of God in the flesh, exhibits them as a chain of consequences mutually dependent upon each other; and we feel satisfied that it is consistent with sound reason and gospel truth,—1. that Christ crucified, who characterizes "the great mystery of godliness," should be acknowledged by us to have been received up in glory, because we have "believed on him in the world;"-2. that he should be believed on by us in the world because he has been "preached unto us Gentiles;"-3. that he should have been preached unto us Gentiles, because he has been seen of angels, i.e. "revealed unto the holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit, in order that they should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and make all men see the economy of the mystery," (Ephes. iii. 5, 8, 9;)-4. that he should thus have been seen of angels, because he is "the Son of man, which is in heaven," (John iii. 13,) and, as such, is "justified in the Spirit ;"—and 5. that the Son of man should have been justified in the Spirit, because the Son of God came down from heaven, and was made the Christ; i.e. he took our nature upon him, and was "manifest in the flesh" for us men, and for our salvation. According to this à posteriori view, the mystery of godliness is made known "to us, who have first trusted in the Christ, in the hope of glory, which we personally bring forth.

Combined with a strict attention to the above peculiarity in style, the distinction, which appears in the introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians, c. i. 1, 2, between the person of the Son of God, marked out in the title of Jesus Christ; and the office of our Lord, characterized in the title of Christ Jesus ;* and the reflection, that the grace and the peace of the salutation are the heads of the revelation contained in the first three chapters, are, to my mind, of the last importance to a right understanding of St. Paul's "knowledge in the mystery of Christ," (c. iii. 4.) The distinction guards the context from the errors of confounding the person of Jesus with the office of Christ, or versá vice; and the reflection directs the attention of the reader to, and fixes it upon, the subject under revelation. To change the office of Christ into the person of Jesus hides the economy of the mystery from the personally holy, and prevents their historical faith, in the abstract "word of truth" and "in the Lord Jesus," from becoming unto them saving faith in the concrete "gospel of our salvation," and "in Christ Jesus." On the other hand, to change the person into the office lays not the building of the body of Christ " upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone," (c. ii. 20.) To reflect that the grace wished for in the introduction is the primary subject of the revelation, unites it in the spirit of our minds with the definition in v. 3-" All spiritual blessing

"As the title of Jesus marks the person of our Lord, so does that of Christ denote his office.”—( Wake.) " The title of the Son of God belongs to our Lord, as God the Son; the title of Son of man belongs to him in his human character [as the one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus. (1 Tim. ii. 5.) ]. The former marks him out as One of the Three Persons of the ever blessed Trinity, which was made man (as Jesus Christ]; the latter characterized him as that Man who was united to the Godhead [as Christ Jesus, even the Son of man, which is in heaven. (John iii. 13. ) ]."-Note on Matt. xvi. 16, Mant's Bible.

in the heavenly places in Christ, in which the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has blessed us"-the faithful in Christ Jesus.

A fundamental and doctrinal error never remains single, but always takes to itself kindred errors. Corrupt fruit always grow upon the corrupt tree. Such is the case with the confusion of the office of Christ with the person of the Son of God. From the change of the office into the person, the harmony of the economy is not only destroyed, but its candlestick is removed out of sight,-saving faith in the office is confounded with historical faith in the person; and we, the faithful in Christ Jesus, to whom spiritual discernment in the acknowledgment of Christ has been given, have been confounded in the epistle, either with YOU, the personally holy, for whom it was prayed, or with THE JEWS, to the exclusion of the Gentile converts, with whom the same Gentile converts have been "created in Christ himself into one new man; and have been reconciled in one body to God by the cross," (c. ii, 15, 16;) “in like manner as they have been called in one hope of their calling." (c. iv. 4.)

From changing also the office of Christ into the person of the Father, absolute predestination meets with countenance in c. i. 5. Although the arbitrary selection of the predestinate is secret, and unknown, and a thing that belongs unto the Lord our God; yet we ought to remember, with gratitude, that predestination has been "made known to us," to whom the gospel of our salvation has been preached, "according to the good pleasure of the Father's will, which he has purposed in him" [Christ], (c. i. 9;) and that he has made known to us the mystery of Christ, according to revelation, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." (c. iii. 3, 6.) But this promise, of which we are partakers in Christ by the gospel, is the Father's predeterminate promise, made to Abraham, that, "in his seed [Christ] all the nations of the earth should be blessed." (Gen. xxii. 18.) He has, therefore, "predestined us into him [Christ] according to the good pleasure of his will," and not into himself [the Father].

