Relations between the young Churches of Christ and other religious groups has already been evident in the Harbinger correspondence relating to their beginnings. This section supplements this picture with additional documentation. It will focus, in turn, on South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria.

1. South Australia
2. New South Wales
3. Victoria

1. SOUTH AUSTRALIA

B.M.H., 1856, pp. 181-187.

      YOUR LORDSHIP,--I have carefully read the letter you kindly addressed to me, with a view of pointing out some erroneous statements you imagine I have made in the little work I lately issued, entitled "A Constitution for all Churches;" and I must express my regret, that on a subject which many members of the Church of England, as well as myself, are not a little interested in, your Lordship should have said so little, and that little, to my mind, not to the point. Indeed, I cannot but come to the conclusion, from the brevity of your letter, and the few errors your Lordship has discovered, that my little work is either very unexceptionable, or else that your Lordship had not time to consider its merits or demerits, and point the latter out to me as I desired. As your Lordship's letter, however, is before the public and myself as a hasty review of the work in question, it must be considered and dealt with as such; and in order to give your Lordship's letter as wide a circulation as possible, I shall reprint it, with such remarks and explanations as suggest themselves to me while so doing.

"Bishop's Court, Oct. 4, 1855.      

      "Dear Sir,--I have read your 'Constitution for all Churches,' and while the gentleness of spirit in which it is written is commendable, I cannot altogether acquit it of self-sufficiency."

      Your Lordship, while giving me credit for "gentleness of spirit," cannot altogether acquit me of "self-sufficiency." Permit me to observe, that I think your Lordship has mistaken the faith which I have in the plain and simple declarations of the Word of God, and the unhesitating manner in which conscience compels me to set them forth, for the alleged self-sufficiency. I feel convinced that whatever boldness in the faith, and whatever Christian confidence I possess, has been produced on the one hand by laying aside the traditions of men, and inspired on the other by taking the Scriptures as my unerring and all-sufficient guide in matters of faith and practice: thus being able to say with the Apostle, that while we are not sufficient of ourselves to do the work of the Lord, or to legislate for the kingdom of heaven, yet, when we have the authority of God, "our sufficiency is of God."

      Having given your Lordship to understand, that what you deem self-sufficiency, I trust is simply confidence in the declarations of sacred Scripture that they mean what they say, and that to follow their direction in all things was designed to produce the strongest faith, which is both honorable and acceptable to God, I shall proceed to notice the first error your Lordship has pointed out in my little work. Your Lordship says--

      "As I ran over it, the following remarks occurred to me:--

      "The constitution of your church, page 15, pointedly contradicts St. Paul's arrangement for Crete, page 9 (Titus 1:9.) Titus, like Timothy, (though not of the Twelve) received authority to ordain elders, over whom they had the oversight (1 Tim. v. 19.) They were overseers of elders and churches, while a college of presbyters had the oversight of the flock, or different congregations in any large city, as at Ephesus." (Acts xx. 17-28.)

      In the first place I will correct your Lordship's phraseology, as I have no desire to arrogate to myself either a church or a church constitution--the church of Christ, and the constitution framed for it by the apostles, being all that I plead for. I have, I trust, for ever renounced sectarianism, with as many of its attendant evils as possible. The only church, therefore, whose welfare and progress I shall delight in, and endeavor to promote, is that "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. I can assure your Lordship, that all I am pleading for is a return to the original gospel, the ancient faith, and apostolic simplicity, as the only safe ground for a useful, happy, and permanent union of Christians, in these days of apostacy, formality, and infidelity.

      Now to the contradiction your Lordship has pointed out. I suppose the passage you refer to in page 15, is that which every congregation is stated as choosing their own overseers and deacons, which you do not think agrees with the appointment by Titus and Timothy. This appears to me to be just such a contradiction as must inevitably exist in the absence of Titus, Timothy, or one of the Twelve; and unless your Lordship believes that there are individuals now in existence who occupy a similar position, and have equal authority with these inspired men, whose special work it was to set the first churches in order, to whom, and from whom would your Lordship direct churches now to look for their officers, but from among themselves, seeing they have all the necessary information as to qualification, duties, &c. given them the Scriptures. Without the advocacy of apostolic succession, which is as little to be believed in as it is to be relied on, your Lordship will here, I think, be in dilemma--for, with the exception of the apostles, and those acting under their immediate direction, there is no mention whatever in Scripture of any other overseers of elders and churches. But your Lordship's College of Presbyters mentioned just afterwards, leads me to the conclusion, that your Lordship must have been thinking more of

Oxford or Cambridge, than of Crete and Ephesus, as there is no mention in the Christian Records of any such places as colleges, or of a college of presbyters.

      On looking a little more closely into this matter, I find that there are grounds for supposing, that even the appointment of elders by the apostles, was at the instance or by the election of the congregations. The passage in Acts xvi. 23, is translated as follows in the old English Bibles:--"When they had ordained them elders by election." In the Geneva Bible, "When they had ordained them elders by election in every church." In Tyndale's, "When thet had ordained them elders by election in every congregation." But whether this rendering be correct or otherwise, with regard to the first Christian churches, is a matter of little consequence, as the churches of the present day have neither the apostles nor any persons appointed by them to make the necessary choice. The Christian Records are the only but all-sufficient guide for churches now. From them I have endeavored to ascertain all the officers now required in the church of Christ, and I find I am supported in what I stated in reference to every congregation choosing their own overseers and deacons, by the following respectable authorities:--

      Milner, in his "Church History," says--"The apostles, who were the first teachers, and who planted the first churches, ordained successors--as far as it appears--without any consultation of the respective flocks over which they were about to preside. But as it was neither reasonable nor probable, that any set of persons after them should be regarded as their equals, this method of appointing ecclesiastical rulers did not continue and, undoubtedly, the election of bishops devolved on the people."

      Mosheim, in his "Church History," says it was the assembly of people which chose their own rulers and teachers, or received them by free and authoritative consent, when recommended by others."

      Dean Waddington, in his "History of the Church," says--"Of most of the apostolic churches the first bishops were appointed by the apostles: of those not apostolical, the first presidents were probably the missionaries who founded them; but on their death, the choice of a successor devolved on the members of the society. In this election the people had an equal share with the presbyters and inferior clergy, without exception or distinction; and it is clear that their right, in this matter, was not barely testimonial, but judicial and elective."

      Bingham, in his "Antiquities," gives the following information on this subject. He says, "No bishop was to be intruded on any orthodox people against their consent." He states also that St. Jerome says expressly, "that presbyters and the other clergy were as much chosen by Gic people as the bishops were."

      Numerous other authorities could be given in support of the

practice of the early churches or congregations choosing and electing their own officers, but as your Lordship will doubtless consider those I have quoted quite sufficient, I shall conclude with an extract from the first constitution drawn up by the Reformed Churches of Germany. It is as follows:--"Let the faithful assemble, and choose their bishops and deacons. Each church should elect its own pastors."

      "Your 'third and most important office' of evangelist (which according to page 8, was not a permanent office) you gratuitously assume to be a 'travelling missionary.' What becomes of the inspired writers of the New Testament, the proper evangelists? Was not an inspired writer of the Christian Records (which was not a permanent office in the church) as necessary as 'travelling missionary teachers?' But you lose sight of that appointment of God, in your explanation of the word and work of the evangelist."

      I must confess, your Lordship, that the above paragraph has puzzled me not a little, which has led me to the conclusion that either its meaning is obscure, or that I am dull of comprehension. I have read it over carefully several times, and by the rules of logic the following are my deductions, which, if not correct, I hope your Lordship will correct me:--First, that your Lordship has confounded the permanent office of evangelists, employed by churches to preach the gospel to the world, with the permanent officers in churches: the special work of the one being to plant churches, and of the others to conduct their affairs when planted and properly constituted. Secondly, that your Lordship appears to be under the impression that the work of writing the New Testament constituted the writers "evangelists," and that these were the proper "evangelists." I really cannot for a moment suppose your Lordship, with the knowledge you have of the Greek language, to have come to such a conclusion as this. Thirdly, that your Lordship supposes I do not attach as much importance to the work of writing the Christian Records, as that of "travelling missionary teachers." I should be a very short-sighted Christian if I did not attach as much importance to the one as to the other, seeing they were both necessary to the conversion of the world, and for the guidance of the church; but I can assure your Lordship, that words would fail to convey my gratitude and praise of God, for having given to us in our own language the writings of the inspired apostles and evangelists.

