THE SACRAMENT OF BASIN AND TOWEL.

THE idea of another sacrament being announced almost takes one's breath away; all the more so when the announcement comes from the bosom of so orthodox a communion as the Free Church of Scotland. But to see how beautifully and tenderly the rite is described is to be taken out of the region of sensational novelties into the region of searching and sublime spiritual truth. What else indeed could we expect from anything written by Rev. Walter C. Smith, D.D., whom everyone thinks of first as poet, and only a long way after as theologian?

"There were two sacramental acts," he says in the Expositor, “performed that night, when Jesus gathered His disciples in the upper chamber' at Jerusalem; for the washing of their feet was, as truly as the breaking of bread, an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace.' But the one has fallen out of use, while the other remains."

After tracing with fine spiritual fancy the symbolism of the narrative, Dr. Smith arrives at the conclusion that "What our Lord specially meant to teach His disciples was, that if there was anything by which they could aid and comfort their fellow-pilgrims on earth, no matter how displeasing, even how revolting it might be to their natural sensibilities, they must gird themselves to do it, even as He had done. Nothing must be too humble for their love, nothing so distasteful that they would not put their hand to it, if thereby they might anywise lessen the miseries of men? Are there diseases that have to be nursed and tended? Are there wounds that have to be cleansed and bound up? Are there impurities in the homes of the poor that are sapping the health of the people? And do you somehow shrink from coming in contact with such things? Does not our Lord's example here tell us that love must overcome that distaste, and that if in any way we can help to heal or comfort our brethren, we must take the basin and towel and do the humblest service that is needed? . . . That, I reckon, was the prime lesson of this sacramental rite. But surely it also meant to teach us that we too, like our Lord, must not be anxious to spy out, or to point out, the frailties and errors of His people, but always to wash them out."

"It is somewhat curious that the rite of Baptism which Jesus never practised, but left to be done by His disciples, has maintained its place in the Church along with the other sacrament of Communion, while this of washing the feet, which He not only did Himself, but expressly enjoined them also to practise, has practically disappeared except as a kind of show-function, or a counsel of perfection in one branch of His Church." All the more reason, he urges, that its spiritual teaching should be observed. Happily, he adds, "of late years there has been a revival of it, at least on one side of its ministry. The tender hand of loving service is now readily tending the sick and the poor, and is not withheld even from the humblest task, neither does it shrink from that which is most trying to our natural sensibilities. Very beautiful it is to me to see so much of the youth and hope of Christendom consecrating itself to this lowly ministry, taking the basin and towel as it were, from the hand of the Master to wash His soiled and foot-sore pilgrims. But the other side of this symbol-the charity that is not eager to spy out, or to point out the disciples' faults and shortcomings, but seeks only to remove these blemishes, that is not so common, though it be quite as beautiful in its way."

MIGHT JEW EAT WITH GENTILE?

YES, ANSWERS A RABBI.

REV. DR. STRAUSS, the liberal and lovable Rabbi of the Bradford Synagogue, writing in the Expository Times, throws a rather new light on the legitimacy of "Table fellowship" between Jews and Gentiles. He points out that the prohibitions of the Old Testament referred to a few specified peoples. "In later (the Talmudic down to modern) times, notably after Alexander the Great, when Jews came in contact with Greeks, and Grecian manners and customs penetrated Judea, the intercourse between Jews and heathens was not only frequent, but actually became intimate, and the eating of Jews with Gentiles was permitted." "The statute book of the Shulchan Aruch, section Yoreh Deâh, paragraph 152, permits a Jev of the present time to eat with a heathen in the latter's house, provided it is not a solemn festival meal, where the Jew would have to witness and submit to certain idolatrous practices." Dr. Strauss quotes passages from the Talmud to show that there was "an active and intimate intercourse between Jews and primitive Christians." "Since the Jews came in contact with the Romans under the rule of Judas and Simon Maccabeus, the former of whom made an alliance with the Romans in 160 B.C., more especially after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, 70 A.C., their relations to Gentiles became continuous and very friendly." "We can safely infer that the tablefellowship of Jew and Gentile was no new thing during the time of the primitive Christian Church; and the sitting down of the Gentile with an Israelite to take meals together, either in the former's or latter's house, was an everyday occurrence."

How will this affect our reading of the scene between Peter and Paul at Antioch?

