It is fitting that at the outset I should express pleasure at receiving the kind invitation of the Young People's Social Circle and being given the opportunity of talking to you on the subject, "Why I belong to the Church of Christ." Whoever was responsible for the suggestion of such a series as you planned for your syllabus deserves much credit, and you all by your acceptance have set a worthy example to others. Christians should not come behind those who caused the principle audi alteram partem to be enshrined in Roman law; that we should all be willing to "hear the other side" is evidently the thought of your minds. The cause of Christ, the interests of His church, and the movement for the organic union of those who love the same Lord would be greatly helped if your example were widely followed. Ere union, come, it must be prepared for by a spirit of brotherliness and charity, and a willingness to consider the point of view, of others, which will certainly lead us to a better understanding of one another's viewpoint and probably also result in an increasing appreciation and desire for fellowship and co-operation.

      It pleases me that you have asked for a frank, definite and non-controversial statement of the

positions occupied by the men who have spoken either for themselves or their respective churches. There is no present discussion of the subject. I am here not so much to justify as to explain, not to argue but to state. Yet, I presume, there must of necessity be to a certain degree a commingling of these things even in the most modest attempt to say in a non-controversial manner why I am what I am.

      My theme, as you are aware, was chosen for me in these words, "Why I belong to the Church of Christ."

No Short Cuts.

      For an address of the "Why I am what am" variety, some people might be able to suggest or to take short cuts. I hope that in a measure all of us in this building would feel justified in declaring, "By the grace of God I am what I am," the ultra scrupulous amongst us possibly feeling called upon to add that but for our resistance to that grace at times we would have a better position to explain.

      Again, a common answer to such an inquiry as ours (and I am credibly informed you have heard it already In this series) has been "I was born into my faith." That "the merest accident of birth" has had much to do with determining the religion of men not only cannot be denied, but it is so natural and just a condition that it should not be cavilled at. No man could--even

if he would--cut himself off from the past or from his fellows in such a way as to be uninfluenced in his thought by others. There is no independent man. The claim of your "self-made" man, were it true, would oft have the advantage of relieving others of a rather awkward or fearful responsibility, but it labors under the slight disadvantage of never being quite true.

      Personally, I have never been much enamored, in an attempted justification of a religious position, of the announcement that we are what our ancestors were, or impressed by the argument (which some seriously present) that we should follow the religion of our fathers. If we could have it demonstrated that that religion were wholly and alone true, and if we could be absolutely certain that we possess not only truth, but all the truth, then the position would be reasonable. But surely it behooves us to keep our faces ever towards the light and be prepared to accept the new truth--rather, the eternal truth which may be newly revealed to us--whether our fathers had heard or believed it or not. To gad about, in religious thoroughfares, to box the ecclesiastical compass, hastily and lightly to change, to be driven to and fro by winds of doctrine, or on the other hand to act so independently, as to suggest a belief that wisdom did not appear on earth until our natal hour--all this is foolish. But it is as foolish never to be willing to change, to say that we must not follow the gleam, that

perforce we must abide in the religion of our fathers. A pagan king of Morocco is alleged to have told the herald of the Cross that if he had to choose his religion he would assuredly become a Christian, but he thought that every man ought to abide in that faith in which he was born. This principle, though apparently accepted by some Christians, would, if acted upon, place some who are here in strange positions. Some would be as they are now; some Presbyterians, Anglicans, Roman Catholics; some Nothingarians; some possibly sceptics. Get a little further back, and we would all reach the pagan state, for "our fathers worshipped stocks and stones." I cannot accept a train of reasoning which would have preserved for the world Saul, the Pharisee, and deprived humanity of the benefit of the thought and labors of Paul, the greatest of the apostles.

      Some of you may by this time have arrived at the conclusion that I am religiously what I am not by the mere accident of birth. The supposition is correct.

