are all absolutely true. But they could not have been discov ered by the light of nature, or, which is the same thing, by the action of finite intellects. In many cases, the two elements of an idea are revealed separately. They are "double one against another." To finite intellects they appear contradictory.

But they appear so only because the limits within which they are absolutely true, and those within which they touch each other cannot be accurately ascertained. These cannot be accurately ascertained, because every thing connected with them has not been revealed. If either idea be rigidly followed out to its logical results, the other will be found inconsistent with it. There are cases in which the inconsistency appears without applying the test of deduction. It is proper to say that it appears; for it is only apparent. If the human mind were in finite, and could know every thing thoroughly, the inconsistency would disappear. As it is, apparent inconsistencies are patent on the face of Revelation.

These apparent inconsistencies are what are meant by mys teries. A mystery is a truth which we know by Revelation, but which we cannot understand, because to a finite intellect it involves a contradiction. There are three ways of treating such a mystery. One is to accept it just as it stands, on the authority of GOD. Another is to endeavour to explain it; that is to endeavour by the help of a finite intellect to ascertain the limits of ideas conceived in the infinite mind. Limits which are not revealed to us; probably because they involve truths which we cannot conceive. The third course is to take one of the ideas, press it as far as it will go, and thus argue the other out of existence. The last of these is the worst; for it ignores entirely the great principle of a two-fold idea. The second is sure to lead to some mistake in the doctrine. It is generally adopted by those who have not faith enough to adopt the first, and too much to adopt the third.

In this age we generally apply the term mystery to something which relates to the spiritual world. Of that world, most men are conscious that they can know nothing except by Reve lation. Moreover, they can only understand a Revelation, by the help of analogy to material things, which, being subjected to the senses, men may know a good deal about.

People generally apprehend, therefore, that there may be things in the spiritual world which have never been dreamt of in their philosophy. Hence a large majority of the Christian world admit the great mysteries which relate to the Divine Nature. There is however a minority who have puzzled them. selves among the analogies, in a vain attempt to explain those mysteries. Some of them are content to accept some explanation which they have worked out for themselves, and so remain with the majority, although with imperfect faith and erroneous belief. There are still some however who are not content with that condition, and who taking, hold of one side of the mystery and adopting such of the analogies as best answer their purpose, reason themselves out of the belief of the other side of the mys tery and so make it no mystery at all. These are men of Broad Views, who are above taking into their consideration any nice distinctions. But they and their doctrine are heterodox. The orthodox doctrine is founded upon the principle that the truth is compounded of two clements.

There is another class of mysteries which are connected with the relations between GoD and man. They all resolve themselves into the great mystery of the Omnipotence and Omniscience of GoD coëxisting with the free will of His creatures. It seems utterly impossible to deny the truth of either of the elements of this mystery. Both are revealed. Moreover, one of them is proved by our most inward consciousness, while the other is deducible from the very notion of a SUPREME BEING. Here we find that the Orthodox Faith accepts the two elements, without attempting to reconcile them. But there is a large number of persons, who take one or the other of the elements, and deny the other. There is another class, who have puzzled themselves in the attempt to set up a limit to the doctrine of predestination, sometimes in. one way, sometimes in another. But they have all produced illogical systems, involving, when they are closely examined, all the difficulties of the mystery. There remains another elass of mysteries. Those which relate to the Church and the Sacraments. The first class relate exclusively to the Divine Nature. The second to the Divine Nature and its connection with the spiritual nature of man. The third introduces a new element; the use of sensi

ble forms and symbols. The doctrine of mysteries comes now into contact with the sensible world. Men are more apt to fancy that they can understand a mystery which has an outward and visible part, than one which is entirely removed from the operation of the senses. The mysteries now under consideration consist in the union of Divine influences with material signs. We learn from Revelation that these two things are united, and that to their effectual operation a third principle is necessary; that of faith in the recipient, where he is capable. of faith. This is the sacramental doctrine, as it is called. It consists in the acceptance of the truths of Revelation, without any explanation.

But this will not satisfy the men of Broad Views. They deny that there is any mystery in the case. Sacraments are not mysteries, although the word in the primitive Church meant especially the rites in which spiritual graces are con nected with outward signs. Men ask: How can these things

Through the Omnipotence of GOD.

be? The only answer is: The answer once given is soon used after the manner of such men. The material signs are made the subject of a material miracle, a physical change. This is a question which is en tirely within the sphere of sense, and sense denies the miracle. Here the explainers come in with explanations more difficult to be understood than the thing to be explained. But that is not all. The men of Broad Views have introduced the Omnipotence of GOD to cut the knot which they could not untie; they now use it for another purpose-to do away with the necessity of faith.