"LET US HAVE PEACE WITH GOD.” "FEW changes proposed in the Revised Version,” says the Rev. Prof. J. Agar Beet, D.D., in the Thinker, "have met with less favour than these words as they stand in Romans v. I, which in the Authorized Version reads, 'Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.' Dr. Beet's own explanation is "that the revisers have misunderstood a very common Greek construction, viz., the aorist participle preceding a subjunctive or imperative. This construction implies simply, in the passage before us, that the abiding state of peace with God must be preceded by the event of justification; and leaves the context to determine whether justification is already obtained and is a reason for having peace with God, or whether justification by faith is the gateway by which we must enter the abiding state of peace with God. That this latter is St. Paul's meaning in this passage, is suggested very strongly by the fact that this is the meaning of the aorist participle in, I believe, all the very many passages in which the construction before us is used in the New Testament." After examining these, Dr. Beet concludes on rendering Rom. v. 1, "Let us then, justified through faith, have peace with God. This rendering implies, in agreement with the use of the same Greek construction throughout the New Testament, not that justification has already taken place and is a reason for going on to a higher blessing, viz., peace with God, but that to the writer's thought justification through faith is simply looked upon as a means by which we may have peace with God."

CHURCH OF ENGLAND NOTES.

The Religious

It is probably inevitable that as the Question in the members of the School Board change London School to some extent every three years, old

Board. difficulties, discussions, and compromises should be forgotten, and thorny questions argued out again as if they were new. The protracted debate in the London Board, which has been transferred to the London Diocesan Conference, and the Convocation of the Province of York, arose from the discovery of Mr. Coxhead, a member of the Board, that some children were being taught the parentage of our Lord by a certain teacher in a strongly Unitarian sense. Mr. Riley had also found that in an Industrial School, while Roman Catholic children were being taught their own faith, the religious instruction provided for children belonging to the English Church, who appeared to be in a great majority in the institution, was what is called "undenominational." According to Mr. Forster's Act, the majority of the ratepayers of any School Board area are allowed to determine through their representatives what kind of religious instruction shall be given in the schools of the Board, provided that no distinctive formulary of any denomination is taught. This limitation has been held by the Education Department not to exclude the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments. The children of those who do not accept the simple statements of the Apostles' Creed would be protected by the Conscience Clause, permitting the withdrawal of children from religious instruction with which their parents disagreed. When first the London School Board was established, there was a prolonged debate of the same character as that of the last six weeks, the issue of which was that a compromise was effected authorizing the reading of the Bible, with such moral and religious lessons as were suited to children. The Religious Tract Society at the same time arranged to give a large number of annual prizes for which the children were to compete. It was not an ideal arrangement; but when I was a member of the Board, from 1885 to 1888, we thought it worked fairly well. In those three years we improved the system by having a detailed report on religious knowledge from every school by our own Inspectors. The syllabus issued by the Scripture Committee, with the exception that it could refer to no catechism or formulary, was as good as anything used in the Voluntary Schools. Much depended, of course, on the conscientiousness of the teacher, and on the attention of the local managers, who have the right of being always present at the Scripture lesson.

The weak point in the system was that in appointing teachers we had no knowledge as to whether they would teach Scripture with sympathy or not. But when the managers reported any case of improper teaching, we took care to reprimand the teacher, and, if necessary, to prevent him from teaching Scripture again. In a province of the enormous magnitude of the London School Board area, with five millions of inhabitants, it would always be possible for a strong body of Secularists, who would probably be joined by Unitarians, to raise a cry of religious oppression. It appears likely also, from the deputations which have appeared at the Board, that many orthodox Nonconformists, from their habitual attitude towards the Church of England, would join in the appeal to retain the status quo. Probably what the Nonconformists dislike is not SO much the recognition of the very simple Apostles' Creed, in addition to the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments, as the questioning of teachers on their appointment with regard to their religious belief. This might, of course, take a very simple form: "Are you prepared conscientiously to teach the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments?" or, "Will you teach nothing contrary to the Divinity of Christ?" The Nonconformists appear to be sufficiently protected by the Act itself, which prohibits all other religious formularies; and the Secularists and Unitarians seem quite safe under the Conscience Clause. Dr. Martineau proposes dogmatic and undogmatic teaching for different classes of scholars. Possibly that may be the solution. Certainly the continual discussion of religious questions in a heated and dusty party arena is much to be deprecated. Such controversial debates will be inevitable all over London at the next School Board election ; and should the Secularists obtain such a majority as fell to the Progressists at the election to the London County Council, it might end in the dismissal of all religious instruction from the Board Schools of the metropolis, as was for a time the case at Birmingham. It remains for the present majority of the Board to justify at the polls the wisdom of the step which they are taking. Questions of prudence being for the moment set aside, they are perfectly within their rights in asking for the Apostles' Creed, and in questioning teachers as to their intention of handling Holy Scripture in accordance with its principles. These doctrines are the common inheritance of the Christian Church, and have nothing to do with sacerdotalism. It is well, however, to remember that we cannot always get what we feel it is right that we should have.