      Perhaps my chief reason for ruling out the legitimacy of "Because my father was" in any man's answer to the kind of inquiry you submitted is that the supposed answer does not touch the question. A person as the result of parental influence and teaching may have in the past most wisely and naturally adopted a certain faith. Such influences could furnish an

answer to the inquiry, Why did you become a member of such and such a church? but they could not well constitute a sufficient reason for his now being a member. What he took largely on trust he must have proved by experience. Faith will--or should--justify itself to reason, and the process of justification should be revealed. The question submitted to me was not, What would you have been if you had been born in Patagonia, or in Salt Lake City? nor even, Seeing that you hail from North of the Tweed and have had the additional inestimable advantage of having been domiciled most of your life in Victoria, how did you become a member of the church? Your inquiry did not deny the powerful influence of heredity or environment, but it really was, Will you please tell us why you are now what you are, a member of the Church of Christ? We all--whether we are now in the faith in which we were born or not--ought in response to such an invitation to be able to give the answer in words and accents expressive of personal conviction, such an answer as Martin Luther gave, "without horns or hoof," to the Emperor Charles at the Diet of Worms, four centuries ago, when he declared himself bound by conscience and the Word of God, and added, "I can do nothing else; here I stand; so help me God! Amen." In briefest statement, that is "Why I belong to the Church of Christ."

What Is the Church of Christ?

      It seems almost imperative to explain what I mean by the Church of Christ. Some have a difficulty in appreciating our position; some are led to the adoption of inverted commas on a more lavish scale than seems necessary to us who have a different viewpoint. It will be admitted that in the New Testament the word "church" as used of God's people in the Christian Dispensation is used chiefly in two ways. First, it means the whole company of the redeemed, all those who have accepted Christ as Saviour and are willing to follow Him. No one here has the slightest thought that when our Lord said, "I win build My church," He referred to any special denomination or section of Christians. "The church" which the Lord Jesus loved, and for which He gave Himself, as the "one body" of which the Apostle Paul writes, cannot be claimed by any fragment of Christendom. It includes ail Christians and excludes none. Yet the Scriptures speak of "Churches of Christ," meaning of course local congregations of Christians. There is a third manner of usage in which all the Christians in a province or country are spoken of as "the church" of that district; but no body of Christians as distinct from other communities of believers is ever in the New Testament referred to as the church of any land. Apart from this less important third or geographical usage, from

the point of view of those you have asked me to represent tonight, there is no scriptural warrant for belonging to a "church" or denomination which is larger than the local congregation and smaller than the church universal: I am not a member of a "Church of Christ" which needs quotation marks to differentiate it from that body of Christ of which every Christian in Victoria or in all the earth is a member by virtue of his acceptance of and submission to the Lord Jesus.

      From this point of view, to set forth my reasons for being a member of the Church of Christ would involve a statement of reasons for believing in Christ and being a Christian. But I know you do not wish a Christian apologetic of the usual type; you would doubtless have requested some other to give that. There are churches in this State and throughout the world commonly known as Churches of Christ (the sum total of which do not constitute, in the scriptural sense, "the Church of Christ,"), which in addition to wearing no human name agree in a great many particulars and differ from other bodies or congregations in a number of important matters, and you want me to say why I am associated with these.

      In the, light of the foregoing, you will not be surprised if I put in the forefront the reason that

We Stand for a Purely Undenominational Position.

      We do not believe in denominationalism, or in interdenominationalism, as expressing the Lord's will, but endeavor to take an undenominational or non-sectarian attitude. Our rejection of human names is associated with this fact and follows from the obvious truth that such not only are unauthorised by but are condemned in Scripture. Party names are derogatory to Christ and to Christians, and tend to perpetuate and even create division. We are prepared to use and are willing to have used of us any and every name which the Lord or His apostles employed or sanctioned as a designation of the church or individual members thereof. It so happens that with us the names in most common use are Churches of Christ for the congregations, and Christians or disciples for the individuals.

      A supposedly alternative statement of my subject has been mentioned. It has been put to me that I am supposed to speak on "Why I am a Campbellite." Permit me to say that had your representative asked me to speak on that topic, I should have been compelled to decline, for the very excellent and adequate reason that I have not been, am not now, and never expect to be, a Campbellite. It would be only a little more obnoxious to me to be asked to say why I am a Mohammedan or a Theosophist than to be requested to explain why I am a Campbellite.

      I am not a Theosophist, or a Mohammedan, or a Mormon--or a Campbellite. I never met one of my brethren who acknowledged himself to be a Campbellite. Thomas and Alexander Campbell were excellent men whom we can honor as such; but their statements are not in the least degree authoritative with us, nor are all their views adopted by us. I agree with John Wesley in many things, but am not thereby constituted a Wesleyan. The fact that in many things, I agree with Campbell does not more make me a Campbellite. From my heart I wish that all our friends--and particularly our Baptist brethren--would note the fact that we repudiate utterly such a title, which is both repugnant to our feelings and contrary to the position--the scriptural position--which we occupy.

