offered great blessings to the Samaritan woman. Nor is this all. We can point out how that the Samaritan, dissenter though he was, could be a truer servant of God than the Jew himself. Our Lord tells us (Luke x.) how a man fell among thieves, who departed, leaving him half dead; and there came a priest and a Levite, who, when they saw him, passed by on the other side. It was a Samaritan who showed mercy on him; and rightly have Christians in all ages given to him the name of "the good Samaritan." Again (Luke xvii. 16), our Lord healed ten lepers, but one only returned to give glory to God, "and he was a Samaritan." In both these instances the dissenter was a truer servant of God than those within the Church.

And now let us turn to that last commission given by our Lord to His disciples: "Ye shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts i. 8). There is no departure in this from the

1 The Parable of the good Samaritan is sometimes employed to advocate inter-communion between various religious denominations. It is evident that this teaching cannot be legitimately deduced from the parable, even were it not contradicted by our Lord's attitude towards the Samaritan community. The true lesson is not that religious differences are unimportant, but that they must be no bar to the exercise of charity. The minimizing of religious differences often means the depreciation of religious truth. If the difference be so unimportant, how inexcusable the division! If the difference be vital, then to treat it as unimportant is to sacrifice the truth. It is an eloquent and true figure, and one in harmony with this parable, which represents the Faith as a statue on a pedestal, with the feet set close together in token of its fixedness, while the arms are outstretched in love to all.

attitude He before assumed to the Samaritan schism. So long as the Old Covenant was in force, so long as He was "not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel," His disciples, as faithful Jews, are not suffered to hold communion with dissenters from that communion. But when the veil of the Temple is rent in twain, and the Old Covenant has given place to the New, then as Christians they receive a commission to preach Christ to Jew and Samaritan and Gentile without distinction.

And look on: whatever they had been under the Old Covenant, the Samaritans were no dissenters from the Christian Church. "Samaria received the Word of God" (Acts viii. 14); Samaria received Christian baptism at the hands of Philip the Deacon, and “confirmation, or the laying on of hands" (Acts viii. 17) from the Apostles St. Peter and St. John. They became lively members of Christ's Church.

What, then, is the conclusion of the whole matter? If, as we cannot doubt, Dissent is wrong, yet mere Churchmanship cannot save us. There are "Israelites indeed," and Israelites merely by name and profession. There must be true personal religion, "for he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly, .... but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly" (Rom. ii. 28, 29).

Should any one ask, Is it not enough, then, to be a good Samaritan, a pious Dissenter? Surely we must answer that the only safe course is to keep the whole law of God, and not to offend knowingly even in one point; not merely to be a "good1 Samaritan," but to

1 We must not forget that the word is of human, not Scriptural authority, so that too much must not be argued from it. It is

be "an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile." For nothing can do away with the fact that, by reason of their dissent, the Samaritans forfeited their share in our Lord's personal ministry; nothing can alter the declaration that He made to them—

"Ye worship ye know not what we know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews."

iii." We saw one casting out devils in Thy Name, and he followeth not us" (Mark ix. 38).

At this point it is only right that we should notice an incident in the Gospel that is often pleaded in justification of Dissent.

"John answered Him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy Name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in My Name that can lightly speak evil of Me. For he that is not against us is on our part" (Mark ix. 38—40).

The application fastened on it is to this effect. The Apostles desired to forbid one who cast out devils in Christ's Name, because he followed not them. The Church claims Apostolic authority. Even if it be granted, it follows that the Church may not forbid those who at this day preach in Christ's Name, because they follow not her.

In reply, we would urge that there is no sort of

the testimony of Christendom to his goodness in the case quoted.

ground for identifying this man's position with that of modern Dissent.

I. The man was not simply a preacher who felt an impulse to preach; he was casting out devils in Christ's Name. He was working miracles-our Lord says so. He carried with him his credentials that our Lord recognized him, because the vagabond Jews who used that Name for the same purpose were discomfited (Acts xix. 13-16).

It is not said that he went out on his own authority. It is not said he withdrew from the fellowship of the Apostles, and then withstood them. There is not a word to suggest that he, or such as he, after our Lord's ascension, maintained a separate communion. On the contrary, we only hear this of the early Christians, "They continued stedfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship" (Acts ii. 42).

Place side by side with this the case of a Dissenting chapel set up in a parish, bidding against the Church for adherents, teaching against her doctrines, undermining her position, and too often hindering her work. Can such a case stand the test by which our Lord tried this man's work, "He that is not against us is on our part"?

2. We go further; we say that there could be no Dissent at the time that this incident occurred, because as yet there was no Church. After His resurrection our Lord gave His commission to His disciples, "As My Father hath sent Me, so send I you" (John xx. 21-23). Before that, all His sayings respecting His Church had reference to the future-" upon this rock I will build My Church" (Matt. xvi. 18).

It comes, then, to this: when once that Church is commissioned, how did the Apostles interpret this injunction of the Lord, "Forbid him not"?

There were certain Christians in Corinth who followed not the Apostles. Some sheltered themselves under that sacred Name, saying, "We are of Christ." What then? Did St. Paul "forbid them not"? On the contrary, listen to these earnest words, "I beseech you, brethren, by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i. 10).

66

3. What, then, was our Lord's intention in saying 'Forbid him not"? Was it not to repress the spirit of self-assertion in the Apostles—a spirit that broke out on other occasions (Matt. xx. 21; Luke xxii. 24). Observe, they say, "he followeth not us." And yet the man may well have had Christ's own commission. He may have been one of those who were called, though we afterwards lose sight of them (Luke ix. 60, 61): or, it may be, one of the Seventy. Or was he one of the disciples of the Baptist, who himself preached Christ? (John i. 29). These were gradually to be brought into the Church, as in the case of the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts xix. 3), and of Apollos, whom, knowing only John's baptism, Aquila and Priscilla took and "expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly" (Acts xviii. 26). If the man was one of these, that is, one struggling towards more perfect light, and not a separatist, we can well understand the command, "Forbid him not."

D