      Having given my deductions, I will endeavor to clear up the apparent obscurity of this part of your Lordship's letter, by a few interrogations and explanations. In the first place I will ask your Lordship whether the writers of the four Gospels were not evangelists before they wrote the Gospels. Also, whether Philip was not an evangelist, who did not write any portion of the Christian Records, but who was a preacher of the gospel. And lastly, whether Timothy was not exhorted by Paul (2 Tim. iv. 5) to "do the work of an evangelist," and what this work really was, if it was not preaching the gospel, as well as setting the churches in order who had received and obeyed it.

      As far as I can ascertain the correct meaning of the word evan-gelist which is anglicised from the Greek word uangelistees, it is, as I stated in my little work, "a messenger of good tidings." According to Bloomfield it means, "one who announces glad tidings, a preacher of the gospel, a teacher of the Christian religion. The verb from which it is derived, is defined as follows: To bring joyful news, to announce glad tidings, to proclaim the gospel." But as your Lordship must be well aware of the meaning of the word, it would be superfluous for me to multiply authorities on this head. The following passage, however, from Eusebius, may serve to illustrate the office and work of evangelists, which appears to me to be quite lost sight of by the Church of England. From the aforesaid passage, we find that evangelists "extended the preaching of the gospel, and spread the seed of the kingdom far and wide. The greater number of disciples at that time, whose souls were inflamed through the divine word with a zealous love of wisdom, in the first place fulfilled the commandment of the Saviour, (see Mat. xix. 21) and distributed their goods among the poor. Then they travelled into distant parts, and discharged the office of evangelists among those who had not yet heard anything of the word of faith. They were busily employed in preaching Christ, and in distributing books of the Holy Gospels. When they had laid the foundation of faith in unlightened places, they appointed others as pastors, to whom they entrusted the care of the new plantation; but they themselves went forward to other countries and people, being led by the grace and co-operation of God."

      If your Lordship will just take another glance at page 15 of my little work, you will perceive, I think, that there is a great similarity between the arrangement there given and the one I have quoted above, and that neither of them are much at variance with the Christian Records. I shall now leave your Lordship to reply to the interrogations in the previous paragraph.

      "Your statement of the baptismal creeds, page 11, overlooks that of our blessed Lord himself. Compare Matthew xxviii. 19 and Mark xvi. 15. Was not belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in whose name adult converts were baptized, necessary and actually required?"

      This next error that your Lordship appears to have discovered, is one that I think I can easily rectify, and then congratulate your Lordship and myself on both seeing a matter of great importance in a proper and scriptural light. What your Lordship states, is just what I now believe and teach, and am surprised how I could have been so blind as not to see that belief in the Lord Jesus Christ (which includes what he has taught about the Father and the Holy Spirit) is "necessary and actually required" in every individual who is scripturally immersed into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The only difference I can discover between what I stated in page 14, and what you state now, is, that I did not suppose any preacher of the gospel, going forth with the commission given in Matthew xxviii. 19 and Mark xvi. 15, would fail to carry out the

instructions contained therein, viz. to "preach the gospel to every creature," which would of course give the candidates for immersion all necessary knowledge of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, into whose names they were called upon to be immersed.

      To baptize persons into what they know nothing about, or into what they are incapable of knowing, appears to me now to be as unscriptural as it is inconsistent, for there is not one instance recorded in the Christian Records, of an individual having been baptized into the Lord Jesus Christ, who did not hear the gospel and believe it. Indeed to do or teach otherwise, appears to me to blot out of the plan of salvation, the exercise of the most elevating and ennobling principle of our fallen nature--a principle which the Scriptures assure us is most pleasing and acceptable to God, called FAITH--being that which characterized the catalogue of ancient worthies contained in the 11th chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, and, without which, we are assured by Paul, "it is impossible to please God."

      As the Catechism of the Church of England states that both faith and repentance are required in candidates for baptism, which I find on examining the Scriptures is just what they teach, I shall simply ask your Lordship, if there is any part of Scripture which teaches that faith and repentance can be attended to by proxy.

      "But having seemingly omitted the Holy Spirit from your statement of the scriptural creed for baptism, I am less surprised at the defective statement of the work of the Comforter, given at page 15. You say, 'No one is taught to expect the reception of the Holy Monitor and Comforter as resident in his heart till he obeys the gospel.' Is there no preventing as well as co-operative grace?

      'They,' (that is, the Christian Disciples) you say, 'teach sinners that God commands all men--to turn to Him--that the Holy Spirit strives with them so to do by the writings of the Apostles and Prophets.' What then becomes of St. Paul's, 'God worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure?' Surely the Holy Ghost strives with the sinner's heart in other ways than by merely speaking to him by the inspired Scriptures. A Pelagian would allow that."

      Your Lordship must be well aware that in the creed I quoted from the Scriptures (Acts viii. 57.) which, with the declaration of Peter (Matt. xvi.) and that of Nathaniel (John iii.) is the only confession of faith recorded, there is no mention of the Holy Spirit; therefore it is no seeming omission of mine. Christ honored the confession of Peter, by saying it was the rock upon which he would build his church, and Philip appears to have considered the confession of the eunuch all that was necessary; therefore it was not for me to presume to add thereto or subtract therefrom. I will, however, just give your Lordship my view of this brief and scriptural creed. I consider that a consistent and scriptural reception of it includes an implicit faith in the divinity, power, and authority of Christ, including all

that he has taught, done, and commanded to be done.. A cordial and humble reception of this creed in the above manner would, I think, save Christians from the injurious effects of those abstract reasonings and metaphysical speculations, which have so much perplexed the Christian church, and strengthened the ranks of scepticism and infidelity.

      Your Lordship next refers to the gift of the Holy Spirit, and seems to question the correctness of the statement I made in p. 15, as to "no one being taught to expect the reception of the Holy Monitor and Comforter, as a resident in his heart, till he obeys the gospel," and then you ask, "Is there no 'preventing' as well as cooperative grace?" If your Lordship had here made use of scriptural language, I should probably have been in a better position to have given a scriptural reply. I cannot find one passage which mentions either preventive grace, or cooperative grace so I must infer that, according to the meaning of the English language, your Lordship means hindering grace and promoting grace but then I cannot see what either of these have to do with an unbeliever's reception of the Comforter as a resident in the heart. In John xiv. 15-17, Christ says to his disciples, 1f ye love me keep my commandments, and I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him: for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." As far as I can learn from the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit was to convince the world of sin, (see John xvi. 8) of the especial sin of unbelief--a sin more condemned than any other in the Scriptures, and one most displeasing and dishonouring to God: therefore, Christ stated immediately after, the nature of the sin that the Holy Spirit would convict them of, viz.: "of sin, because they believe not on me."

      But your Lordship seems to object to the manner in which the Holy Spirit is stated to accomplish his glorious work. Do not the Christian disciples, in teaching sinners "that God commands all men to turn to him?" and that "the Holy Spirit strives with them so to do by the writings of the apostles and prophets," teach as do the Scriptures on this subject. And certainly their teaching is infinitely superior to that of man: therefore, let us hearken to them, and obey their instructions. We will first hear what Christ says on this subject in Luke xvi. 31, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." Again, Christ says in John v. 39, "Search the Scriptures: for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me." John, in his Gospel (xx. 30-31,) says, "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name."

      What led the Jews and Greeks of Thessalonica to believe, if it

was not Paul's "reasoning with them out of the Scriptures, opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead, and that the Jesus whom he preached unto them was Christ." (Acts xvii. 2-4.) What made the Bereans "more noble than those of Thessalonica," if it was not that they searched the Scriptures, and satisfied themselves that the preaching of Paul was in accordance with the prophecies that went before concerning Christ. (Acts xvii. 11) How did Apollos mightily convince the Jews that Jesus was the Christ, but by the Scriptures. (Acts xviii. 28.) Paul says to the Romans, "the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in they heart: that is the word of faith, which we preach--that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." "So then (says the Apostle) faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." (Rom. x. 8-10.)