This brings up another set of men of Broad Views, who reduce the whole matter to faith, denying the connection between the outward visible sign and the inward spiritual grace, because there is no natural connection between exter nal things and spiritual graces. If they are met by the argument that an Omnipotent GOD has established such a connec tion; they reply that it is equally possible for an Omnipotent GOD to communicate His Grace, without the outward and visi ble signs. They infer that the signs are valueless, and that Grace is given to faith alone. That is true. But the true question is: Has He not revealed, that it is His will to give it in connection with the signs?

It would seem just now that in this, department the explainers are doing more mischief than even the men of Broad Views. Some of the greatest names in the English Church are setting forth doctrines, which they have deduced logically from premises which presuppose an explanation of the sacramental mysteries. They mistake their own logical deductions for Catholic Truth, and are opening controversies which will be interminable. This has come from a desire to understand precisely the nature and operation of the Holy Communion, and to present a scheme which shall in a certain sense be intelligible. Let us be on our guard against all such explanations, and rest on faith in the Revelation, although it may not be intelligible to us. Surely Hooker was wiser than these men, when he wrote:

This Sacrament is a true and real participation of CHRIST, Who thereby imparteth Himself, even His whole entire Person, as a mystical HEAD, unto every soul that receiveth Him, and that every such receiver doth thereby incorporate or unite himself unto CHRIST, as a mystical member of Him, yea of them also, whom He acknowledgeth to be His own; secondly, that to whom the Person of CHRIST is thus communicated, to them He giveth, by the same Sacrament, His HOLY SPIRIT, to sanctify them as it sanctifies Him Who is their HEAD; thirdly, that what merit, force, or virtue soever there is in His sacrificed body and blood, we freely, fully, and wholly have it by this Sacra. ment; fourthly, that the effect thereof in us is a real transmutation of our souls and bodies from sin to righteousness, from death and corruption to immortality and life; fifthly, that because the Sacrament, being of itself but a corruptible and earth-born creature, must needs be thought an unlikely instrument to work so admirable effects in man, we are therefore to rest ourselves altogether upon the strength of His glorious power, who is able and will bring to pass that the bread and the cup which He giveth us shall be truly the thing He promiseth. [E. P., V. lxvii. 9.]

This seems to be all that is revealed, and all that we need to know. May we not, in the words of the same Hooker, consider by itself what cause why the rest in question should not rather be left as superfluous than urged as necessary." These gentlemen may be right, but they can never prove that they are; because they are reasoning from premises which they do not understand, and the limitations of which they cannot know. Yet they are reasoning from them, with an astuteness worthy of schoolmen or medieval lawyers, and treating the conclusions, at which they have arrived, as if they were portions of the premises. All this is done, when it is in the power of the men of Broad Views, who reject alike conclusions and premises, to bring the whole matter before tribunals composed

of men ignorant of theology, and therefore of Broad Views. For in every science it is an invariable rule, that the less a man knows, the broader are his notions. These tribunals may com mit, or seem to commit, the Church of England to propositions inconsistent with the premises. This would be an enormous evil. It is not intended to go at all into the questions which these divines have raised; because it is the firm conviction of the writer that they are "unprofitable and vain," and closely connected with "philosophy, falsely so called."

H. D. E.

HISTORICAL SKETCHES OF THE CHURCH OF
SCOTLAND SINCE THE REFORMATION.

NO. XII.-PROGRESS OF THE RESTORATION OF THE CHURCH.

See Lucifer like lightning fall,
Dashed from his throne of pride;
While answering Thy victorious call,
The Saints his spoils divide,

This world of Thine by him usurp'd too long,

Now opening all her stores to heal Thy servants' wrong.

-Keble's Christian Year.

It is most gratifying to the faithful Churchman to witness the honours paid by all classes of good and true Scottish men to the Bishops of the restored Church when entering on the administration of their sees; and the facts recorded present a complete antidote to the rancorous falsehoods of Presbyterian scribes. For it is very certain that they would never have received these honours had they been the despicable characters represented by their schismatical foes. Archbishop Sharp, the Primate, made his first solemn entry into St. Andrews on the 16th of April, 1662, attended by the Earl of Rothes, and other noblemen (of whom the old Covenanter, David Leslie, now Lord Newark, was one) and large numbers of the gentry of the neighbourhood. These, in all several hundreds, mounted on horseback, made a goodly show, and the congratulations of the inhabitants were loud and cordial. The next day being Sunday, the Primate preached on the text 1. Cor. ii. 2, and introduced in it a spirited defence of Episcopacy, which was listened to with great attention and decorum by a numerous congregation.