This section deals with three major areas; the plea of Churches of Christ, debate over doctrines at issue between the British-born Australian membership and American Evangelists, and an indigenous issue concerning the fate of the wicked.

1. The Plea
2. British and American Traditions
a. Mutual Edification
b.Elders and Evangelists
c. The Communion Question
d. Money from the Unimmersed
3. Eternal Punishment

1. THE PLEA

B.M.H., 1868, pp. 356-357.

      "PROSPECTUS--We propose to begin the publication of a Monthly Magazine devoted to the interests of Christianity. We will shortly issue the first number. The name will be The Australian Christian Pioneer.

      "It will not be devoted to the interests of any party, but will unflinchingly oppose all departures from the simplicity of Apostolic Christianity. We believe that in the days of the apostles, the Church of Christ was not composed of parties, but was the 'one body.'

      "It will be our endeavour to plead for a restoration of the ancient order of things. In order to that we shall advocate the Bible, and the Bible alone, as our only rule of faith and practice, believing that if its teachings were more widely known and better understood, the progress of Christianity would be accelerated and Christian union promoted.

      "It shall be our aim to set forth the 'truth as it is in Christ,' oppose error wherever found; and reprove unrighteousness with Christian fidelity, regardless of pleasing or displeasing men. We shall, therefore, write without party bias or prejudice.

      "It is sometimes meet for the religious world to look to its positions and surroundings. We must compare our conclusions with the Divine Original, always being sure of this one thing--that we have an approved precedent, or, 'thus saith the Lord,' for every item of faith and practice.

      "There is a spirit of enquiry among the people. They are not satisfied with the present divided state of the religious world. It is not difficult for even a casual observer to perceive the difference between Modern and Apostolic Christianity, as well in the presentation of the Gospel as in the organization and order of the churches.

      "It is the province of journalists to promote a spirit of enquiry, and always make the truth the great object of search.

      "As we contend for truth alone, and in opposition to every form of error, we claim the sympathy and support of the entire brotherhood. Let every member of the Church of Christ take at least one copy, and let one in each church collect and forward subscriptions without delay. We propose to improve and increase the size of the work as soon as we are assured of the necessary support.

      "The Christian Pioneer will consist, at present, of sixteen pages octavo, and will be issued at four shillings per annum, payable in advance.

      "It will be published monthly, in Adelaide. All communications to be addressed to T. J. Gore, Adelaide, South Australia.

      When writers, social, political, or religious, come before the people, regarding them as intelligent and appreciative, they must present before that people a definite object. A paper without point is as a dinner without salt. A paper without a purpose is as chaff which the wind driveth away. As journalists, therefore, it behoves us to inform our readers at once of the purpose in view in publishing this paper. Every one will at once acknowledge that this purpose, if a good one, must be found within

the lids of the Bible. We cannot, we will not, look anywhere else. To God's word then we come. The first thought which presents itself on opening that blessed volume, is this--shall our object be to uphold the interests of a denomination. Very many religious papers are published with the avowed purpose of advancing the interests of some peculiar denomination. We open our Bible, and ask ourselves the question--Shall we follow in the footsteps of others--spread to the breeze a party flag--deck ourselves with partisan insignia--and take up the weapons of denominational warfare? If we could only close the lids of that book, lay it on the shelf, and say, take thy rest and be silent, we might announce our purpose without investigation. But that book will not be quiet, it will speak; and when it speaks 'tis the voice of God. Be silent, O man, and give attention to thy God.

      We turn the leaves of that precious book from Genesis to Revelation and yet not one word about denomination, or 'denominational interests.' When then we come before the great God and ask Him for wisdom and guidance, how can we dare set forth a purpose which is not given us in his great revelation--the Bible? Those who approached nearest an advocacy of denominational interests were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, yet, when we look at them in all their relations, not one would wish to be like them. Therefore, not finding it to be God's will that the claims of 'denominationalism' should be put before the world, we must of necessity, if we act in accordance with that will, advocate something else. In turning the pages of that book we find that Jesus the Christ has been revealed, and that for a lost world there is salvation in no other name. Hence we will not be far wrong when we announce it as our purpose to plead the cause of Christ in its simplicity and fulness, to life our voices on behalf of Christianity as it was in apostolic days. We wish the gospel preached as the Apostles preached it, and the Churches ordered as the Apostles ordered them.

      Some one might say just here, that is well enough, but the claims of what church will you enforce? In answer to this question we open our Bible. We feel that it is a question of much importance. It is a solemn and most responsible action on the part of men to lay before their fellow men that call which invites them to start for heaven. Jesus understood the importance of this work; the Apostles understood its importance. Hence Jesus says, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'--Matt. xvi. 18. The Apostles went everywhere preaching the word, 'and the Lord added to the Church daily the saved.' Acts ii 47. Again, we find Paul addressing the Corinthians on this wise--'Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, etc.,--1 Cor. i. 1.

      Here we find from the word of God 'the Church' whose claims we wish to enforce. As God-fearing men we dare not speak a word in favor of any other. This Church is the one whose foundation is rock, against which all the powers of the evil world may rage in vain; against this church the infidel hosts have never waged successful warfare. The promise of the Saviour is clear and explicit--'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' The hosts of the evil one have only been enabled to combat successfully corruptions of that splendid structure. Whenever the followers of Jesus find their enemies triumphing over them, it is time for them to look diligently and see if they themselves are in the right. We believe the Saviour's promise, and living or dying we shall hold it fast. That is clear enough says one, but I wish to know this--the claims of what particular branch of the church you intend to advocate? This is also an important question; we will not decide it for ourselves, we dare not.