      If the writings of the apostles and prophets are not the means which the Spirit makes use of to turn sinners to God, and to bring them to a knowledge of the truth, I must conf ess that I know of no other. Your Lordship asks, What then becomes of Paul's "God worketh in you both to will and to do of his own good pleasure?" I reply, that to quote this text without its context, appears to me to be as incorrect and unscriptural as to quote the context without the text. What would your Lordship say to my orthodoxy or honesty, if I were to quote or teach as follows--"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling!" without what follows, as an assurance and encouragement given to the faithful in so doing, viz.: "for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

      With reference to your Lordship's conclusion on this subject--that "surely the Holy Ghost strives with the sinner's heart in other ways than by merely speaking to him by the inspired Scriptures"--I entreat your Lordship, if you know any other way than this, I, as an humble preacher of that blessed gospel, which Paul states "is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, "will most thankfully accept the information; for, in addition to the passage previously quoted, Paul assures Timothy that the Scriptures are able "to make wise unto salvation, through faith in Christ Jesus."

      "With regard to the difference between faith and opinion, page 14, you surely know that the Church of England teaches the child thus in the Catechism:--"What dost thou chiefly learn in these articles of thy belief?--First, I learn to believe in God the Father, who hath made me and all the world. Secondly, in God the Son, who hath redeemed me and all mankind. Thirdly, in God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God." And in the Visitation for the Sick, on the dying bed, the penitent sinner is exhorted to examine himself by the articles of the Apostles' Creed, of which the chief are pointed out to every child, that he may know whether he believes as a Christian man should or no. I doubt whether

any church proves the soundness of its members in the faith by a more scriptural and simple creed than the Church of England; and that, too, in the hour of death. We do, therefore, make as wide a difference between faith and opinion--between the testimony of God and the reasonings of men--the words of the Spirit and human inferences (only more correctly)--as, from your statements, the Christian Disciples appear to do. We do not, however, think it wise, or consistent with Christian humility of mind, to reject the reasonings of good men of all ages in the church, as to what is the testimony of God, in order to set up our own individual and personal dogmatism.

      "As you have invited remarks from the members of the Church of England, I have set down such as in a cursory reading of your tract occurred to me.

AUGUSTUS ADELAIDE.      

      "Mr. H. Hussey."

      As your Lordship appears to me to have misapprehended what I stated as regards the difference the Christian Disciples make between faith and opinion, I shall simply state, that I do not for a moment suppose that the Church of England makes no difference between faith and opinion; but this I do say, that while the difference made by the Christian Disciples is clear and tangible, and is a safe and permanent bond of union--that made by the Church of England is indefinite and indefinable. The bond of union of the Disciples being a practical belief (as before stated) in Christ as the Messiah. the Son of the living God, while the bond of union in the Church of England is subscription to the Book of Common Prayer and the Canons of the Church, including various Creeds, Articles, and Formularies of human device and invention. One thing, however, I will state, for your Lordship's satisfaction, that with a trifling exception (the word Hades substituted for hell) I can most cheerfully and heartily subscribe to what is called the "Apostles' Creed," though I have my doubts whether the apostles had anything to do with the drawing of it up; but as to many parts of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, the Articles of Religion, and the Church Catechism, they are altogether above my humble comprehension: and though, as your Lordship will perceive, I do not altogether reject the opinions of good men, still, I conceive it to be very dangerous to place their reasonings, however good, on a level with the writings of the inspired penmen. No matter however good, or however exalted their position, or great their learning, "if they speak not according to the law, and to the testimony, it is because there is no light in them."

      In conclusion, I sincerely thank your Lordship for the few remarks you have made, and hope you will give this reply, and the original tract, more than a cursory glance: as I am confident the minds of many persons have been directed to the things stated in the

latter, and if there is anything besides what your Lordship has pointed out and I have explained, which is erroneous and unscriptural, I hope your Lordship will--for the sake of those who have recently united with the Christian Disciples, and for the sake of those who contemplate so doing, and myself--point out from the Scriptures wherein I am in error. I have privately sought correction, if in error--I now publicly ask the same favor. If I am not proved to be in error, I shall more confidently than ever recommend the "Constitution for all Churches" to the attention of those for whom it was primarily designed; and shall labor more fully to develop the practical application of the instructions of the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the churches of Christ in all ages and in all places.

      Hoping your Lordship may, with all who bear the Christian name and myself, be guided into all truth, I remain, your's faithfully,

H. HUSSEY.      
November, 1855.      

B.M.H., 1856, pp. 251-252.

ADELAIDE, December 20, 1855.      

      Brother Wallis,--Little has transpired here since the date of my last communication, for either note or comment from me. I may just remark, that the churches have been walking in love, and by so doing have doubtless been edified. The only additions I have to report are a few more of the members of the Baptist church I mentioned in my last. These brethren and sisters, having united with us on the principle that the Bible, and the Bible only, is to be our rule of faith and practice--cordially believing the great fact enunciated therein, viz. that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, having all authority in heaven and in earth--we may confidently hope, that by each and all of us submitting to his teaching and authority, and trusting in his strength and power, to grow up unto the stature of perfect men in him.

      The Lord Bishop has not replied to the letter I addressed to him, nor do I hear that he is going to do so. His silence, I think, can only be accounted for upon one equivocal supposition. Truth is truth, and possesses an inherent virtue which is more powerful than all the systems of error extant.

      I purpose leaving town to visit the churches in the country next week. The details of my journey I hope to furnish in my next.

H. HUSSEY.      

B.M.H., 1856, p. 412.

ADELAIDE, March 17, 1856.      

      Yesterday we had services commenced in our neighborhood by a new church (at any rate new to me) called the "Methodist Free Church!" and to-day the foundation stone of the Roman Catholic Cathedral was laid with great pomp and ceremony. But this is a mere trifle of what is going on here in the various religious communities--the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Independents, the Methodists, the Bible Christians, the Primitive Methodists. &c. are building chapels, getting up bazaars and tea-meetings, holding anniversaries and public meetings, and doing very much more than I can state here; but we, I regret to say, as a Christian community, are doing little more than duty requires of us, in assembling ourselves together week after week for the public worship of God.

H. HUSSEY.      

B.M.H., 1857, pp. 39-40.

      I was invited to occupy the pulpit of the United Presbyterian church last Lord's day, which I did. Their minister having some time since joined the Free Church of Scotland, they have been dependent lately on such assistance as they can get.

      At an ordination held a few days since by the Bishop of Adelaide, an objection was made to one of the candidates for priests orders. The objection was made, I think, by an ex-minister of the Church of England. One of the objections was an ignorance of the Latin tongue; but the Bishop, contrary to the directions of the rubric, proceeded with the service, showing how little deference is paid by these functionaries to these rules and orders. The candidate resides some distance up the country, where I imagine Latin would be of very little use, but some of the gentlemen who have been to college, think it is not right to admit any into the "profession" who have not been trained. Why (they think) should they be put to all the expense of a college education, if others are admitted without such an expensive process? Besides, it is hurting their dignity, and placing them on a level with common folks. How can these unlearned men mystify the minds of others, if they have not been taught to substitute the philosophy of the Schools for the teachings of the Apostles, and the book of Homer or Virgil for the Word of God.

H. HUSSEY.      

B.M.H., 1857, pp. 299-300.

ADELAIDE, December 20, 1856.      

      The Lecture on Bazaars, &c. delivered by Brother Burford, of which I gave you notice in my last, has since been printed, and circulated extensively. I will send you a few copies, from which I think you will be able to give some extracts interesting to your readers, if you do not reprint the whole. I feel assured this lecture has had, and will have, a great effect upon the religious community here.

      A few of the brethren met a short time since, to take into consideration the employment of one or more evangelists. In consequence of the difficulties that appeared in the way of carrying out such a desirable work at present, I volunteered my services gratuitously as a substitute, until one or more better qualified claim the attention, and call for the necessary means for their employment. These unpretending services have been thankfully accepted by the brethren; which step, I hope, will not make them less anxious to obtain such efficient, humble, and zealous laborers as will ensure a large ingathering of the harvest of the Lord. I hope to begin my labors in about two months time.

      About a month since I received a letter from Brother Pearce, at Point Sturt, in which he conveyed the pleasing intelligence of the immersion of another person in that locality. This brother having been a preacher among the Methodists, it is to be hoped that, having learned the will of his Lord more perfectly, he will still be engaged in the good work, and that his labors will be attended with success.

H. HUSSEY.      

B.M.H., 1867, pp. 336-337.

