if this permission be not inconsistent with the Gospel law, the same reasons may obviously be urged for its continuance, and thus it is not unlikely that polygamy may at last become the characteristic of the Christianity of South Africa. Bishop Colenso adds that a Kafir would not of course' be allowed after baptism to add to the number of his wives; but why not? If Christianity does not really forbid a plurality of wives, and Bishop Colenso has already settled the question by allowing the baptized to live in polygamy, on what ground can he arbitrarily determine, that afterwards they must not be permitted to increase the number of their wives? Should we grant that polygamy is allowable under the Christian dispensation, then no valid reason for such a prohibition can possibly be alleged. Once more the Bishop brings forward the many difficulties and trials of converts, should the separation of the Kafir from his wives be enforced, and thus that impediments will be placed in the propagation of Christianity. Conversion from heathenism must involve certain trials and sacrifices which in the earlier ages of Christianity were far greater than any which can now be experienced. But such objections are wholly beside the mark if polygamy has been really forbidden by the Christian law, and its permission is not a mere matter of expediency, nor would they have been urged as entitled to any weight whatever, if the inestimable benefits of Christianity as contrasted with heathenism had been duly considered.

We have before spoken in reference to the doctrine of inspiration of the practice of certain writers to make use of the terminology of the Church as the vehicle for maintaining novel and heterodox opinions which are contradictory to her teaching. The views of Bishop Colenso on the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist which we shall now bring before our readers will supply another illustration of the same practice. The Bishop, as we shall find, maintains a doctrine of the Real Presence, and yet, as will appear from the meaning he attaches to the phrase, wholly repudiates the true doctrine of the Church. The mere use of Catholic phraseology must not be regarded as the criterion of orthodox belief. The advocates of novel opinions gain currency for their teaching by the use of terms which are common amongst standard writers, and they would thus (perhaps unconsciously) persuade themselves and their readers that they are strictly orthodox. Bishop Colenso's views will be seen from the extracts which shall now be given from two sermons preached a year ago in his diocese,1 the text is taken from S. John vi. 51. He says: :

"What then do these expressions mean in the text? What are we

1 Two Sermons on Spiritual eating in the Holy Eucharist, preached in the Cathedral Church of S. Peter's, Maritzburg, by John William, Bishop of Natal. Pietermaritzburg, 1858.

to understand by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man? Now in the first place it is plain that our LORD is not here referring expressly and exclusively to the Holy Eucharist, which we call the Sacrament of CHRIST's Body and Blood. I say this is plain, because the Sacrament of the LORD's Supper was not yet instituted, and yet He seems to speak as if there were those who were already eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, and who actually had thereby eternal life. For He says, 'Whoso eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.' At all events, if the spiritual food of which He is here speaking, were only to be obtained by partaking of the Holy Sacrament, then those whom He was addressing, the apostles whom He had chosen, the disciples whom He was teaching, inasmuch as they had not eaten the Flesh of the Son of Man in this way, nor drunk His Blood, would have no life in

Moreover, the holy men of old, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the patriarchs, psalmists, and prophets would have had no life in them -would have died in their sins and perished. Not to speak of the mass of human kind who would all be lying under a sentence of death, notwithstanding the coming of the Son of GOD into the world, and the publishing of those good tidings of great joy, &c."1

Now to show the fallacy of this argument of Bishop Colenso that our LORD could not have alluded in the sixth chapter of S. John to the Holy Eucharist, because that sacrament was not yet instituted, we may mention that the same objection may be urged in reference to the Sacrament of Holy Baptism which our LORD before its institution, also declared to be necessary for salvation; since that there is a direct reference in S. John iii. 5 to holy baptism is not only obvious from the words of the passage itself, but the Church Catholic in all ages has thus understood the passage, and the Church of England, in the Office for Adult Baptism, sanctions the same interpretation. We might say, in Bishop Colenso's language, that as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had not been born again of water and of the spirit, they had not entered the kingdom of GOD. Our LORD undoubtedly, as a learned commentator has suggested, intended to prepare the minds of His disciples by allusions more or less distinct, before He openly revealed or declared certain mysteries of the faith. The Fathers unanimously believed that in the sixth chapter of S. John there is a direct refer1 Two Sermons. Serm. I., p. 5.