      In order, therefore, that we may set forth Christianity as given us by Christ and the Apostles, it shall be our endeavour to keep close to the word of God. We shall advocate the Bible and the Bible alone, as the only rule of faith and practice.

A.C.P., Vol. I: 1868-9, pp. 1-4.

      In pleading the cause of our Master it will be necessary to oppose infidelity in every form. We know full well it is constantly assuming new phases. We must be prepared to exhibit them in the light of God's revelation. Infidelity in its extensive sense has many shades of meaning. Atheism is as the darkness of midnight. Christianity is as the light of noonday. Between these there is every shade of infidelity. There is Materialism, Spiritualism, Ritualism, Rationalism, Positivism, Secularism, etc. etc., approximating to midnight. It is very dark about them. The follower of Jesus loves the light of noonday. Colensoism, Ritualism, etc., are yet hovering between sun-set and darkness, trying the efficacy of twilight. They seem to be hesitating whether or not to plunge into the darkness. The follower of Jesus has no compromise to make with any of these shades of infidelity. With him it is the brightness of noonday or no light at all. He holds fast to Christianity as given by Christ and His Apostles. But there are more insidious forms of infidelity than these. When the enemy presents himself in his true colors, it is easy to distinguish him; but when he assumes the form of an angel of light, then is the time of greatest danger. There is an infidelity of heart among the professed followers of Christ. Some have 'the form of godliness, but deny the power thereof.' The most insidious infidelity and that which does most

harm is among the professed followers of Christ. Who knows the number of formalists whose hearts have scarcely been touched with the love of Christ. Infidelity must be wholly rooted out of every man who comes to Christ. When the mind, heart, and body, are enlisted in the service of Christ that service is true--without infidelity. All other is false and a mockery in the sight of God.

      The Church must banish all forms of infidelity from her borders; every member must expel every particle of it from his mind, heart, and body--drive it into the wilderness, and never permit it to return. Who knows how much infidelity there is on the subject of prayer. Where is there a Church sufficiently prayerful? Christians need to have great care just here. God has given the Christian a problem to solve. When he is properly engaged on this he is wholly occupied. It is the problem of a life. It cannot be solved without the combined energies of mind, heart, and body. And yet it is but a problem in simple addition! What is it? God gave it.

      'Add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.' The heart whose chambers are full of thought concerning this addition has no room for infidelity. But in many a heart there is a secret chamber for such infidel abominations as 'malice,' 'hatred,' 'envy,' 'evil speaking,' 'love of the world, etc.,' We call these abominations. What more appropriate name can we give them. If a man is a Christian, these and the like cannot find a place in his heart. We tremble at the thought that these things are harbored in the hearts of some professing Christians. The Holy Spirit will not dwell where these things are found. God talks to man very plainly on these matters. There is one root of infidelity which goes deep into the heart, and drains away its sustenance. This root must be dug out with all its fibres. It has such vitality that if one small fibre were left, it would soon grow again. It must come out wholly. The man who retains it and professes to be a Christian is deceiving himself. God tells us what it is--'The love of money is the root of all evil.' Readers, one and all, attend to these things!

A.C.P., 1869-1870, pp. 93-95.

      In speaking of the church, we call it the Church of Christ. This mode of speaking and writing seems to give offence. What is necessarily implied in the fact that offence is taken? What is the ground of offence? It must be one or more of these several things:

      1. That those who call the church with which they are connected the Church of Christ, belong to those who call their churches by unscriptural names. Hence, for violating orders, by implication given, they are evilly entreated. A serious refutation of this hypothesis is, of course, not expected or demanded.

      2. That the claim is so absurd that those who make it deserve ridicule rather than any respect or respectful treatment.

      But is this true? What is there so absurd in calling a church the Church of Christ? Is it because no church should be so named? This cannot be true; for we read of the 'Churches of Christ' in the New Testament. If the claim be absurd at all, it is not because no church should be called the Church of Christ, but because the one that makes the claim deserves not the title. What should be the reply to that church that makes the claim, provided the claim is not to be allowed? Not, surely, that it is wrong for the children of God to be so designated, for the Holy Scriptures speak of them as Christians. The one who makes the objection should be careful that the implication is not therein made, that Christian is not a right name for God's children. Let him do what every manly opponent will do; let him say distinctly that the church which claims to be called Christian is not Christian, and that he will not so call it. The charge is then against the claim, and not against the thing claimed. The claim is then allowed to be just, only it is not so in the hands of those who make it. Of course, the one here regarded as the objector must consider himself as belonging to the Church of Christ, else, though the opposite party does not deserve the name, he has himself no right to object.

      If the church which calls itself the Church of Christ, is not worthy of this Scriptural designation, let the charge be made in that shape, and then if its advocates cannot make good their claim, they will simply suffer defeat. Now, whether they should, in an effort of this sort, show themselves to be pure as angels, or bad as demons, I do not see, in either case, the grounds for offence. If they should show themselves worthy, all well disposed men would take knowledge of them that they have been with Jesus, and rejoice; but if they should fail, and it should appear that they are ugly heretics, or children of the wicked one, good men would be grieved, and would attempt to teach them the way of the Lord more perfectly. In either case I see no ground for offence.