Adelaide, South Australia, June, 1867.      

      Dear Brother King,--I have read your remarks in the April number of the Harbinger upon the South Australian Bible Translation and Revision Society, and its rule, "That each subscriber of ten shillings annually, being a member of a Christian church, shall be a member." You have evidently heard that there is some heretical Goliah at the antipodes, and are anxiously and zealously watching for his appearance, that, like another David, you may lodge a stone in his skull. You have, however, hit friends instead of a foe. It will be five months before these lines can appear in your pages and

return; in the mean time, we have some timid souls in Australia, suspicious ones too, with only an infinitesimal amount of that charity which thinketh no evil, who will think that we are sectarians in disguise, and that we have committed some dreadful piece of latitudinarianism others there are who, like a hedgehog, never think themselves safe unless they present prickles on all sides, to friend and foe alike; so straight up are they that, like the Negro's tree, they lean the other way, and it requires so much of their time to preserve that over-erect perpendicular attitude that they have none to devote to the affairs of the kingdom or the conversion of the world.

      We have in Australia, as we presume you have in England, two kinds of Christianity--one ancient, and one modern. Our sectarian friends represent the modern; and we humbly trust that we make a considerable approximation towards the ancient model. As there is a modern Christianity, so there must be modern Christians; and it would be idle to deny that associations of these Christians, meeting statedly for worship, constitute Christian churches. When circumstances render it necessary we define our own position by speaking of ourselves as Disciples of Christ, or that ours are Christian churches after the Primitive model, or that we are advocates of Apostolic Christianity.

      The title page of the Harbinger tells us that it is "devoted to Christianity as it was at the beginning." The necessary inference is, that the Harbinger admits the existence of a Christianity which was not at the beginning--that is, a modern Christianity--and, of course, it must admit the existence of modern Christian churches. The term Christian church, not being a scriptural one, must be received as carrying with it the meaning ordinarily assigned to it.

      I do not see how there can be any dispute between us if the Harbinger be consistent with itself. If the Harbinger takes the ground that there can be no Christian churches, except apostolic Christian churches, we are too far distant to carry on the discussion with equal advantages. Any remarks which the Harbinger may make upon this letter will be months before the brethren before a rejoinder could return to Britain, which would be again accompanied by other editorial remarks.

      We take the ground which was taken by the Campbells, father and son. We advocate the union of Christians by throwing off all sectarian names and creeds and returning to Apostolic practices and teaching.

      We should be very inconsistent advocates for union if we refused to co-operate with our fellow-citizens because they described themselves as members of Christian Churches, having left off for the time at least sectarian appellations, we trust they, like the late B. W. Stone and his colleagues, may go on, leave off sectarian practices and ultimately become like him advocates of the Reformation.--Yours in the faith,

THOMAS MAGAREY.      

      We do take the ground that Christ has but one Church,--that is, there is but one institution which we have authority so to designate, just as, in our country, the institution known to the constitution as the Jury is only recognised when empanelled according to the statute book. True, in a loose way of talking, we hear of modern Christianity as we do of spurious honesty and bad money, but spurious honesty is not honesty at all, bad money is not money at all,--and so a Christianity which needs an adjective to distinguish it, from that which has the authority of Christ and his Apostles, is not Christianity at all. We only ask that the South Australian Revision Society put the money and the churches upon the same footing. Bad coin is called money, yet they will not admit to membership one who proposes to pay his subscriptions with a base half-sovereign. As they require the coin to have the true stamp of the mint upon it so should it be with the church. "Christianity as it was at the first." may refer only to the position which Christianity occupied at the first, that is, as being the only claimant to the name,--Christianity existing without impositions bearing its name and seeking to crowd it out of the world.

      But our good brother feels we cannot on account of distance argue this subject. Well, that will not much matter, because we can do what is perhaps better,--write independent articles on this or other topics, each stating his own view without reference to the other. Indeed we intend to re-cast the Harbinger somewhat, and to get rid of direct controversy between brethren. On useful topics each to have his say, but to have it without putting it into the form of a battle with some one.

      Quite wrong is our brother in the supposition that we have been on the look out for some heretical Goliah at the antipodes. We have all along felt the utmost confidence in the Australian churches; we have had no suspicion of any man. But it does not require anxious, zealous, watching to see a giant when he appears. Churches declared Christian which refuse to submit to the laws which govern the church of Christ is a Goliah too tall not to be seen. We will not say more, (because it cannot be answered from the other side in reasonable time,) unless it be that the position taken involves, if we are to be consistent, Open-Communion to the utmost. My Wesleyan neighbor is a member of a Christian church and is well commended by his class leader and circuit preachers. Will you refuse to receive him to the Lord's table? If so, pray say by what authority a member of a Christian church is thus turned away.

ED.      

2. NEW SOUTH WALES

B.M.H., 1856, pp. 307-308.

NEWTOWN, near Sydney, Jan. 5, 1856.      

      Dear Brother,--Having written letters to the churches in Adelaide and Port Philip, our sister churches in the Lord Jesus, we feel anxious that you should have some information respecting our progress. We rejoice to state, that within the last five months 14 have been added to the church by immersion, four of whom were Wesleyans, two Independents, and eight from the world. The church at present numbers 27. During the last year we have lost two by death, one by removal into the interior, and two by departing from the faith. We are united together in love, and each member appears to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, steadfast on the good foundation, of which Jesus the Christ is the chief corner stone. Some of the disciples who have latterly embraced the faith, endure much persecution, while others are left comparatively quiet. Hitherto the brethren have confined their labors in preaching the gospel to Sydney and its suburbs, but we have now determined to extend our labors to one or two of the inland towns. In outdoor preaching we are assailed by all classes of character, from the Deist to the high Calvinist; all seem to regard us as a common enemy, but the Deist has been astonished to find that we do not pretend to support any ism or men-made systems. The sectarian, with his rules, creeds, and church discipline, has shrunk with fear and rage from the contrast between his crooked system and the straight paths of the Lord, and we have found that the word of the Lord, which is the sword of the Spirit, when handled by soldiers who trust in it, makes the daring to tremble, even as Felix. But nothing shall confound those who put their trust in the Lord. Men who flourish in this world's good, and receive honor one of another by the propagation of error in a pretended mystery, have tried hard to convince the people that some man is our master, by calling us Campbellites and various other names, but by the constant denial of all these imputations, and being careful to declare that those after whom they call us are but members of the same body, (Christ alone being our Head) distinguished alike for their love of the truth and ability in proclaiming it, we have forced them to give up that ground; and now their talons are broken, nothing seems calculated to bring them to the test in public, but extreme danger to the craft, from which they get their gain. While we look at the prospect before us, as the church of Christ at Sydney, in the midst of a people who, for the most part, are either devoted to the love of money to such an extent as to destroy both body and mind, or sacrificed at the shrines

of the priesthood, until their minds are one confused mass of catechisms, and their principles bigotry swelling forth in refined persecution, we see that we must be careful to walk worthy of the vocation whereunto weare called, that our minds must reflect the impress of Christ's character, that we may, by actions of love, and labors of boldness combined with meekness and wisdom, demonstrate that we have been cast into that mould of doctrine once delivered to the saints. When we look at the character of those around us, and contrast it with that which Christ's disciples should maintain, the words present themselves vividly before our minds, "Behold, I send you forth as sheep among wolves;" but though the sheep may be weak, the Shepherd is strong, and he hath laid down his life for them.

EDWARD LEWIS,      
JOSEPH KINGSBURY.      

B.M.H., 1856, pp. 466-467.

      The church at Newtown has had several men and women added to the called during the last six months. Three persons were baptized on an evening within the last month. The solemn stillness of the place and time, only impressed by the words and actions of the parties to the covenant, was exceedingly imposing and pleasing to my mind, rendered more so by my being acquainted with the three individuals who gave themselves to Christ and his people. There was no pulpit, neither were there cushioned seats from whence instrumental music might sound forth; but there were the bath of water and the word, and there was no necessity, on the occasion referred to, for the water being confined within a cistern, which, although a significant emblem of the grave from whence believers expect to be raised, does not so strikingly recall to the mind the Scripture allusions to the ancient immersions at Jordan and Enon.

      The brethren preach almost every day, and are continuing to live in unity and peace. I cannot say, however, we are growing much in grace and knowledge. Your's affectionately,

March, 1856.      
G. TAYLOR.      