      I wish most definitely to state that we neither claim the right to use nor as a fact do we employ the scriptural names in an exclusive sense. We have the desire to honor the Lord and be guided by His will, and cherish the hope that the time may come when all the Lord's people will wear these names, and no names which mark or perpetuate or cause division. If somebody say it is necessary to have a denominational name to differentiate us from others who are as Christian as we, our answer is that we do not want, and we should not wish, to be distinguished from other members of the church for which the Lord gave Himself. We do not

desire to be Christians first and something else after. We wish to be, and want all others to be content to be, Christians first and Christians last. We claim to be Christians only, but repudiate with horror the Pharisaic thought that we who are associated with congregations wearing no sectarian name are the only Christians.

      Some of you may remember the words of Bishop C. P. Anderson, of the Protestant Episcopal Church in U.S.A., spoken in his Charge to the Annual Convention of the Diocese of Chicago, and published by the Joint Commission of the Protestant Episcopal Church appointed to arrange for a World Conference on Faith and Order. In his pamphlet entitled "The Manifestation of Unity" occur these two sentences which sum up our viewpoint very well: "God never made Protestant Episcopalians--nor Presbyterians, nor Congregationalists, nor any of sectarian name. He made Christians, and they chose to call themselves by less lovely names."

      While we take up an undenominational position, we can stand for both courtesy and truth. We can be quite definite in our statement of what we believe or know the Scriptures to warrant, and at the same time we can rejoice in all the good done by others who may not see things as we see them. We appreciate good

men and good deeds, truth, righteousness and devotion, wherever found. All truth or good has its source in God.

      I know that some will scarcely allow that we can hold an undenominational position. Well, they must admit our intention, or else claim to know better than we the purpose of our hearts; we should have the better knowledge of that. If they deny the possibility, I should feel like leaving them to settle their disagreement with the apostles, Paul for instance, at the first favorable opportunity. In apostolic days penitent believers in Christ who were baptised were not initiated by that fact into any sect. Something more than this, or than the association for worship and service of those in a district who have been thus initiated, would be needed to turn Christians into sectarians. Respectfully, we would venture to decline to do the needed additional thing; and we think that no actions of others can put us into a position which we, know to be an unscriptural one.

      What has been said will prepare the way for the remark that I am where I am because of all the

Vital Truths which We Share with Others

as well as for those doctrines or practices which are distinctive. We thank God for the general agreement on the most important truths of those

who profess to be Christians, and rejoice in sharing the fundamental beliefs of Protestantism. Association with the Church of Christ entitles me to recognise truth wherever found, and welcome it from any source. Else I could not retain membership.

      We believe in God the Father, in the Lord Jesus as the only begotten Son of God and Saviour, in the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit.

      We believe in the universality of sin, and in the atoning death of Christ as the sole ground of human hope. He tasted death for every man. Dying for our sins, He was raised for our justification.

      We believe in the necessity of a conversion which is "begun, carried on and consummated by the operation of the Holy Spirit" through the truth. Further, that the Holy Spirit, "whom the world cannot receive," dwells in every Christian, having been promised as the Comforter and Helper of all who obey our Lord.

      We believe in the Scriptures given by inspiration of God as containing all things necessary to salvation and given so that "the man of God may be complete, completely furnished unto every good work."

      We believe In the necessity of faith and repentance, in baptism as the initiatory ordinance, and in the Lord's Supper as the feast of commemoration

and communion provided for the spiritual benefit of the Church of Christ.

      We believe in the necessity of a life of godliness, charity, and benevolence; in social service, and in co-operating with others in every good work.

      We believe that our Lord will come again, to be the Judge of the quick and the dead, that His faithful followers will be approved and rewarded by Him, enjoying an eternity of bliss, and that those who reject Him "shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and the glory of His might."

      There are no truths more fundamental or more clearly revealed to us than these. Had I to give them up, I could not be where I am proud to be.

      In addition to these truths which we share in common with the great majority of believers, there are some important points of agreement between us and some others. Notably I may mention a few of the additional beliefs or practices common to our Baptist brethren and us.

      A principle which is most dear to us has by an honored Baptist scholar and former Principal of the Victorian Baptist College (Dr. W. T. Whitley) been declared to be one of your root principles and stated in the following words: " 'All authority is given unto Christ,' and His will, expressed through the evangelists, apostles and prophets whose writings are collected in the

New Testament, is the only rule of faith and practice for Christians in this age."