      3. That it is not distinctive. It is claimed that there are other churches that are Christian, and that therefore the phrase 'Church of Christ,' would not point out any particular church. Of course, names are given to distinguish things; hence nothing should be employed as a name that does not serve this purpose. It follows, therefore, not only that one party ought not to take the name in question, but that no party ought. That is, it ought not to be taken at all. It follows, also, that either the Bible is wrong when it speaks of the 'Churches of Christ,' or that it is not right for us to speak as the oracles of God. The

objections that could be brought against the phrase, 'Church of Christ,' could with equal force be brought against the phrase 'the Church of the living God.' So that no name, given to God's people in their church relation, by the Holy Spirit, is ever to be allowed to any people now. No man or set of men is to be allowed to go back and stand upon apostolic ground in this respect.

      But is it true that the name, 'Church of Christ,' is not distinctive? It once was; and at a time, too, when there were many diverse churches with their distinctive names, all claiming to be right, and looking for the favor of God. The proof of this is seen in the fact that the Holy Spirit gave it, and used it, which he could not have done if it had not been distinctive. Suppose, now, that only one body of religious people should call itself Christian; the phrase would, of course, in that case be distinctive enough, and the ground of offence is not apparent. But it is thought that if several different peoples should call themselves Christian, then the designation ceases to be distinctive. Now, I hold that peoples ought not to be distinguished any further than they differ. If they agree on principle, on the name that ought to be worn by God's people, then, in respect to name, they ought not to be distinguished. It is, at all events, true, that no one body ought to feel offended at another for taking the name which they themselves admit to be right.

      4. Because it is exclusive. Suppose this be so. Who has a right to complain? Has the party that refuses the name and calls itself by some other, the right to complain? If any one party has always and uniformity neglected or refused to wear the name of Christ, it certainly ought not to be offended if another should try to wear it. So that the one who does not take the name of Christ, surely has no right to be offended at the one who does. Those who do take it, of course are not to be offended with one another. In that case, out of their own mouths they are condemned.

      But is it a just ground of offence to take a name that is exclusive, and because it is exclusive? Then those who believe themselves to be the children of God can never have a name; for all names are exclusive, and they are taken and worn because they are exclusive as well as inclusive. To take the ground, therefore, that no party must take the name Christian because it is exclusive, proves or implies too much. It is hence not to be taken. If we may not, without offence, take a name that is exclusive, we are not only barred the privilege of having any name, but all others are also. Is not the name Methodist exclusive? When a man takes the name Methodist, does he not exclude the idea of his being a Baptist or Presbyterian thereby? And if taking the name Christian by one people implies that others are not Christians, and is hence offensive, it seems to me that to take the name Methodist would imply that others who do not take it are unmethodical or disorderly, and therefore to take the name Methodist is ground of offence. Suppose I deny to the Baptists the right to be called Baptists, on the ground that to admit to them the right is to confess that we do not baptize, what would they say? Every argument 'that is to prove that no one people must take the name Christian, will show with equal force that no one can, without giving offence to others, be called Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists or Episcopalians. Therefore, I do not see that the fact that the name Christian is exclusive, is any valid reason against any peoples taking it; or that any other party who does not take it, and will not, should be offended with those who do.

      It seems to me that no one can well object to that body which is the body of Christ wearing the name of Christ. No other body, of course, ought to wear it. Let all the foolish talk about not allowing the name of Christ to any one people, because it is exclusive, or because it is not distinctive, or because of any other illogical or untenable grounds, be laid aside, and let the only issue which ought to be made, or can logically be made, be at once submitted, viz., Is the party which claims to be called the Church of Christ entitled to this designation?

L. B. WILKES.      

A.C.P., 1869-1870, pp. 105-107.

      In offering our remonstrance against sects we will do well to see that while we do well to try to detect a mote in a brother's eye there is now a splinter in our own eye. Are we Christians a sect? We believe we are not. Now for the proof. A sect is a section, or part of some whole. Now, of what whole are we a sect--such as the Pharisees were a sect of the Jews? We cannot be a section of self-styled Evangelical Protestants, for they have by their union lately fenced us out by a little creed containing the essentials of their orthodoxy. The Romanist Priest says we are the worst of all the heretics, so we can have no affinity there. We cannot belong to the Baptists, as we disown the name Baptist. We have had numerous proofs that Baptists look upon us with no friendly eye, though we hope by-and-bye to convince them that we are their best and lasting friends. A long time ago the writer hereof felt highly honored by being called by some witty fellows 'John the Baptist.' Unhappily there are few men for whom the name Baptist, in its true sense, is appropriate, and he that desires to be a Baptist desires a good work. But it is a gross misnomer to apply it to an association of the Disciples of Christ; and that of Christians is the one appropriate and authorised designation, but requiring of all who accept of the name much searching of heart lest they be found not worthy of such an honored name. It is then plain enough we cannot be a sect,