B.M.H., 1858, pp. 465-466.

NEW TOWN, SYDNEY, June 10th, 1858.      

      We now number about twenty in New Town, sixteen in Sydney, and thirteen or fourteen in various parts of the colony. It is very

cheering to know that the brethren who are scattered about at the diggings, &c. "hold fast their confidence," and are "strong in the faith."

      We have had a sister from America sojourning with us for the last two or three months--she has lived in the family of our venerable and highly esteemed brother, A. Campbell, and intends returning shortly. We have heard with great concern of the destruction of Bethany College, and send our heartfelt sympathies in this calamity, which is all we can do at present.

      Our out-door services are well attended, and much interest seems to be excited. We have had a deal of up-hill work, but the seed has been sown, and I believe we shall see much fruit ere long, for many seem "almost persuaded to be Christians." Although we encounter a good deal of opposition, we have in some instances seen those who have come to show us our error, convinced and immersed in the name of the Lord; and altogether we have much to be thankful for.

      Our friends, the Baptists, I hear, have made an attempt to introduce a code of written rules into their church; but to the credit of the majority they were rejected. I trust we shall have some more additions shortly, for there are some enquiring for the good old paths, that they may walk therein.--In the hope of eternal life, your's truly,

THOMAS GOODIN.      

B.M.H., 1858, p. 610.

      We have received two letters from Bro. Thomas GOODIN, of New Town, Sydney.

      Under date of August 10th he writes:--"Since my last, per July mail, we have received another, a female, into the church of the living God, by immersion. We are enjoying great peace and love in the congregation. One of our number (Bro. Kingsbury) nearly lost his life recently through slaughtering a cow which proved to be diseased, but by the mercy of our Heavenly Father, he is in a fair way of recovery.--His loss to us would have been very great, as he is a zealous and able proclaimer of the truth. Lately we have met with a deal of opposition from the Roman Catholics, many of whom seem to think that it would be doing God service to destroy us. There are five sects endowed by our Government, viz. Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Jews. We have much to contend against from sectarians, who do their utmost to misrepresent US. Our great fault apparently is, that we do not acknowledge any of them as the church of Christ. Although they profess to regard our views as erroneous, yet none of them will venture to discuss them with us."

      Writing under date of Sept. 10th, he says--"We are still going on steadily. Commercial affairs are dull at present. There is a great stir just now about a new diggins at Port Curtis, to the North of Moreton Bay.--A short time ago Mr. Cuthberston, Congregational minister, lectured, on baptism, or rather against immersion, and one of the brethren, who went to hear the first lecture, sent him Bro. A.C.'s work on baptism and some tracts. On the time arriving for the next lecture, Mr. C. Informed the audience that they were too much excited for him to proceed, as he did not wish to endanger their union with the Baptists; but that when there was not so much excitement he might resume the lectures--Subsequently, however, Mr. Voller, Baptist minister, gave two lectures on baptism, which were well attended, and considerable interest seemed to be excited.--Br. Barton, now of New Zealand, informs me in his last letter, that the brethren there are beginning to bestir themselves, and that he had good hope of the cause prospering.--Bro. Wm. Marks, of Kiama, has been instrumental in forming a church there, and obtained the court-house for the Lord's day services; two immersions have already taken place, and the prospects are very cheering."

C.Pl., Saturday, August 6, 1859, p. 135.

      SIR,--Feeling that there is something radically wrong in the proceedings of parties who hold forth on the racecourse on Sunday afternoons, I am induced to initiate the subject in your journal, in the hope that your correspondents will do what they can to give it a thorough ventilation.

      The most persevering debaters are "The Disciples," or "Kingsburyites." For this reason their proceedings are perhaps the most injurious to the spiritual welfare of their hearers. That their efforts are not crowned with success, must be apparent to themselves. I am credibly informed that all who join them are proselytes from other Churches; that such a thing as the conversion of an unbeliever is unknown under their teaching. The cause is plain. Instead of holding forth the leading truths of the Gospel to their hearers, they unceasingly descant on the traditions that have become mixed up with other creeds, and the failings of Christians. From observation I should suppose that two-thirds of their hearers are infidels in practice; therefore, the only effect of such teaching, humanly speaking, upon their minds will be to harden them in unbelief. Without fear of contradiction I say that the Racecourse is not the place for the discussion of minor matters of belief--such as baptism, the form of Church government, &c.

      Another party is made up of those who worship with Mrs. Forster. They, too, partake of the faults of "The Disciples," in their too frequent references to the selfishness of ministers. It appears to me also that their fanaticism operates injuriously to an extent quite equal to the "selfishness" of which they complain.

      Next comes Mr. Pidgeon, a thoroughly earnest disciple of Christ. But there is one thing in his practice which I think does an incalculable amount of injury--I allude to his vociferous prayers. I have a conscientious objection to the exercise of prayer at all on the Racecourse, and do not believe one example can be adduced from the New Testament, of prayer being publicly offered to God, before scoffers, except in cases of emergency. The Scriptural mode appears to me to be for believers to meet for prayer, and then go out and preach to sinners--calling upon all men to repent and believe the Gospel. To this matter I would urge the serious attention of Mr. Pidgeon and his brethren.

      Not to be classed with the foregoing, is John Rushton, an expounder of infidel doctrines on the racecourse. This man was during the present week committed for trial for an offence that one cannot think of without horror--still he obtains hearers. There are other persons engaged in distributing tracts of a sceptical nature.

      Does not this state of things call for the exertions of men of education and talent--men who are never permitted to leave their pulpits to preach in the open air? They cannot be expected to perform so much additional work. Their congregations should therefore occasionally relieve them from one of their Sabbath services, and thus enable them to battle with the evils here complained of.

SPECTATOR.      

C.PL., Saturday, September 3, 1859, p. 175.

      SIR,--After a calm perusal of the whole of the correspondence on this subject in your last number, I feel desirous of replying to some of the remarks there made.

      With many of the statements of "Ram's Horn Blower" I cordially agree, particularly in that urging the necessity of prayer. But he has mistaken my meaning. Our Saviour rebuked the Pharisees for praying at corners of the streets that they might be seen of men; yet who would infer from that a wish on the part of Christ to discountenance prayer? My objections were to the impropriety of

engaging in that solemn exercise in such an assembly as is found on the Racecourse, and to the boisterousness which characterised the procedure of such gentlemen as "Ram's Horn Blower." These objections I believe to be sustained by the example of Christ and his disciples Christ loved retirement for devotion--Matt. xiv. 22. We read that three thousand souls were added to the number of the disciples on the day of Pentecost, but in the account of that wonderful work of the Spirit, we are not told that the apostle prayed with the multitude, though the converts are stated to have "continued stedfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." The vociferous manner of praying common at some of the Racecourse gatherings more befits the devotions of the votaries of heathen superstitions, than the intelligent worship of men enjoying the light of Gospel truth.

      I thank "M.P." for correcting the mis-statement in my last with reference to Mrs. Forster. That lady had no doubt weighty reasons for ceasing to hold meetings on the Racecourse, and I would therefore turn the point of my remarks to the parties with whom she was formerly connected.

      "One of the Disciples" is hurt at my adopting the common mode of distinguishing his friends. It was not done offensively. Regarding as disciples all true believers, I was unprepared to allow the claim of these friends to the exclusive title of "THE Disciples," and though not wishing to speak unkindly, my conviction is that rampant bigotry alone could make such a demand. Why do they not adopt some name that any of their fellow-Christians might conscientiously use, to distinguish them from other sections of Christ's church?

      I am charged by "One of the Disciples" with misrepresenting his friends by giving currency to the statement respecting their system of proselyting. That statement was not given as a fact, but I have had some acquaintance with several of their number, and the remark complained of was, in a great measure, confirmed by what had come under my own observation; this, I hope, my friend will consider sufficient justification.

      My opinion with reference to the matter under discussion unaltered. My views were, in fact, strengthened by the conduct of Mr. Kingsbury last Lord's Day. His address on the Racecourse was full of satire and acrimonious bickering. His sneering remarks have, I know, unsettled the faith of ONE in Divine revelation; and I would entreat him to consider seriously the calamitous nature of such a result. A different line of conduct God is pledged to reward. "Let him know, that he who converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."--James v. 20.

SPECTATOR. 17th August, 1858.      