      The rejection of other sources of authority--whether "the unwritten tradition of the apostles, the written law of the Jews, and the inner light given to each man"--as if they could be appealed to in order to settle questions of Christian duty, is one of the most characteristic features of Churches of Christ.

      We with you are frankly congregational in polity, though we may be a little more so. Believing in the co-operation and united action of free churches, we cannot recognise the authority of any tribunal, assembly, or conference, over the local church. Centralised church organisation for a province has no warrant in the New Testament. On the other hand there can be an independence which is mischievous. Perfect co-operation with perfect freedom is at least a worthy ideal.

      We believe in Jesus Christ as Prophet, Priest and King. He is the High Priest of the New Covenant. Under Him, all Christians are priests unto God. No Christian is a priest in a sense other than that in which all other Christians are priests. May I put it strongly? We hate sacerdotalism, even while we endeavor to be charitably disposed toward sacerdotalists.

      We have no human creed, no humanly compiled compendium of divine truth even, no collection

of dogmas or opinions of varying levels of importance, belief of which is demanded as a condition of membership or ministry. We have a creed and a confession. But our faith is centred in a Divine Person, and by scriptural warrant we can ask no creedal confession except a profession of faith in the Lord Jesus as Christ and Son of God as a pre-requisite to baptism and church membership.

      With our Baptist brethren, again, we present to the world the New Testament witness regarding the action and subjects of baptism. That the primitive baptism was immersion, and that only believers were baptised by the authority of the inspired representatives of our Lord, is certain. This is not the time or the place, and to such an audience it is unnecessary, to demonstrate what is capable of adequate proof. Sprinkling or pouring mar the symbolism of the ordinance and its suggestion that the believer should share in a manner the experience of his Lord. Dying to sin, we are baptised Into His death, "buried with Him through baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life." We can not any more than you consent to the unauthorised practice of infant baptism. To suggest efficacy in this rite apart from antecedent faith is to make too much of it. Infants are safe without baptism, and our Lord is not honored

by the doing ostensibly in His name of that which He has not asked. We must stand for a believing and converted church membership, if we are true to the Word of God.

The Plea for Restoration and Union.

      "I belong to the Church of Christ" because of the plea for the union of all Christians upon the basis revealed in the New Testament. There are two most outstanding things in what has often been called the distinctive position of those commonly known as Disciples of Christ: the restoration in essential features of the faith and practice of the New Testament church, and the union of all believers in Christ. Sometimes one of these is put in the forefront, and sometimes the other. Some of our people might say that because we have the intense desire for the union of the people of God so that the will of Christ may be fulfilled and an adequate impact made upon the world, therefore we must restore the scriptural order departed from in many ways by Christians. Personally, I believe the plea for a return to the Scriptures to be the more fundamental, and would say that because the Scriptures condemn division therefore we should seek to realise the New Testament ideal of unity.

      The Christian world to-day wishes and prays for union. But a very few years ago, it was not so; divisions were defended and even gloried in.

      Now for over a hundred years we have been most earnestly pleading for union. It was a desire for union which led Thomas and Alexander Campbell with others into their great work. Thomas Campbell's "Declaration and Address," published in 1809, is worthy of the perusal of every one who would like a speedy answer to our Lord's prayer. It breathes the spirit of the Master, is admirable in temper and in statement, and has a most moving appeal for harmony and union. I cherish the hope that it may yet be recognised as worthy to take its place with the other great historical documents of the church. For the change of view, the modern desire for union, disciples thank God. We believe that our witness has not been in vain. It was the New York "Independent" which said that, whether they, would confess it or not, there was not a religious body in the United States which had not been influenced by the work of Alexander Campbell.

      I may add something with which some of you will not agree, but which is so vitally related to the theme you allotted me, that I feel it necessary to say it. That the religious world has come to a desire for union, and, so to speak, adopted this part of our plea, is good. That it should realise that only in a return to the faith and order of the New Testament church is there much hope of Christian union as contrasted with interdenominationalism, is our sincere hope, and

in great part the aim of our working. Because the brotherhood to which I belong stands for this, I must continue to be associated with it. The Christ who prayed for union did not leave it to His followers to devise a scheme of union, by compromise, or elimination of truth, or any syncretistic method. I wish our Union Conferences would appreciate that fact. I have no right to ask another Christian to unite with me on my views; he has no right to demand of me acceptance of his most cherished opinions. On many points complete liberty must be granted.