      save so far, as we are a section of men whose religion differs from the Jewish, Mohammedan, and many forms of the Christian religion 'so-called.' But we repudiate the idea of being a denomination of Protestants, or, as Mr. Spurgeon would have it, being one of the tribes of the modern Israel; our aim and object being to go back and build ourselves with Apostles and saints of their day, on the same foundation they did; and so far as they were a sect we are, and no more. A sect is such, because of some peculiarity or distinction of religious faith and practice. Now we profess this peculiarity, that we accept identically the same faith and religious duty followed and taught by the Apostles. We may fail in understanding it fully, and certainly fail in its observance; still, we hold ourselves bound to this standard. We have no creed, oral or written, to warp our minds, or hinder our freedom in acting out our own convictions of what our Bibles teach us, so that we are ready and free to follow when any one shows us in the Bible a more excellent way. We are not so proud as to say we have attained to the perfection of Christian instruction; but we have implicit confidence in the Apostles, and their teaching, and we accept them for our guides. The position we occupy is the only one consistent with being a follower of Christ, and with our own dignity as men. We know all profess to accept of the Bible as their standard of faith and duty. Some such may ask; where is your pre-eminence over us? We say none at all, so be you hold by the Bible only; but you add to the Bible certain customs and schemes of doctrine desired by the chief or leading men in your sect, and these things extra to the Bible form your badge of distinction as a sect. If you throw all these away you will find yourselves alongside of us. We are aware that all sects hold to a large portion of revealed truth. It is things extraneous, not belonging to the faith of Christ, that when held constitute a man a sectarian, a factionist, and an abettor of strife and division. The man who holds the truth as it is revealed in the Bible is innocent of all the guilt of all the schisms and divisions now existing; but those who adopt other doctrines and religious usages not taught by Christ and his Apostles are necessarily sectarians, and are convicted as transgressors.

      Still, some may say we think we are right, and that we are in accordance with Scripture. We think you mistake the matter thus--You have found a scheme of things in existence, and it pleases you, and you and others labour to prove that it accords with Scripture. We judge the course you follow is not wise, because were you to receive the writings of the Apostles as containing your religious creed and compendium of duty to God, you would be saved the trouble of proving your peculiarities scriptural. You, for example, call yourselves by some name to distinguish yourself as a sect. Where do you learn anything in the Bible on this cardinal point? You must not think to escape by saying--What is there in a name? Names stand for things, else they would be useless. God's family has a name God knows it by this name; so will angels; so do all men who are taught of God. There were tribes of old time; but there was but one Israel; they worshipped in one city, and on temple, had one king and one high priest. The Church of God, according to His will, is one house and habitation for God to dwell in by his Spirit. No man who reads his Bible and accurately considers its meaning but must come to the conclusion that the divisions now existing are proof of a general apostacy existing against the peaceful reign of Christ over his professed subjects. If it be true that a house or kingdom divided against itself cannot stand, and if there be truth in the axiom that union is strength, these sects, and this partyism is a grievous injury done to the cause of the Saviour in the world. Let every man see to it, that he is not a partaker in the sin and guilt herein involved. Christ is not the author of confusion, but of peace, which glorious truth is to be shown in all the Churches of the Saints. But as things now appear, the world may, by looking at Christendom and the numerous sects, and judging only by sight, come rather to the conclusion that Christ is the author of a very Babel of confusion; that man is happy who can, after mature thought and inquiry, say the blame of all this rests not in any part with me. All this evil is the more deplorable because there is no just cause for its existence. God, in giving his Bible into our hands, did not cast an apple of discord and strife among men. His intention was to unite man in heart and life to himself, and to unite men, one with another, in a bond of peace and brotherhood. It is not possible to conceive of any greater outrage that could be perpetrated against the object and design of the mission of God's only Son in our world than is presented in the present time in our sectarianized Christianity. Could angels weep, they would do so over the shame and reproach brought upon the holy cause of Christ by these divisions, and all the strife, dissension, and bitterness, and envy, and evil speakings, and manifold evil works arising out of them. They paralyze Protestantdom, and they form the palladium of the Papacy; they poison the arrows of the scoffer and the infidel--in fine, so long as these sects prevail, they offer an effectual barrier to the conversion of the world. Christ has a perfect knowledge of this being so, as seen in his prayer for the believers. 'May they all be one,' he said, 'that the world may believe that thou halt sent me.'

      There exists this marvellous thing, that some professing love for Christ and for souls say that divisions are a good thing. We reckon the wish it were so to be father to the thought; that they seek by such a panacea to stifle inquiry, and allay every painful feeling, by jumping at a conclusion that things that be are all right. We say, if it be a good thing, let us have a little more of it; let every congregation of every sect be divided into two parties, worship separately, and build new chapels; let there be a brisker competition, on the principle that competition is the life of trade. We see Mr. Spurgeon is so well pleased with the denominations that he said that if the holding up of his finger would fuse them into one, he would not do it. We have somewhere read about a devout Calvinist, who said he would not hold up a

finger against God's predestination if he could thereby escape from hell. If it were true that God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass, as the Westminster catechism affirms, then sects are right, and so is Popery. Were sects to arise in Mr. Spurgeon's overgrown congregation, and were they to begin and file off by hundreds, under different flags and leaders, we would soon hear of more than fingers being held up against this. Such men hive only to go one step forward to reach a climax, and say they are pleased with the world as it is, the major part of it being Pagans, Mohammedans, and Romanists.