C.PL., Saturday, September 3, 1859, p. 175.

      DEAR SIR,--I trust you will permit me to make a few remarks in answer to "W.D.'s" letter in your last number. I f eel sure that the writer who has expressed himself in so mild and Christianlike a manner will receive my remarks in the same spirit in which I write. My reasons for writing are, first, because I believe that the subject treated of is a question of vital importance in the present day, and that I think "W.D.," in common with many others, hold views which cannot be borne out by Scripture, and because I am of opinion that the prevalence of such views is the cause of the very apathy and want of vitality "W.D." complains of. Not being able, then, to harmonise many of "W.D.'s" propositions with what I understand is taught in the Word of God, and in order to give 'Y.D.," or any other of your correspondents, an opportunity of setting me, and all who may think as I do, right on this matter, I will make a few counter propositions.

      1st. That the sacred Scriptures being the inspired Word of God, could no more exist apart from the Holy Spirit, than can we be absent from an omnipotent Being.

      2nd. That divine truth (not apart from the Spirit, for that would be to suppose an impossibility) has an inherent power, being the Holy Spirit's word, which, when received, must, ever has, and ever will effect man's regeneration. What, I would ask, but the rejection of the divine truths of the Word by the Jews caused the devastation existing among them at the time our Lord appeared on earth? and what but the belief of the great truth that He was the Messiah, the Saviour of the world, could raise them from their helplessness and shame? If these propositions can be borne out by the Word of God, then "W.D." is at issue with that Word which, I am sure, "W.D." will acknowledge as our standard of appeal. To the law and to the testimony, then, we will go. "W.D." says "the belief that truth is mighty, and by reason of its might must prevail, is fallacious." Jesus Christ says, "if ye know the truth the truth shall make you free." John tells us "That these things are written that we might believe, and, believing, have life through His name." "W.D." says, "you may teach a man the holiest truth, and yet leave him a wretched sinner." John reasons, "Who is he that overcometh the world but he that believeth thet Jesus is the Son of God?" "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life." "Whomsoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God." "W.D." assures us that "the truth will not prevail merely because it is truth. "Not because of its own power;" "that truth alone is not the power which renews the soul," but "is the instrument of that power," "as the wire is necessary to the telegraph," but "alone is as inefficient as the wire when the hidden power does not pervade it." Surely "W.D." is writing

and contemplating upon something else than divine truth. Surely he has never, in serious thought, asked the question propounded by Pilate, "What is truth or he must have come to the same conclusion as has been arrived at by some others, "that that question has never received a solution." But, fortunately for fallen man, we are not so left; the answer had already been given, for Jesus Christ had already proclaimed to the world, I am the truth," John xiv. 6. Jesus declared, "the words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life;" and "He that saith he know Him and keepeth not His commandments is a liar," 1 John ii. 4. "If ye believe not that I am He ye shall die in your sins." "W.D." tells us, "we meet with comparatively few in whose minds there is not enough truth to awaken their conscience, and point them to the cross of Christ if the truth was brought home to their hearts with power!' Is this not, I would ask, charging God foolishly for not thus bringing home that truth to so many poor lost sinners to whom the Gospel is lost, "in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them who believe not," and is not this kind of teaching dangerous to those who hear it, and calculated to destroy that sense of personal responsibility, whose real condition is rather that of those among whom Christ "did not many miracles because of their unbelief," to whom He would say

      "Ye will not come unto Me that ye might have life?" Surely, in this age of confusion "the duty of the Church is obvious" indeed. Let us reflect on the teaching and character of the Apostle Paul, and not be ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, knowing that it is the power of God unto every one who believeth. Let us then, if we desire the world's conversion, cease to teach men to ascend into heaven to bring Christ down, nor into the deep to bring Him again from the dead, "but teach him that the Word is nigh him," and "whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed." And while some are "requiring a sign," and others "seeking after wisdom," let us (since "it hath pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe") determine to know nothing among men save Christ and Him crucified, "that the world may come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved," and may share with us "joy and peace through believing." Then they will declare "how beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things." It appears evident to my mind that "W.D.," in a very great measure, confounds the two ideas, which, however, are very distinct, vis., the truth being presented and the truth being received. Doubtless, every man has a conscience, and every man has some portion of light, "for He is that light which lighteth every man who cometh into the world." And hence their responsibility, for "this is their condemnation, that light has come, but men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil."

      Trusting, Mr. Editor, that your paper may long be the means of spreading the divine truths of the glorious Gospel of our ever blessed Lord, and thus disperse the errors which at present prevent the reception of truth into the minds of men, and thus, as an ambassador of Christ, you may continue to "beseech men in Christ's stead to be reconciled to God," who "willeth that all men should come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved."

      Apologising for taking up so much of your space, I am, dear Sir,

A DISCIPLE OF CHRIST.      

C.PL., Saturday, September 10, 1859.

      SIR,--In your issue of August 6th, a writer signing himself "Spectator," makes some remarks concerning the "Disciples," or (as he terms them) Kingsburyites. My reply to which was lost in your office, and which had "Spectator" read, he would not have so committed himself, as he does in your last issue, and to which I now beg to reply.

      "Spectator" commences by saying, "One of the Disciples is hurt by my adopting the common mode of distinguishing his friends;" and then says "it was not done offensively." Common mode indeed! Let him call things by their proper names--unscriptural, anti-christian, apostate, heretical mode, if he pleases, and not hide himself behind its commonness to cover his shame. Not done offensively! Let him understand that he could do nothing more offensive. Would it be offensive to call a virtuous wife by the name of any other than the husband to whom she was once espoused as a pure virgin, and whose name she received when she became his bride? How much more offensive to call the bride of Christ by the name of any man, even an apostle! Whatever his motive may be, the offence remains the same, and is not mitigated by his subsequent language, or by his conviction that we use the name disciples through "rampant bigotry." How inoffensive! how mild! Will "Spectator" tell us in his next where the bigotry applies--to us whom the Holy Spirit calls disciples and Christians, or the apostate sects, who take all manner of names, to divide themselves, to distinguish themselves, from us, and from each other? Let him inform us in his next, does the name Disciples of Christ, or Christians, divide us from the disciples of Christ or Christians, in and place, city, or nation? or, does their party names divide them from each other, and us? Will he tell us? We shall see.

      "Why (says "Spectator") do they not adopt some name, that any of their fellow Christians might conscientiously use, to distinguish them from other sections of Christ's Church?" Why? Because the Holy Spirit has forbidden it, and taught us to mark those who do, and avoid them; and tells us that those who call themselves after Paul, &c., are carnal; and because we are one body, one bride, one family--because it is sectarian, heretical, schismatical, divisional--because it opposes the prayer of Christ, the union and communion of all the disciples of Christ, and the conversion of the world. I seriously commend to the notice of Spectator a book entitled the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and to let him know assuredly that from it my conscience was instructed to use the

very name given by divine appointment to the disciples at Antioch, and I beg him in his next to let me know from what source his conscience allows him, to take, or to require us to taken any other name.

      I wonder whether the use "Spectator" has made of my name in support of his opinion is offensive; perhaps he thinks not. But I suppose he will allow others an opinion on that subject, as well as on my manner. Could not "Spectator" have dealt with the things spoken, and have refuted them, if untrue? My "satire, acrimonious bickering, and sneering remarks," are quite matters of opinion; others may have a different opinion on all these, as well as upon the contradictory statements of "Spectator" in his first and second letters, upon our proselyting. In the first he says, I am credibly informed that all who join them are proselytes from other churches:" and in his second he says he did not give that statement a fact, but having had some acquaintance with several of their number, the remark complained of was in a great measure confirmed by what had come under his own observation. Now I have the opinion that one of these statements cannot be true. "Spectator" may have an opinion that they are both true. Thus he might have contrasted any sentiment or proposition, uttered by myself on the racecourse with any sentiment or proposition in the New Testament, and if there were a contradiction, then I stand reproved. Will he do so? His next will show.