      There never ,will be absolute uniformity. But that is no reason why we should overlook the plain requirements of God's Word. There is, we believe, a basis revealed in the New Testament. There is a seven-planked platform of unity. When we invite Christians to take their stand upon it, we do not ask them to come to us and accept our position. It was God's apostle who in urging that disciples should endeavor "to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," wrote, "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one-faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, Who is over all, and through all, and in all." If it be suggested that any one of these seven unities is dispensable or unnecessary, I cannot assent without proof. The onus of proof must be with him who makes the suggestion. In our judgment

Eph. 4 has been somewhat neglected by those considering the question of Christian union.

      It has often been thought that we err by seeking a return to the past. The Spirit of God is yet with us. The doctrine of development is widely held. Therefore, it is alleged, we need not seek the restoration of the New Testament order. I humbly submit that that is not good reasoning from the member of any church which in its standards, confession, or doctrinal basis acknowledges the supremacy and sufficiency of the Scriptures. If a man reject these, we may reason with him, but the line of reasoning would be different from that we give to those who in theory accept the New Testament as true. There can be no evolution beyond Christ, if He were really Emmanuel. The Spirit of God does not in a revelation today contradict that which He has given in the Scriptures. Individual inspiration, as Dean Inge has pointed out, "would result in making each Christian, who believed himself inspired, his own church and his own Bible."

      It is not, however, an adequate statement of our position to say that we go back. We would also go forward. There is a forward look as well as a backward one. For our hope of salvation, our authority, our guidance, we go "back to Christ." But we have yet to come to a full appreciation of Him and His will, and to almost an infinite degree there is room for

advancement in the direction of applying His principles to the problems of our age. That way real progress lies. To dispense with what Christ has delivered to us through His apostles is not progression but retrogression, not evolution but devolution. So churches known simply as Churches of Christ believe.

A Catholic or a Scriptural Position.

      Many a writer and speaker amongst us has put the justification for his church affiliation thus: "We occupy a catholic position." To a very remarkable extent, this is true. You have noted that also with regard to a great number of points of Baptist doctrine. It is not conceit to say that we think so with reference to a greater number of ours, else we would be with you rather than where we are. But take those things held by us in common, such as I have enumerated. The position which you and we hold on these is practically unchallenged. Our practice of immersion and of believers' baptism, for instance, is impeached by none. No debate has been held, so far as I know, on the subject, "Is baptism validly administered by immersion?" or "Are believers scriptural subjects of the ordinance?" All the debate has taken place on the question whether some other actions or subjects are also sanctioned by Scripture. So some of my brethren would make special use of the catholicity of our position as a reason for our

maintaining it in order to facilitate union. Seek first the common denominator, they would say. Up to a point I agree. There is much value in the argument when it is not unduly stressed. But personally I cannot put the chief emphasis here. I am more concerned with occupying a right and scriptural position than with holding a catholic one. It is not at all probable, but it is theoretically possible, that a position might be both catholic and erroneous. If all the professors of Christianity were to agree on the one hand that henceforth the deity or atoning death of our Lord should not be insisted upon, that would not settle the question. Our Lord would still be divine. If the whole church, on the other hand, were to decide to insist on the acceptance of the Athanasian Symbol as a confession necessary for membership, that would not make the action right or give divine warrant for departure from the simple confession of faith in Jesus as Lord. We should not so much be concerned with what men do believe, or will yet believe, as with what we and they ought to believe. If God has spoken in the Scriptures, then the principle of implicit obedience to His revealed will must be allowed precedence over the disposition of men to agree with or accept our position. A few years ago, one of the Presidents of the Baptist Union of Victoria was discussing the question of union, and used the following words:--

      "So far as scholarship and New Testament interpretation go, the field is ours, for most of the acknowledged scholars in all churches have conceded our position. But in real practice this is not so, and our ground is still to be won. For, suppose that our brethren in the other churches should offer us full scope for our Baptist testimony and practice in a United Church, we should gladly welcome the offer, and be willing for union. But what of the font? Must this remain? Should we be expected to comply with the practice of infant baptism in the United Church? And if our brethren cannot see their way to abandon this practice, must we be blamed for maintaining a separate existence, whilst at the same time we pray God to bless our brethren in all things we have in common, and show our willingness to co-operate with them in every possible way for the advancement of the kingdom of God? Who has any right to call us denominationalists, schismatics, or sectarians, if our position is due, to absolute loyalty to truth and conviction?"