2 "Adde, consuetudinem fuisse CHRISTI majora mysteria antequam re ipsa fierent insinuare, ut ad ea cum fierent excipienda intelligendaque discipulos erudiret, assuefaceret, præpararet, ejusque rei rationem reddere, ut cum factum fuerit credatis, ut non scandalizemini; ut eorum reminiscamini, quia ego dixi vobis. Antequam baptismum institueret, dixit, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei. Antequam moreretur sæpe discipulis dixit se tradendum esse gentibus ad illudendum et flagellandum et crucifigendum; tertiaque die resurrecturum. Antequam in cœlum ascenderit dixit, modicum et videbitis me et iterum modicum non videbitis me, quia vado ad Patrem. Antequam mitteret Sanctum Spiritum dixit, ego rogabo Patrem et alium Paracletum dabit vobis. Credendum profecto est et de Eucharistiæ sacramento quo vix majus ullum mysterium

ence to the Holy Eucharist, and even S. Augustine and a few others who also give a figurative meaning, still admit and recognise the literal sense. Besides, our LORD's words expressly showwhich overthrows Bishop Colenso's argument-that the Eucharistic gift, though declared to be necessary for salvation, had not been already given, but was only then promised to His disciples. "The bread which I will give (dwow) is My Flesh which I will give for the life of the world." Though our LORD declares, that to eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and to drink His Blood are necessary for salvation, and that whoso eateth His Flesh and drinketh His Blood hath eternal life, yet in such general statements certain limitations are necessarily implied. A precept is only binding upon those to whom it has been given, and who have thus the opportunity of fulfilling it; and in regard to the latter passage, all would admit, that a right disposition of heart is needed ere the blessed Body and Blood of our LORD can be received unto salvation. The saints of the old covenant had, we may be assured, the grace necessary for salvation, though they had not our especial Christian gifts bestowed through the incarnation of our LORD. They died in faith, and yet "received not the promise, GoD having provided some better thing for us." After the passage already given, the Bishop thus sets forth his own view of the meaning of the sixth chapter of S. John, and of the Eucharistic presence.

"I do not believe indeed that our blessed LORD was speaking expressly of the Holy Eucharist at all in this passage. Yet if we wish to find the true meaning of the Eucharist made plain to us, we may find it here. For here our blessed LORD condescends to teach us what that holy feast is meant to signify-how while it is itself a feast, a means of grace and spiritual strength to all who worthily receive it, it is a sign and pledge to us of that eating and drinking of CHRIST'S Body and Blood, by which alone our souls can live, and which is carried on within us by every act of true faith which we exercise upon the life and death of our risen LORD, as really and truly, and in the very same kind of way as when we meet together at His command, and eat the Bread and drink the Wine in remembrance of Him.' Beware then, brethren, of attaching a superstitious meaning to the Holy Sacrament, and fancying that our LORD is present to us more really when we eat and drink at His holy table than He is when we are privileged to have communion with Him at any other time, and in any other manner, as if by partaking of the consecrated Bread and Wine, we are made in some mysterious way more truly partakers of CHRIST's Body and Blood, than we are by virtue of any other act of living faith, whether wrought in our secret chamber, or among the busy duties of daily life, or amidst the prayers and

est, antequam re ipsa institueret, disseruisse. Nam si nihil dum scientibus discipulis de improviso dixisset, Hoc est corpus meum utique exhorruissent, aut certe dubitassent, interrogassentque quid ea verba sibi vellent. Atqui non exhorrescunt, nihil addubitant, nihil interrogant; jam igitur Christum de ea re ante disserentem audiverant. Ubi quæso nisi hic ?"-Maldonati Commentarii in Joan. vi. 53.

praises of the great congregation. It is the result of man's theorising, and not derived from God's revelation, to attempt to make a distinction in kind between our LORD's presence in the Holy Eucharist, and that which He vouchsafes to us when we kneel in our own retirement, or meet in our ordinary assemblies for the common worship of prayer and praise."