      Will "Spectator" prove his assertion that any thing I ever said sneeringly or otherwise, ever weakened the faith of ONE in divine revelation? I call upon him to make known the man, publicly or privately, or I hold him as bearing false witness. I call upon him or any man to mention a single sentence I ever wrote or spoke, that could by any construction, undervalue the Word of God. He must surely mean, that I have shaken the faith of ONE (he might say one hundred) in sectarianism; and well their faith may be shaken when they have heard me assert that SECTARIANISM is essentially evil; and that I have requested by tongue and by pen, any sectarian minister or member to debate the proposition, that the name, and the thing, its cause and effect, are essentially evil. If he does mean that my contrasting the doctrine and order of the various sects, or denominations, with the doctrine and order of the Church of Christ, has unsettled the faith of ONE in names, sects, creeds, catechisms, articles, synods, councils, penitent forms, anxious seats, priests, altars, clergy, laity, &c., &c., well be it so--I glory in it, and am not ashamed.

      As to my reward, I refer "Spectator" to the words of the Lord, which He shall say to those on His right hand on the day of Judgment and those who know me best will agree with me that I spend more time, substance, and thought in doing those things there commended in one year, than many, of whom "Spectator" may be one, in their whole life-time. And I shall be most happy to be taught by "Spectator" how I may do more effectually what the Lord commands me, and if possible to provoke him likewise to love and good works.

      Desiring most earnestly the prosperity of the CHRISTIAN PLEADER, so long as any man may have the privilege of stating or defending in it what he believes to be the truth as it in Jesus.

JOSEPH KINGSBURY      

C.Pl., Saturday, December 3, 1859.

      DEAR SIR,--With your permission I beg to ask those who subscribe themselves "The Disciples," a question or two relative to those disputed points that have been so much before the Christian public of late. A plain answer to a plain question, without any evasion, will not only set this matter in a proper light before your controversialists, and give these good men an opportunity of explaining themselves, but will also be very gratifying to myself; for I must confess that though I have read most of the letters I can scarcely say I understand what they do, or do not believe.

      Now, the first question I beg to ask you, Mr. Disciple is, do you believe in the Personality and Divinity of the Holy Spirit? Do you believe in the absolute necessity of the operation of this Holy Spirit upon the soul of man before he can be saved, or become a new creature? Does our salvation depend upon anything else than repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ? And what is the value or efficacy of Christian Baptism, either before or after this repentance and faith?

      Now, Mr. Disciple, a concise, pointed, and unevasive answer to these questions will relieve me much, and at the same time set you right or wrong before the Christian public.

AN INQUIRER.      

B.M.H., 1860, p. 156.

      Since I last wrote we have received seven into the church, 4 males and 3 females; six were by immersion, and one from another church. Our Lords-day evening meetings for discussion are well attended, and very encouraging, though we meet with opposition on baptism and the work of the Spirit. We expect to obtain a more suitable place of meeting in the city.

T. GOODIN.      

B.M.H., 1863, p. 184.

NEWTOWN, SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES.

      Our progress is not considerable, owing to not having competent evangelists. But without doubt the truth is finding its way. Among our Baptist brethren there are those who clearly teach it, but the opposition is very great, and many dare not investigate lest they should be put out of the synagogue. We are about to advance our position--having hitherto met in a house, we are intending shortly to meet in a place used by the Baptists, where more attention will be gained.

JOSEPH KINGSBURY.      
February 20, 1863            

3. VICTORIA

B.M.H., 1858, p. 507.

ST. KILDA, near Melbourne,      
July 14th, 1858.            

      The knowledge of Primitive Christianity is undoubtedly becoming more general, and is taking a firm hold upon the public mind. Our preaching station at Brighton has been given up, but a friend (who, with his wife, have expressed their desire to join us) at Moorabbin, about two miles from Brighton (quite in the bush, however, and seven miles from this place) has given us the use of his barn, where the gospel is proclaimed every Lord's day afternoon, by Bros. COLES, PICTON, and myself alternately. Good audiences have been obtained, but now the wet season has set in, the number for the past three Lord's days has diminished. Nevertheless we are cheered by the fact that eight persons were immersed last week, and two females (whose husbands had previously joined us) were added on Tuesday last.

      Such a sensation has been created among the Wesleyans in that locality, that they have had revival meetings, and they seriously talk of having a baptistry made in their chapel, in order to keep their members.

S. KIDNER.      

B.M.H., 1859, p. 260.

      The church of disciples in this town is enjoying peace and growing in the knowledge and love of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ. During the past year we had 18 additions, 9 from other churches, and 9 by immersion. 2 brethren have removed to other parts of the colony. We now number 32, 3 of whom are temporarily absent. Several brethren are useful in proclaiming the good news, both in-doors and out. During the past year the gospel trumpet has been frequently sounded on the beach at St. Kilda, and lately we have commenced holding open-air meetings in the afternoon at Mount Erica, in this neighborhood. Our meetings at the Mechanics' Institute (the place in which we worship) are well attended, morning and evening, and our prospects are good. The Baptists are very kind to us, in granting us the use of their baptistry when we require it.

B.M.H., 1862, pp. 111-112.

      I have been requested by brethren, at whose suggestion I wrote the following, to send it to you for insertion in the Harbinger. It is written in reply to a letter which appeared in the Argus (our principal daily paper) and was sent to a Christian paper, but not inserted.

      To the Editor of the Christian Reformer.

      Sir,--Many of your readers may have seen a letter in the Argus concerning the Church of St. Andrew in Brighton. The letter reveals the unscriptural and lamentable condition of the Established Church of England. Alas! how closely do they copy Popish practices, whilst loud in their protestings against both Rome and Pope. The writer commences with a declaration that there has long been in this Church of St. Andrew "a source of pride and gratification to the congregation." And what is it, think you, reader? You know what are the duties and responsibilities of churches. Guess, then, what this source of pride and gratification is. "Their usefulness in winning souls for Christ, perhaps?" Wide of the mark. "The number of Bibles they have distributed?" Nothing of the sort, I assure you. "The fatherless and widows they have visited and comforted. Am I right this time?" Certainly not. Paul, or Peter, or even Saint Andrew might have been proud of such work and labor of love, but it takes something more to feed the pride and gratify the members of St. Andrew's Church, Brighton--even "good church music." Do not think by this is meant "hymns, and psalms, and spiritual songs, and making melody in the heart to the Lord." Let the writer of said letter

explain. He says, "The Church of England in inhabitants are especially proud of the music, which, thanks to the diligent and long continued labors of the choir, has really attained a high degree of excellence." Then follows his lament for its decline. "The minister has issued an edict against the choral service. We are to have no more intoning, and are to regard an anthem henceforward as an abomination." As to the abomination of the anthem there can be no doubt, that if in St. Andrews, as in some modern churches, it be performed by an ungodly choir, for the sole gratification of the audience, as duets and quartets are at popular concerts, it can be no act of Christian worship to the praise and glory of God, but a veritable abomination to Him who hates hypocrisy, pride, and formality. But why does the minister thus run counter to the wishes of his flock? "He is believed to be acting in this matter at the special instance of the bishop." Oh, foolish bishop, thus to condemn what they approve! Know you not what danger you are in of losing many valuable church members, who, by your policy, may be driven to a Popish church, or perhaps, out of sheer disgust, to a non-musical but more Christ-like church, to the salvation of their souls. That there is very little probability of such a result as the latter while they attend the Church of England, is pretty evident from the following unblushing statement from one of your own church members:--

      "A large number of persons regard a well conducted musical service as some compensation--a slight and insufficient compensation it must be owned--for the affronts which are weekly offered to their reason and conscience from the pulpit of the Church of England. They do not go to church in the vain hope of receiving instruction, but in compliance with a decent English family habit. The Church of England scarcely even professes any longer to be competent to fill the office of spiritual and intellectual guide to her people, and, as we have lately heard, resents with Episcopal denunciations the efforts of some of her worthiest members to show her how little influence she has, or deserves to have, over educated Englishmen at this day. But her services, if they do not fulfil their highest and proper purpose, need not surely be made repulsive; if they fail to inform the intellect, or to train and exalt the affections, they should aim at least at commending themselves to the taste of the church goer."