      The speaker may have feared that some brethren in his own fellowship would disagree; but his main thought was mine, and he expressed the position which members of churches known simply as Churches of Christ accept probably more whole-heartedly and with more unanimity than do others.

      Once more, I am pleased to be associated with my brethren because of their

Evangelistic Zeal and Message.

      One of the most prominent features of the apostolic church was the spirit of evangelism. The Christians felt bound to tell the good news of salvation. The apostles were told to "preach the gospel to every creature." Others than apostles--Christians without any official position--went everywhere preaching the Word. One of "the seven" "preached Jesus" in Samaria. The greatest of the apostles determined at Corinth to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified. The zeal and enthusiasm of the early Christians were justified. Multitudes turned to the Lord, and "the Word of God increased." My judgment is that in this favored land there is altogether too little evangelism of the New Testament type. Every Christian should tell the story. Even preachers in the churches frequently turn from the New Testament evangel. Moral essays rather than gospel facts are at times presented to sinners who are without God and hope in the world. Literary topics, questions even of party politics, are sometimes substituted for the preaching of the cross of Christ. Less than any people I know, have churches known simply as Churches of Christ suffered from this cause. Our preachers stand by the Book, believe its message, preach Christ, and, I am glad to say, meet with success--a success which is not to be attributed to special grace or gifts, but to a faithful presentation of the claims of our

Lord Jesus, to a definite appeal to sinners for public confession of Him, and to the statement in scriptural terms of what the Lord has asked seekers for salvation to do in order to enjoy the promises of the gospel. As you know, with all believers, we insist on the need of faith as the fundamental principle of the gospel, and, as Paul told one who lacked faith, so we declare to men in similar state to-day: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." Sometimes men who do believe inquire, "What shall we do?" and in words which the inspired Apostle used we reply: "Repent ye, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." We know we cannot be wrong in passing on the very words used in that first presentation of the gospel of the risen Christ, and that the Pentecostians could not be misled by the Holy Spirit by whose power the Apostle Peter spoke. To one in Saul's case, believing and penitent, we would just as readily pass on Christ's message given through Ananias: "Why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

      We do, not regard anything which man can do as a means of procuring or meriting salvation; that is God's gift, but He has promised it to obedient believers. We do not turn the gospel promises into negations, or seek to suggest

that all unbaptised are condemned. We repudiate utterly the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. We are quite aware that numbers who are unbaptised (as we regard baptism) are sincere lovers of the Lord. Their defect is a defect of knowledge, which we are fully prepared to regard as less heinous than the sins of the heart committed by some baptised persons. But such considerations would not warrant our departure from the Lord's statements. He has bound us, and we must deliver His message. This we do in the very words of Holy Writ.

      We do not take a stronger view of baptism in relation to the promise of forgiveness than does your own great scholar Hackett in his well-known commentary on Acts. He comments on Peter's words in Acts 2:38 ("Repent ye, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins") as follows:--

"In order to the forgiveness of sin, (Matt. 26:28; Luke 3:3) we connect naturally with both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptised. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the others."

      As regards baptism and church membership, because we accept the Scriptures we cannot practise what is generally known as "open membership." In Victoria in 1918 the report of the

"Commission on Baptism" was presented to the Baptist Union. On the connection between baptism and membership in the visible or local church, the following remarks, amongst others, were made:--

"So far as the New Testament tells us, no one joined any of the Apostolic Churches without baptism. Baptism followed almost immediately on belief in Christ, and was its recognised confession."

"We have no record of anyone joining the Christian Assemblies without baptism."

      The report spoke of "church membership without baptism" as "a departure from what appears to have been the uniform Apostolic practice."

      So do we think, and we feel compelled, with charity in our hearts towards all, to abide by the admitted practice of apostolic churches.

The Lord's Supper.

      The place which we give to the Lord's Supper deserves a passing notice. You probably know that we make a considerable distinction between the conduct of our evangelistic meetings and that of the gatherings in which disciples meet specifically for worship. Of course we are not peculiar in making this distinction. In our worship meeting on the Lord's day the Supper is regularly attended to. In theory and in practice we give it the central position. We are sure that the Scriptures warrant the weekly

celebration, and that we would miss much by a less frequent observance.