      The existing denominations are only the external symptoms that prevail of the corruption and perversity of minds on subjects connected with our holy religion. There is a cause for the effect which is found in the indulgence of the lusts of the flesh, and of the eye, and the pride of life. It is, because professors of religion are carnal, and walk as men; for were all to did as the believers did in the beginning, continue steadfastly in the teaching of the Apostles, they would, like them, be of one accord, and would be perfectly united together in the same mind and judgment, because having the same teaching they would all speak the same things, and division could not be, and all the envy, strife, contention, and evil speaking they cause, would cease. The things connected with every sect that distinguish and divide them from that 'glorious and holy association of which the Apostles are the plenipotentiaries, do, thereby stereotype and fix as much as human efforts can those innovations and errors on the public mind, as the practice is to invest with some office all men of mark and wealth, so as to bind their best affections, not to speak of their pride, to the interests of a particular sect. Then there have arisen various tangible and material interests connected with chapel property, and chapel debts, which conspire to inveigle men in the meshes of a net, so that progress towards unity in the truth of God has become almost impossible. These sects, then, have raised up such an array of obstacles to unity in the bond of peace as we sometimes think would require that God should send an angel to overturn. Still, we hope that God's truth will speedily triumph over mountains of difficulties, and that in spite of the devices of men and demons, the millennial state of glory, unity, and peace, will reveal its resplendent scenery to some men of this generation before they are called on to cross the Jordan.

Y. Z.      

A.C.P., 1869-1870, pp. 128-130.

      Some men who esteem themselves to be very liberal in sentiment, and indulge in philosophical reflections, aver that the numerous sects are necessary to accommodate various classes of mind in the religious world. If our holy religion were a scheme, built up on inferences and deductions of the schoolmen, then some variety would be useful, to suit the vagaries and eccentricities of men's minds; but, seeing it is a system of faith and duty originating in the mind of God, it must need be unique, as God requires all men to believe in the same things concerning his Son, and to perform the same duties according to their ability and opportunities. What things God says to one he says to all; the faith first delivered to the saints is so plain to the understanding of all sane minds, that there is no room left for variety of conviction. Men may form varies and conflicting inferences on revealed things, but it is sinful to quarrel or divide on inferences or opinions, as Christians are to receive each other without regard to difference of opinions. But that man is a rebel against Christ, who assumes a license to hold opinions that are subversive of the facts and truths contained in the gospel of the grace of God. When God requires us to believe certain things, we must simply believe, and not hold certain loose opinions thereon. God knows men's minds better than any man; He knows them altogether; and if a variety of faith were needful for the various classes of mind, he would have made provisions for this want, ere the apostles had left the world. For example, let it be granted that the varied Methodist sects supply the requirements of certain classes of mind, how can we account for the fact that it was not till some years after the birth of John Wesley, and more than 1600 years after the death of all the apostles, ere provision was made for the requirements of such a large class of mind. The fact is overlooked that Methodism creates a class of mind for itself, and that it did not spring into existence to supply wants previously existing; and so it holds with all other sects, for they all have the tendency to call into exercise biases and prejudices agreeable to their character and peculiarities. The Church in Jerusalem when they met in one accord in Solomon's Porch would have among them the same natural variety of mind that men now have. This did not prevent them living in unity and peace. All men require to remember that God's will is, that all high and towering imaginations of the heart, and that the thoughts of every mind be brought under captivity to Christ. The pure religion of Christ must be always one and the same thing, to all minds and in all time.

      Some speak of sects as only consisting with the diversity found in all the works of nature, no two blades of grass being exactly like each other. We are admirers of variety, provided the features of difference be innocent of evil; far example, a man and his wife are one flesh, the most perfect example of unity to be found in the relations of men; it might be variety for a man to have two or more wives, but it would spoil the loveliness and beauty of the marriage union. It might be variety to have the government of a nation under opposing and conflicting schemes of rule, but the result would be anarchy.

      We think that were all sects to cast off all those peculiarities that distinguish them from that Church of which apostles were members--and were all lovers of Christ, like kindred drops to run together and be

fused into one, there would then remain in the varied gifts and graces of the holy brethren, sufficient variety to please the most fastidious, and lovers of the beautiful in nature and art. Has not the sweet singer of Israel said, "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity:" It is good for a family, for a nation, for the world to live in unity; and it must be a lovely thing for the Church of God to be perfectly joined together and be one in name and in effort. We could conceive no scene so superlatively beautiful as a united Church will present to the gaze of men and angels; it could only be excelled by the ineffable glory of the heavenly state.

      Then it is said, by way of excuse for sects, that the bulk of them--of an evangelical kind--are practically one people, that they differ only on minor matters, but are agreed on all the essentials. Grant this to be the case, then these divisions are the more disgraceful and inexcusable; as if the points of difference were about matters of exceeding importance, this would do a good way to palliate the guilt and the shame; but to divide on non-essentials is wanton and cruel, and savors of anger and wrath, not of love and the gentleness of Christ. But there lies hid here under the garb of liberality a species of licentiousness, as there is nothing found in the order and constitution of the Church of Christ as fixed and set forth in God's law that is not essential to the perfection of saints and to the ministry, of Christ. Had the tabernacle, made in the wilderness, not been formed exactly according to the pattern shown Moses, and the specification of the work give by God--if any priest or Levite had initiated any change of a knop or curtain, then we would have good cause to judge that it had never become God's tabernacle of witness, and is the scheme of Christianity, originating in the mind of Christ, less perfect? And is not every item of the plan essential to the perfection of the whole? And if elements are introduced into the scheme by meddling priests, according to the rudiments of the world, we ask--will Christ own such work to be His? We must have the pure gold without a particle of alloy. We are not to be understood that matters of church order or policy are set forth with the precision of the rules given for the tabernacle, but we are supplied with the land marks that the law of love and common prudence can fill up as regards details; and in this matter if all obey the law, "yea, all of you be subject one to another," no quarrel ending in division can arise. The attempt at union on the principal of compromise is not practicable or desirable, it would if obtained be like a house built on sand, it could not endure. The Church of Rome, by the device of building themselves on an infallible head, can boast of her unity; but unity in error is as bad as unity in the truth will be good. We contend for unity in the truth. Better it will be that sects remain as they are unless they are prepared to utterly put away all peculiarities that agree not to the Bible pattern. Let there only be a readiness of mind to search out, and a good disposition of heart to accept of that model, and the work of reconstruction and union will be done.