Meantime those who wish to alter the existing compromise are very much in earnest. Although the Divinity of our Lord was only in question in one or two cases cited by Mr. Coxhead and Mr. Riley, they have now made it the general battle-ground. The London Diocesan Conference, with only one dissentient, carried Mr. Riley's motion, that as the great majority of scholars in the Board Schools are the children of Christian parents, who have a right to demand that proper provision should be made in these schools for giving instruction in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, this Conference declares that no settlement of the religious question can be acquiesced in which will not guarantee to these children the teaching, by Christian teachers, of the Christian truths held in common by all Christians, such as those of the Incarnation, the Atonement, and the Blessed Trinity; and a similar declaration was adopted unanimously by the Convocation of the Province of York. As the question has been raised, it would be incalculably desirable that the orthodox Nonconformists, to whom the Divinity of our Lord is as essential as it is to members of the Church of England, should, under the safeguard of Mr. Forster's Act and the Conscience Clause, come to some agreement with the vast body of Christian opinion indicated by the resolutions quoted, and not range themselves in this matter on the side of the Secularists. May God guide all to a happy issue!

The Welsh Sus. pensory Bill.

Meetings have been held throughout the month in every part of the country agains the proposed measure, and every bishop and authority in the Church has written grave and serious words on the subject. The interruption of the meeting at St. James's Hall, at which Lord Selborne presided, by the holders of 250 forged tickets, probably did more harm than good to the measure, as the trick was wholly inconsistent with reason and honour, and would be deprecated by all religious Nonconformists. At the meeting in the City of London, Lord Emlyn mentioned some facts which are worth attention. In 1831, he said, the number of clergy in the four dioceses of Wales was 700, in 1891 1,450. This increase was certainly not owing to the attraction of large salaries, for whereas the average income of the clergy in Wales in 1831 was £221 per annum, it had fallen to 180 in 1891. In the Diocese of Llandaff, where the great weight of population lay, and where the work of the Church was very actively carried on, the number of clergy ordained to the diaconate in 1883-1893 was 239, against 139 in the preceding ten years. Again, between 1840 and 1891 the amount given for church building and restoration in Wales was £2,216,000 (excluding all sums below £500, which would largely increase the total), and in 1891 alone the amount received for these purposes from voluntary contributions was £85,500. In the Diocese of Llandaff, in the last eight years, 100 new churches and mission-rooms had been built. As to the number of confirmations, he found that while in

English dioceses the average increase in the total of candidates between 1879 and 1889 had been 8 per cent., in the four Welsh dioceses that increase had been no less than 22 per cent. In the Diocese of Llandaff there were 40,000 confirmed between 1883 and 1893, against 21,000 in the previous decade. As to the number of communicants, for every three in England in proportion to population, there were four in Wales. God grant that whatever be the upshot of this struggle, it may result in the good of souls and the increase of His kingdom!

comes.

Clerical In- The subject of the poverty of a large and increasing number of the clergy is continuing to attract serious attention. In the recent sitting of the Convocation of York, it was stated that in the Diocese of York the number of benefices of the net value of under £100 a year is 52, with a net average income of £64. The aggregate income of the whole was £3,328. Of benefices under £200 a year there are in the Diocese of York 173, with a net average income of £155. In the Diocese of Durham there are 5 benefices under £100 a year, with a net average of £38, and 17 under £200, with a net average of £157. In the Diocese of Carlisle there are 23 benefices under £100 a year, the average being £79, and 124 under £200, with an average of 157. In the Diocese of Chester there are 12 benefices under the value of £100 a year, with an average of £66, and 81 under £200, with an average of £155. The Diocese of Ripon contains 22 benefices at less than 100, with a net average of £71, and 112 under £200, with an average of 152; the Diocese of Manchester 10 under 100, with an average of 63, 88 under £200,

200, with an average of 163; the Diocese of Liverpool 5 under £100, with an average of £80, 35 under £200, with an average of £162; the Diocese of Newcastle 7 below 100, with an average of £51, 42 under £200, with an average of £156; Wakefield 5 below 100, with an average of £69, 49 below £200, with an average of 161; and the Diocese of Sodor and Man 3 under £100, with an average of £77, and 20 under £200, with an average of £48. Many of these incomes represent less than the wages of a carter, most of them less than those of a miner or a London clerk. When we consider what is expected of the clergy, and the cost of education for their children, the state of things appears most unfortunate. The proportion in the Southern Province has not been so accurately tabulated, but it is probably about the same. In the Diocese of Norwich there are 241 benefices which average only £99 a year. In the Archdeaconry of Derby there are now fully a hundred benefices of less than £200 a year, and 22 of less than £100. Peterborough Diocese the Vicar of Great Oakley, Kettering, received 18 last October, and nothing since; the gross income is returned at £50. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have now allotted all the superfluous incomes of the Bishops, Deans and

In