      The service of which the Supper is the most important feature illustrates also what I may call, for want of a better name, the democracy of the church. I do not mean mob rule, the rule of demos, but wish to indicate that under Christ the sole Head the members of the church are equal. As indicated, we accept, with Protestants generally, the view that all Christians are priests. We carry this principle of equality further than most. We reject in toto the unscriptural distinction between clergy and laity. While of course we have men set apart to "the ministry of the Word" and supported by the churches in their work, we not only say that he who in most of the denominations is styled a "layman" has the right to "administer the sacraments" (as the phrase runs), but, more frequently than not, with us such an one presides at the Lord's table. Other brethren read, pray, and speak. We stand for the principle that not special ordination but simply ability and character (the "ability to edify") give the right to take this public part in the worship of God. I am glad to "belong to the Church of Christ" both because of the importance attached to the Supper and for the recognition in practice and in theory of the priesthood and equality of believers.

Recapitulation.

      This statement has been a rather long and somewhat discursive one. Therefore I sum it up and with propriety say that I am where I am because Churches of Christ make it their aim, as oft avowed--

      "1. To exalt Jesus as both Lord and Christ and as Head of His body the church, that He may 'in all things have the pre-eminence.'

      "2. To obey the Word of God as the only authoritative rule of faith and practice.

      "3. To turn alien sinners to Christ according to New Testament teaching and example.

      "4. To build up Christian believers in faith, hope and love.

      "5. To contend for New Testament Christianity in its spirit, doctrine, and life.

      "6. To commend Christianity to all by earnest endeavors to follow closely the Lord Jesus Christ.

      "7. To pray and work for the union of all God's people--that Christ's prayer may be answered, 'That they all may be one.'

      "8. To exhibit and enforce the social as well as the spiritual aspect of Christianity; to demonstrate that the Gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation, to the spirit first, and then to the body, to the individual first, and then to society; and hence to apply the gospel as the only effective instrument of moral and social reform.

      "9. To co-operate with all Christian believers in all good works for the salvation of men and the glory of God."

      If I knew any people with a better plea, I

should be compelled to unite with them. At present I am content with letting you know that (as one of our honored preachers has expressed it), we stand

      Ere I close, permit me to say that this address has been personal in its nature to a much greater degree than is pleasing to me. But you asked me to speak on "Why I belong to the Church of Christ"; and therefore the first personal pronoun has been freely employed. One advantage of this is that no one else has been made responsible for my reasons. I think, however, that the views expressed are those generally

held by our people, and that ninety-nine out of every hundred of the brethren associated with me in the State of Victoria would accept this statement as conveying the fairly, though It may be not quite adequately, their views. A few doubtless would not agree with all points. There is no body in which perfect harmony of view exists--even on important matters. The human mind is capable of harboring strange thoughts (he who doubts that may be recommended to a season of introspection), and therefore any church may have individual members whose personal opinions would not justly be taken as representative or made the test of either the scripturalness or sanity of the position of the body as a whole.

      Let me also disown the thought that we claim perfection in theory and practice. We would assume neither an exclusive nor a supercilious attitude. Our aim to reproduce the essential features of the New Testament church does not involve the absurd pretence that individually or collectively we have fully realised our aim. We are all imperfect; and you may find some amongst us who put second or third-rate things first. But you did not ask me to deal with them. I do not "belong to the Church of Christ" because of imperfections (though these are admitted) or idiosyncrasies (which are certainly regretted), but in spite of them. So to dwell

here would be to leave the subject assigned to me.

      I have endeavored to speak frankly, definitely, and I trust kindly. To have been other than candid and specific would not have been helpful or fair to you, nor would it have shown the appreciation I feel of the privilege of putting our position before you in response to your very kind invitation. I do most sincerely trust that no word of mine has been unfair or un-Christian In tone. If anything which anyone could with reason consider to be discourteous or uncharitable has been said, then be assured that it has been wholly unintentional, and, were it brought to my notice, would be deeply regretted and gladly and unreservedly withdrawn.

      Very specially let me declare that nothing in the foregoing reflects upon the godliness or Christian spirit of those who may differ from us. We thank God for the devotion, piety, Christian character and good works of lovers of Jesus Christ who are associated with all the churches. We are prepared to recognise the fruits of the Spirit wherever these are manifested. From the heart we would say with Paul and to you: "Peace be to the brethren, and love combined with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. May grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with perfect sincerity." Amen.