      It is on the immutable counsel of Jehovah that we build our hopes of escape from wrath to come, and of heaven. And here also is the only foundation for the unity, peace, and prosperity of the Church of Christ.

      Let us look at the practical results of that liberalism that is now current coin among some popular sects. Baptists and Independents have met together at the festive tea table, and made complimentary speeches, all tending to this effect, that the matter of a believer's immersion is of slight importance soon to be swept away by the advance of a vaunted liberality. The Independents look on it, no doubt, as an antiquated conceit of their Baptist brethren, and that they will either speedily conform to infant baptism, or keep their notions on baptism so far in the back ground as to give them no trouble or annoyance. The Baptists may be tempted, in order to keep on good terms with their highly respected brethren, to speak of immersion as only needful to a full obedience of Christ, but having no bearing on the state of a true believer before God, as only a formality and a ceremony. But in spite of all the nice talk, the Baptists and Independents come no nearer to union. In fact, they never will, until they realize that God requires not the union of sects, but the destruction of sectarianism, and a full return to primitive and apostolic Christianity.

Y. Z.      

A.C.P., 1870-1871, pp. 1-3.

      In the present divided state of Christendom any body of people pleading for a return to primitive apostolic Christianity have an arduous task and a solemn duty before them. It is our privilege to plead for this return, and to work with all our power to accomplish this great work. We feel that many around us fail to understand the object we have in view, and hence bestow upon us no small share of obloquy. Opposition we must expect, for our effort being made against all corruptions of Christianity must necessarily excite the opposition of those who hold those corruptions, even as harmless expedients. As we find there was a sect many years ago "everywhere spoken against," so we must expect to meet like that with determined opposition. As long as our face is set against human creeds, councils, confessions of faith, etc. or in other words, as long as we "contend for the faith once delivered to the saints," we may expect the opposition of those disposed to depart from primitive simplicity. But in all this we have a duty to perform. We are not to contend any the less earnestly for the truth, but we should be careful that no

unnecessary opposition be provoked. We shall have enough of it without wantonly provoking it. Hence it seems to us that in a great movement for a return to primitive Christianity there should ever be before our minds those great principles which so filled the mind of the apostle, one of the most prominent of which was love--"Speaking the truth in love, may grow up into Him in all things who is the head, even Christ."--Eph. iv. 15. We have not the least idea that the truth not spoken in love will benefit saint or sinner. Hence contests about truth which may be denominated purely intellectual are not productive of good results. We love to hear men speak as though they loved Christ and had a love for perishing sinners. It does our soul no good at all to have a talk with a man when there seems to be no heart work. It is our duty as the followers of Christ to show that we speak because we are constrained so to do, and out of a heart filled with love to God and man. The great work in which we are engaged not only demands the noblest powers of the mind, but also the noblest powers of the heart.

      We all know full well that God appeals to us by His love toward us. "We love God because He first loved us." We must hence expect to commend the truth by exhibiting to others our love for them. There is vastly more to win souls in heart power than in head power. Without heart power a professed Christian is powerless for good. He is as "sounding brass-or a tinkling cymbal." In a great movement where we are compelled to stand valiantly for the truth, and to bring to the front all the intellectual powers possible, there should be care lest the heart might be neglected. In our great work then, let heart power always accompany mind power, then we may expect progress toward the restoration of that primitive unity of which the Apostle so beautifully speaks--"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."--Eph. iv. 4-6.

      It is also our duty as those who plead for the restoration of primitive Christianity to beware of speculation, of attaching great importance to mere matters of opinion. Every student of history is fully aware how fearfully the Church has suffered from a persistent spirit of speculation, theories wrought out and earnestly contended for irrespective of the good they are likely to accomplish. Do we not find some so fond of a particular theory as to disturb the Church by its presentation, when, at the same time, the fruit of it is anything else than "love, joy, peace, long suffering, goodness, gentleness, fidelity, meekness, temperance." Speculation is opposed to spirituality. If the mind be wholly occupied with some pet theory, there cannot be a proper advance in those things which make the Christian life so great and noble. The Christian life is one that is supported not by theory but by practice. The Christian man who has some peculiar notion of truth, which he will confess not to be necessary to a growth in godliness, should keep it to himself. When he sees that those who entertain an opposite view, live just as godly as he himself--particular care should be taken to keep to himself what cannot profit others. We, of course, speak of those who have entered the kingdom of Christ. We are aware that men of one theme, one notion about some peculiar teaching, lose much of their influence among their brethren, and we say rightly too. The teacher who becomes known as a man always dwelling upon some one peculiar notion not held by his brethren is sure to be a one-sided man, sure to become an extremist--and extremists have no business teaching in the Church of Christ.