And again :

"I am the living Bread which came down from heaven.' Yes, brethren, our blessed LORD is always present with us, as really and truly present, and in the very same kind of way when we bow our hearts before Him in public or in private-when we speak the word of truth and love, or act the deed of faith in His Name in the commonest walk of life, in the midst of our every-day duties and charities-as when on some high festival we gather together around His Board and keep the Feast at His command. This, indeed, is that Real Presence of our LORD, of which you have doubtless heard. . . . . Our Blessed LORD does not mean that by eating once or twice only in our lives, or once a month, or once a week, this heavenly Food, when it is offered to us in the Holy Sacrament, we shall have eternal life.' He means that we should be eating it continually, that it may become as it were incorporated with our whole spiritual frame by a true living faith, the very strength and sustenance of our spirit's life. Let this be the use we make of the Holy Eucharist, not to regard it, in the words of one of old, as a tremendous Mystery,' only to be approached by us with unutterable fear and trembling, as something wholly different from the rest of our daily spiritual life, in the hope of then realising in some ineffable extraordinary way the Presence of our LORD as we do not at other times. But let us come to it as the appointed means of keeping us in mind of that far more awful, but withal cheering, hope-inspiring life-giving Mystery, of the Real Presence with us of our LORD at all times, of our dependance upon Him, of our union with Him-as a means for helping us and quickening us to work out our salvation daily with fear and trembling Thanks be to GOD we may feed thus upon the living Bread-yea we may feed upon the Body and Blood of CHRIST our LORD-on Sundays and on week-days, from day to day, from hour to hour, even when we cannot press the Sacrament with our lips at all, if we are feeding in our hearts by faith Him.' upon

ניי

The above extracts will show that Bishop Colenso whilst retaining, or at least not rejecting the name, expressly denies the doctrine of the Real Presence. The Bishop does not believe that our LORD is present in the Holy Eucharist as in a Sacrament; but that He is only present to us when we exercise an act of faith towards Him, whether in the Sacrament or at any other time; and that He is not more really present when we eat and drink at His holy Table, than when we have communion with Him at any other time and in any other manner; and that there is no distinction in kind between our

1 Two Sermons, pp. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10.

LORD'S Presence in the Holy Eucharist, and His Presence at any other time when we exercise an act of faith in Him. The first and obvious objection to the Bishop's opinion, which is identical with the Zuinglian heresy, is its inconsistency with the sacramental nature of the Holy Eucharist, which must, as such, consist of two parts, an outward sign and an inward grace, which the outward sign is the means and pledge of conveying. But the Bishop's theory disconnects the two parts of the Sacrament, and makes the inward grace either present or absent, according to the faith of the communicant; and thus the Holy Eucharist becomes at one time a Sacrament and a channel of grace, and at another loses its sacramental nature, and is only a bare and ineffective sign! Again, we are led to the same conclusion by the statement that there is no difference in kind between our LORD's Presence in the Holy Eucharist and at any other time, since if there be not a special Presence in that Holy Sacrament, but the Presence when vouchsafed is what may be called accidental, and is only the ordinary manifestation of our LORD to us when we perform acts of faith and love, it must necessarily follow that there is no sacramental Presence whatever! It cannot be a matter of surprise that Bishop Colenso speaks in disparagement of the Catholic language of ancient Fathers and Liturgies on the "tremendous mystery" of the Altar his theory would render the term inapplicable and unmeaning. Nor can we understand in what sense the Bishop, in the words of the Prayer Book, admonishes the faithful "to consider the dignity of that Holy Mystery, and the great peril of the unworthy receiving thereof," since having excluded from the Holy Eucharist the Sacramental Presence of our Blessed LORD, and changed the divine and heavenly banquet to the partaking together of a little bread and wine, the appellation of mystery to the Holy Eucharist becomes obviously inappropriate and absurd, nor is it possible to discover wherein should consist the peril of an unworthy communion.

Bishop Colenso published a few years ago a volume of Village Sermons, to which is prefixed a dedication to Mr. Maurice, in which the Bishop acknowledges "the inestimable blessings derived from his teaching;" and proceeds to specify "important truths," which Mr. Maurice, more than any other living author, had taught him to realise, and that he (the Bishop) intends, in the strength of this "precious faith," to engage in the work of a Bishop among the heathen, to which GOD had called him. Such being the sympathy and general harmony in religious belief of the two writers, we shall now proceed to bring before our readers extracts from the writings of Mr. Maurice, which will not only present rationalism in a somewhat new phase, but which will also indirectly furnish a further illustration of the Bishop's teaching. Of Mr. Maurice's teaching generally we cannot pretend to offer a complete