in heaven is the registration of names in the "book of life," the true family register, the final test and proof of a fitness and title to heaven. "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into a lake of fire." Rev. xx, 15. This "book of life” is “the Lamb's book of life," Rev. xxi, 27; "the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Rev. xiii, 8. It is Christ's register of all who are spiritually his.

So then we must erase children from the "book of life," from their "enrollment in heaven," before we can sever their spiritual and real connection with the body of Christ, his family, his household, his Church. The idea that the Church is made up only of believers, is as rational and scriptural as that a family, or commonwealth, is made up only of adults. It is not the personal act of faith apart and by itself that is to be considered, but the spiritual relation to Christ. If an infant without faith can belong to Christ, who is the head, an infant without faith can belong to the Church, which is the body, or community comprehended and brought together under that head. 4. As to denominational Church life, we need only say, that all