      It is a sad thing to see a man in the Church using his talents constantly to establish some peculiar doctrine, which if established would make no one live a life of greater devotion to Christ. It becomes our duty to set our faces unflinchingly against speculative tenets. The Gospel needs to be preached in its simplicity to the world as the apostles preached it. The churches when formed need to be taught "to observe all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded," as the apostles taught the churches in their days. Speculation is also fraught with danger to those who love it and engage in it. It has a powerful tendency to cause men to be greatly lacking in the spirit of Christ; it puffs them up and they become proud in their own conceits, so much so that they well nigh come to the conclusion that wisdom will die with them. It is painful to observe how dogmatism lays hold upon such persons. In speaking upon their favorite theme they become excessively impatient of contradiction. This very impatience is enough to show anyone that these persons have no very great confidence in their position, and consider it themselves a speculation. Dogmatism is almost always lacking in those beautiful traits which must necessarily belong to the Christian, such as "meekness, gentleness, temperance." The whole explanation of the matter is that those who deal in speculative subjects neglect the heart. Such persons should look well to their state before God.

      We must all remember that there is no salvation in a theory, but Christ Jesus is our Saviour. If we are the brethren of Christ it is but natural to suppose we should resemble Him--we should be like Him. We firmly believe no man can be like Christ who fails to study the lesson which He has so clearly and beautifully laid down--"Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest unto your souls." Meekness and lowliness of heart are lessons always to he studied, never neglected. We would say then that it is our duty to beware of speculation and speculative spirits; speculation neither does the Church nor the teachers themselves any good, but both positive harm.

      Again, it is our duty to study very diligently the Word of God. Our plea for primitive Christianity can never be successful unless our knowledge of God's Word be commensurate with our

opportunities. We can never impress upon the minds of others what we but imperfectly apprehend. Hence, we who make the plea, which distinguishes us from other professedly religious people, should especially be well rooted and grounded in the great truths which God has revealed to us. Our pioneer brethren in America, in years gone by, were accustomed to study their Bibles day and night; when they were about their daily toil they had at least a New Testament in their pockets ready to persuade or confute as the case might require. The result was they were built up in their most holy faith, and the Gospel had free course and was glorified. We should gain clear and distinct conceptions of the truth, so that we may plead for it intelligently. A Christian should ever have the great truths of Christianity so firmly in his mind that they may be readily used when occasion requires.

      It is our duty to be distinguished for our practical Christianity, for spirituality, piety, prayerfulness, etc. No great reformatory movement can have any abiding effect unless its excellence is shown in the characters of those engaged in it. No truth can be plainer than that a plea is powerless, unless it is exemplified by those who make it. As we have one of the noblest pleas, so should our Church life be one of the noblest. Would that all appreciated the nature of the great work in which we are engaged. Let our Church-life be in accordance with our plea. Let all become more and more like our great Exemplar. Christianity in its purity is a power. When theory and practice are right, what power on earth can stand against it? "If God be for us who can be against us?" said the apostle. If theory and practice both are right then we may rest assured that God will be with us. If these be separated and either lightly esteemed, then are we not standing valiantly for the truth, nor can we be said to be "contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." May the Lord help us all nobly to perform our duty.

T. J. G.      

A.C.P., 1878-1879, pp. 25-28.

      On Tuesday evening, June 18th, the writer had the privilege of hearing one of the ablest lectures to which he has ever listened. The lecturer was the Rev. James Jefferis, L.L.B.; the subject--"The Enfranchisement of Labour;" and the place, the Protestant Hall, Castlereagh Street, Sydney. The audience was large, and as appreciative as it was large; for, although the delivery of the lecture occupied two full hours, the interest was sustained without flagging till the close. The lecture has since been published by the Young Men's Christian Association, under whose auspices it was delivered. Mr. Jefferis, in closing, referred to the alienation of the working classes from modern Christianity; and the following passage from the printed copy which lies before me will not be without interest to the readers of this magazine:--

      "If I were asked to give the chief causes of the present alienation of the workers from modern Christendom, I would be inclined to attribute it to defective modes of worship, to wrong methods of teaching, and, above all, to a want of that genuine spirit of brotherhood which ought to be found within the Christian Church in higher degree than anywhere else upon earth. Our worship is not what it should be. Embroidered garments and theatrical posturings, and wax candles burning dimly in the daylight, are offensive to a manly piety; and the worship of the free churches as so wanting in the expression of united devotion, so centres itself upon one man, who is the sole mouthpiece of the congregation, that many cannot and will not bear it. Neither is our mode of teaching what it should be. There is undue reticence in the pulpit about matters of the utmost importance to man's life. There is too much time spent by religious teachers in explaining the Gospel, which does not need much, instead of applying the Gospel, which is very greatly needed. Christianity belongs to the whole life--national, political, social--and the pulpit has a right to speak out on all the grave questions that affect society; not, however, to engage in the strife of parties, not to attempt the immediate solution of problems that are agitating men, but to lay down principles and truths which. are of eternal obligation, by which senates, and chambers of commerce, and trades unions ought to be guided, and by which, too, the conduct of the individual man ought to be determined in every department of life. We do not want to .secularize religious teaching. What we want is to imbue all so-called secular subjects with the spirit of Christ." pp. 21, 22.