St. Paul's prayer, in c. i. 15, 20, for spiritual discernment on behalf of the holy Ephesians, who had "faith in the Lord Jesus," proves that, "in the gospel of Christ, the righteousness of God is revealed from" the historical "faith" of the personally holy in the person of Jesus Christ "into"* the saving "faith" of the enlightened in the office of Christ Jesus; and thereby confutes the error, and corrects the inadvertence, which assume that the titles of Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus are synonymous, equivalent, and convertible. On account of their baptism, and in consequence of the report of their historical "faith in the Lord Jesus, and of their love unto all the holy," St. Paul prays that the "Father of glory would give unto the holy Ephesians," not only spiritual light in the acknowledgment of Christ, but also spiritual sight to enable them to discern the Light. The Light prayed for is "the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the acknowledgment of Christ." The sight prayed for is "the enlightened

* Εκπίστεως εις πίστιν. (Rom. i. 17.)

eyes of their heart, that they may know" the Light both outwardly in their bodies, and inwardly in Christ-that they may know the personal benefits of the office of Christ IN themselves, the holy, and the spiritual blessings thereof TOWARD us, the enlightened, "who believe according to the influence of the might of the Father's strength, which he has influenced in Christ" after his resurrection from the dead. Hence, according to "St. Paul's knowledge in the mystery of Christ," the believers in the Lord Jesus wanted the gift of spiritual discernment to make them "the faithful in Christ Jesus," which the latter enjoyed: and the historical faith of the one in the person is not the saving faith of the other in the office of our Saviour: We know, from Rom. x. 17, that historical "faith cometh from hearing, and the hearing by the word of God;" and we infer from St. Paul's prayer in this passage, that saving faith cometh from the gift of spiritual discernment, and the spiritual discernment by the gift of "the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the acknowledgment of Christ," Christ, in his office, is the "mystery of godliness" in "the economy of the fulness of times;" and we are taught in Christ, as the truth is in Jesus, to "gather together into one head all the things in Christ," as well the spiritual and heavenly blessings toward the enlightened, as the temporal and personal benefits in the holy. (c. i. 10.) We learn and put on Christ, and we gather together into one head all these things in him, when we, "who have first trusted in Christ," and have experienced the personal benefits of election, find ourselves returning to join the heavenly host in their sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and to give "glory to God in the highest :" for Christ, our "peace on earth:" for God's good will toward us" in heaven in Christ; and when, on account of having made his grace to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, we "praise the glory of his grace, in which he has made us accepted in Christ," and "into which he has predestined us by Jesus Christ;" i.e. by him, as in his person he is relatively unto the Father; and into him, as in his office he is relatively unto us, in order that we may shew forth our gratitude for his grace.

In the introduction to the epistle, and within the compass of two verses, the distinction between the person and office of our Lord appears three times in the changes of title. St. Paul first announces himself to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, in whose person, as the Son of God, during his sojourn upon earth, the holy, but unenlightened, Ephesians had historical faith: for they had "heard and believed in the word of truth," (c. i. 13,) and had "faith in the Lord Jesus,” (c. i. 15.) 2. He addresses the epistle to the two denominations of professing Christians who compose the visible church, or mystical body, of Christ; 1. to the personally "holy" that were at Ephesus who had historical faith in the person of our Lord, but to whom spiritual light and sight in the acknowledgment of Christ had not as yet been given, (c. i. 15, 18;) and 2. "to the faithful in Christ Jesus," in whose office, as the Son of man, we, to whom they have been given, have saving faith. 3. He wishes the unenlightened holy the grace and peace, which have been given to us, the enlightened faithful, from God the Father of us, who "believe according to the influence of the

might of his strength, which he has influenced in Christ," after his. resurrection from the dead; i.e. in his office, "and from the Lord Jesus Christ," in whose person the personally holy had historical faith.

I am persuaded that the peculiarity in style in consecutive clauses; the distinction between the person and the office of our Lord, pointed out in the titles of Christ Jesus and Jesus Christ; and the reflection, that grace and peace are the heads of the subsequent revelation, are of the last importance to a right understanding of St. Paul's knowledge in the mystery of Christ; and, with your permission, I shall apply them in my next letter to the first section. c. i. 3-14.