      After that we must pity the minister and bishop who would deprive such spiritually-minded men of music--the last tie that binds them to the Church, and seems to be their "only means of grace." That a bishop cannot see how terrible a drag the worship of God must be without intoning and anthems, is surprising. But while we say, "oh foolish bishop!" tenfold more would we say, "Oh foolish St. Andrewites! who hath bewitched you, that you do not choose your own minister, and that since you and not the bishop pay him, why do you not have your service as you desire it." When we read of the church of Christ in the New Testament, we find they had pastors or bishops in each congregation; but Brighton church goes shares with scores of other churches in one bishop who lives at Melbourne. And surely the minister and the bishop cannot be proud of a flock who go

to church knowing they will have to hear from the pulpit weekly affronts to their reason and conscience, which they were enabled to endure only by means of the soothing strains of "good church music"--a flock that follows the shepherd, not for food, nor out of respect to him--neither to learn of God, nor to worship Him--but simply "in compliance with a decent English family habit!"--and because Sunday would hang too heavily on their hands, and it would be too much out of fashion not to go to some place of worship (?) We close with the following extract from this letter, and recommend it to the attention of those who think that Church owes its standing to the fact of being built on the Apostles and Prophets, Christ being the chief corner stone:

      "Architecture and good church music have done much for the Church of England at home during this last twenty years, perhaps it would not be going too far to say that they now keep the spirit of disaffection dormant, and save the Church of England from the shame of an open and wide-spread revolt. Can the church in this colony afford to dispense with similar aids? Is the attachment of her people here so strong that the embellishments which their own taste and liberality have supplied, and which are sanctioned by the law and practice of the church, may be rudely taken away with impunity, and for no other apparent reason than because they are agreeable to the people?"

X. L.      

B.M.H., 1863, pp. 327-328.

      Dr. Cairns, a Presbyterian clergyman, has lately published a pamphlet in defence of infant baptism. Mr. Isaac New, late of your town, Birmingham, an Open Communion Baptist, replied in another pamphlet entitled "The Boaster Rebuked." He gave Cairns a terrible castigation. In page 3rd Mr. New says, "As to anything like argument, evidence, proof, there is little or none; it is one continued course of turgid declamation, of haughty assumption, and of contemptuous scorn from the beginning to the end." In self-defence Mr. New takes notice of us--he writes with decision on Open Communion. I enclose my reply which, if you please you may give in a corner of the B.M.H.

      "There is a body of Christians in the city who practise the immersion of believers, but who do not call themselves Baptists, and are not identified with us, and who circulate tracts containing sentiments we do not believe, and would not propagate."--The Boaster Rebuked, p. 6.

      "There is not a Baptist in the whole of our denomination, who is not a monomaniac, who would say, that individuals are not members of the Church, because they have not been immersed."--The Boaster Rebuked, p. 53.

      Dear Sir, I believe the foregoing quotations to be agreeable to your convictions. You have judged the congregation assembling in the Temperance Hall, and expressed your dissent. You have a right to judge, and so have I. On page 12, you state that sometimes church members "are regarded as in subjection to the authority of Christ as their King, then the church is figuratively regarded as a kingdom--the kingdom of God, of Christ, and of heaven." On page 13, one of the requirements for church membership mentioned by you is, "They must be born again." The kingdom of God and the new birth are both mentioned in one verse. Jesus said, "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John iii. 5. I believe the birth of water to be, coming out of the water, in which the believing penitent has been immersed. You seem to understand it differently. You plainly aver that yours is an open communion congregation. May I ask your authority for eating the Lord's Supper with the unbaptized, since, according to my belief Jesus says that they, are not in the kingdom? I have not found, in the Scriptures any more authority for Open Communion than for Infant Baptism. Have you? And, if so, where?

      But, my dear sir, you appear to me to be as inconsistent as the "Doctor" whom you rebuke. You are decided that infant sprinkling is not Christian Baptism, and therefore you eat the Lord's Supper with the unbaptized. Would the Papists, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians eat the Lord's Supper with those whom they deem unbaptized? But still higher, did Christ or his Apostles ever teach it by precept or example? But why speak so lightly of baptism? What is the language of the commission? "He that believeth and is baptized shall be SAVED." Mark xvi. 16. Did not Peter on the day of Pentecost say to the believers, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you upon the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?" Acts ii. 38. Does not Ananias say to Saul, after he had been three days a believing penitent,--"Arise, and be baptized, and WASH AWAY THY SINS?" Acts xxii. 16. Does not Paul say to Titus,--"According to his mercy HE SAVED US, by the washing (bath) of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Tit. iii. 5. Does not Peter say,--"The like figure whereunto baptism doth also NOW SAVE US?" 1 Pet. iii. 21. These quotations are so plain, that their meaning is easily seen. Please study them with the disposition of Jesus.

      "there is not a Baptist in the whole of our denomination, who is not a monomaniac, who would say, that individuals are not members of the Church because they have not been immersed," p. 35. Who authorised you to say so? Was there an unimmersed person in any New Testament church? NOT ONE ON RECORD. The opposite is the rule. See Rom. vi. 3-5; 1 Cor. i. 13; Gal. iii. 26-27; Ep. v. 25; Col. ii. 12; Heb. x. 22. "A monomaniac!" Do you really mean it? Whether are those

"monomaniacs" who say as god says, or those who say the opposite of what he says? Eating the Lord's Supper is a DISTINGUISHED FEATURE of the church membership. But not in all the Divine record can I find a precept or example for eating the Lord's Supper with the unbaptized. Please quote your authority for so doing. But you may say, that they who have been sprinkled in infancy think they have been baptized. But, my dear sir, it is not what they think that I am dealing with; it is what you think. Do you think that they have received Christian baptism? You do not. They are consistent, but you are INCONSISTENT! But you are not only inconsistent--it appears to me that you thus pervert the plain teaching of the Spirit of God. "They that gladly received his word were baptized. And they continued steadfastly in the breaking of bread." Acts ii. 41,42. This is a sample of the practice of primitive Christians which we are bound to imitate. I am sorry to think that, in your delineations of church membership, on pages 12, 13, and 14, you never allude to baptism. Please think of the commission of Christ, of the Holy Spirit, by Peter, on the day of Pentecost, &c. "Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding." 2 Tim. ii. 7.

      I have never seen your face, so far as I know, but I have heard well of you as a man of talent and of Christian heart. I read, with much pleasure, your "Sabbath" pamphlet, and your "Boaster Rebuked" appears to me to be talented and Christian. In this tract I have studied to give you no offence, and I take you to be a man of kindly feeling, a lover of truth and righteousness. I hope you will receive it in a friendly spirit, as it is so given.

      I subscribe myself, whether you believe it or not, your true friend,"

R. SERVICE      

B.M.H., 1865, pp. 218-219.

      An exceedingly interesting meeting was held at the above place on the occasion of the opening of a newly erected building for the worship of God and the proclamation of the gospel. For some few weeks prior to its erection the efforts of the brethren in proclaiming the glad tidings had been discontinued in consequence of the term for which they had leased their former building having run out, and being unable to renew it through the unwillingness of the denominations to lend it for such a purpose; they were, therefore driven to one of two alternatives, either to discontinue the preaching or to make an effort for its continuance by providing the necessary accommodation. The church then took immediate steps towards the accomplishment of their object--the needed sum was promptly raised, partly by subscription and partly by loan, and was then followed up by several of the brethren offering to assist in its

erection by free labor, the result of which is that the building was commenced and carried on towards completion so far as to render it available for the end designed in a very short time. The building thus erected is of wood, and provided with comfortable sitting room for one hundred persons--about that number sat down to the well-provided tables, and partook of an excellent tea provided by the sisters of the church. After tea the business proper of the meeting commenced, Bro. Anderson, of the church at Mount Clear, was voted to the chair, and he then called upon Brethren Neesh, Long, Wright, Martin, and Picton, of the Ballarat church, to address the meeting. The subjects treated by the several speakers were various and brief. The members of the church were congratulated upon what they had undertaken and quickly and successfully completed, and they were urged on to renewed diligence in the most worthy and all-glorious cause of their loving Saviour and King. Bro. Picton gave an exceedingly interesting and encouraging account of the progress of the cause in Melbourne and its suburbs, through the blessing of God upon Bro. Earl's labors, and expressed a hope that 'ere long he would be at Ballarat. Bro. Anderson announced that not only was the building free to the inhabitants of that locality for the preaching of the gospel, but also for any object that would contribute to the happiness and well-being of mankind, mentioning especially the Temperance cause.

      This report is from a neighborhood in which a church holding our peculiar views has not existed much over twelve months. They are now over twenty in number. May they grow in grace and in knowledge, and may the God of all grace in mercy grant the needful blessing, and his name shall have all the praise.

T. W.      
Jan. 21, 1865.      

[NOF 238-271]