I am, Sir, yours very faithfully, M. V.

DR. ARNOLD AND EPISCOPAL ORDINATION.

SIR,-The high character and reputation of Dr. Arnold, the Head Master of Rugby School, will sufficiently explain my motive in calling his attention, through the medium of your Magazine, to a subject, as it seems to me, of considerable difficulty.

The ingenuousness in the avowal of his principles which is commonly attributed to Dr. Arnold seemed to me to be more than usually displayed in the public avowal of his opinions on the subject of episcopal ordination-opinions degrading to the order to which he belongs, and which must expose him to the grave disapprobation of a vast majority of churchmen-while, as there was nothing novel in his sentiments (for, as every one knows, they form the basis of the notorious work of Erastus- de Excommunicatione'), it seemed impossible that Dr. A. could be allured by the love of paradox, and the desire of striking out new opinions,-a temptation often so seductive to men of genius. The passage to which I allude is in Dr. Arnold's last pamphlet; it asserts that the object of episcopacy is not (to use his own words)" to secure the continued efficiency of some highlyvaluable gift, which the possessor for the time being could communicate to any one whom he might fix upon,"-that "the apostles were possessed of certain most valuable gifts, and could communicate them to others;" but, "if any gift be thus transmitted in the case of episcopacy, what is it, and where is the proof of its existence? When men say that the power of ordaining ministers is thus transmitted, there is a confusion in the use of the word power. Bishops confer a legal qualification for the ministry, not a real one, whether NATURAL or

SUPERNATURAL.

I need not tell you, Sir, the surprise which I felt on being informed (and I have since ascertained the fact by a reference to the ordination service) that the writer of this passage consented in the most awful moment of his life, when he was undertaking the sacred office of the ministry, to be addressed by the ordaining bishop in these words,

* Postscript to Principles of Church Reform. VOL. IV.-Dec. 1833.

5 н

*

"RECEIVE THE HOLY GHOST for the office and work of a priest in the church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. WHOSE SINS THOU DOST FORGIVE, THEY ARE FORGIVEN ; AND WHOSE SINS THOU DOST RETAIN, THEY ARE RETAINED. I was at first inclined to suppose that (as the words in question were prescribed to the bishop, and not to himself) Dr. A. did not feel precluded from accepting ordination, though conferred in a form which he must highly disapprove. But this theory was most disagreeably overturned, when I learnt (from one who, being himself a member of the University of Oxford, must have means of accurate information) that Dr. Arnold actually declared, in writing, on his admission to that university "that the book of consecration of archbishops and bishops, and ordering of priests and deacons, hath not in it anything of itself superstitious or ungodly." I must confess myself, as a plain man, utterly unable to imagine how any one who believes that no real, but only a legal qualification is conveyed by the imposition of hands, can declare that there is nothing superstitious or ungodly' in a form which directs the bishop to address to the candidate for ordination those very words by which our Lord unquestionably did communicate the Holy Ghost to his apostles, "Receive the Holy Ghost;" and again, whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained." But what is still more amazing, I am credibly informed that not only at Dr. A.'s first admission to the university, when his opinions might naturally be in a great measure unformed, but again on his taking the degree of B.A., was this strong declaration repeated; and that on this occasion an additional subscription was required in these words “I do declare that the Book of Common Prayer, and of ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, containeth nothing contrary to the word of God, and that it may lawfully be used, and that I myself will use the said book, and none other." Nay, more-that both these solemn declarations were again subscribed when the Doctor was soon after admitted fellow of Oriel College-a fourth time when he proceeded to the degree of M.A. -a a fifth at his ordination as a deacon-sixthly, when he was ordained priest--seventhly, when he was licensed to a curacy-eighthly, as a qualification for entering on the head mastership of Rugby School-ninthly, as a necessary step to the degree of B.D.-and for the tenth and (as I am informed) last time, before taking the final degree of D.D., about four years ago.

It is manifest from all this, that the words of the ordination service must be in some way or other reconcileable with Dr. Arnold's opinions; and I feel sure, that Dr. A. will not be unwilling to give some explanation of this very important point, for the satisfaction of many other weak brethren, as well as of Your obedient servant, A LAYMAN.

* St. John xx. 22.