      Although inclined to give only the first half of this passage, the fear of unconsciously doing the lecturer injustice has constrained me not to break up the paragraph, but transfer it in full. As a people, we rest our faith and practice entirely on the Word of God. In worship and ministry we recognize no human authority whatever. The foregoing extract, emanating from the source from which it does, yields evidence which is altogether in corroboration of our plea in one or two important particulars. The result should be to lead us to adhere to the position we have taken up with unfaltering tenacity, as being that to which the demands of the age and the requirements of Scripture are alike pointing; while those who are friendly, and yet not with us, should, in view of the acknowledged failure of the popular systems to reach the masses, be led to give our pleadings more favourable, as well as a more earnest, hearing. It may be objected that we have not succeeded much better, if, indeed, so well; and the objection may be admitted without invalidating our plea. This may be due to two causes. First, to the timidity of many who, although

convinced that our position is the only truly scriptural one, are so wedded to popular systems as to stand coldly and critically aloof; for, too often, those who are enlightened by our literature or our public teaching leave us to struggle on in weakness, instead of coming nobly forward to the help of the Lord--to the help of the Lord against the mighty. For our weakness, in so far as it may be traced to this source, neither we, nor God's truth, is responsible; and the fact that God, by the stem lessons of Providence, is driving the sects around us towards a position into which they will not allow themselves to be led, is a circumstance which no wise man will ignore. Our comparative weakness, however, cannot be entirely attributed to those outside our ranks; the responsibility in that direction is very great, but, in my opinion, by far the heavier share of the responsibility lies at our own door. We have not risen, as a brotherhood, to a true appreciation of our distinctive principles--as a consequence, those principles have very often been unworthily represented. It is a long time since we learned that the religious organizations of the nineteenth century, whether bond or free, were "wanting in the expression of united devotion."

      In terms, not always tempered by Christian charity, we have denounced the worship which "centres itself upon one man, who is the sole mouthpiece of the congregation;" and in terms as uncompromising, but more carefully chosen, we must continue our-testimony against any and every system which would perpetuate this state of things. The original order of the Church, with reference to liberty of teaching, must be constantly expounded, and as constantly documented with appropriate and ample Scripture testimony; but while doing this the heart of the whole brotherhood should be aroused to a deeper sense of the tremendous responsibility which a restoration of the ancient order of things in this matter implies. That it is the privilege of every brother to take part in the teaching, who is competent to edify the church, has been earnestly advocated; but the responsibility attaching to this is an aspect of the question which has, to a large extent, been either overlooked or ignored. Having discarded the one man who is the centre and sole mouth-piece of the congregation as being at once unscriptural and inadequate to the requirements of the case, we have placed ourselves under an imperial obligation to provide something better. A failure at this point will be an insuperable barrier to our progress, and must in time prove fatal to our plea. Some who join our ranks will return to the sects where they were more edified than they have been since they came amongst us. And the next generation, while remaining loyal to the truth, perhaps, in other things, will look for an evangelist or "a pastor," who shall do all the speaking, on the ground that if this is not exactly scriptural it is the best thing possible under the circumstances.

      The remaining part of this article will be devoted to one or two considerations which may be helpful to the application of our principles, and obviate a danger not entirely confined to the imagination of the writer. Privileges bring with them corresponding responsibilities. Having a broader platform than other religious bodies, we must seek to use our opportunities for teaching in the way most adapted to meet the end of all teaching--the edification of the body. This implies that above all others we should be a thoughtful and studious people; we must cultivate habits of reading and reflection; every brother among us should feel that he is sacredly bound to improve his mind to the utmost of his power. Among the denominations the members engage the minister to think for them in things spiritual, and they look to him for all needful spiritual instruction. The result is that they feel no qualms of conscience if they have spent the whole week in the pursuits of business and the acquisition of wealth. But in a self-edifying community it is different. We cannot transfer our teaching obligations to another individual--paid or unpaid. Under these circumstances we must devote a part of our time to make suitable preparation for teaching and exhortation. The brother who will not do this must either make up his mind not to speak in our meetings at all, or he will afflict the audience more by his talking than he can edify them by his teaching; and while the church patiently suffers the word of exhortation, the friendly hearer, who is not yet a member, will go home pondering the question whether the one man system is not after all preferable to this. Speaking generally, the purposes of the teaching will be better secured by a previous arrangement as to what brother or brethren shall undertake it on a particular day. There are some who object to any pre-arrangement of this sort as being a violation of the primitive order. Now there may be cases where any previous arrangement would be unnecessary; as, for instance, where a church possesses quite a number of gifted and experienced men. Such churches do exist here and there. Where there are churches so highly favoured let the whole thing be open by all means; but such churches will always be the exception, not the rule; and it yet remains to be proved that a church of limited edifying power cannot arrange a teaching plan without an infringement of the New Testament order. The fourteenth chapter of first Corinthians has been brought forward to prove that the platform should be entirely open; but this by no means follows from the Apostle's remarks. It is a first principle in logic that no conclusion can be broader than its premises. This conclusion is very much broader than the premises warrant. The chapter in question regulates the action of inspired men-prophets. If we had prophets among us it would certainly be wrong to step in with any pre-arrangement, such as would prevent them from speaking when the Spirit moved. We are left, however, to edify one another by the faithful and prayerful use of our natural abilities; this necessarily implies reading and meditation--reading and meditation require time, and time requires pre-arrangement. First Corinthians fourteenth settles one thing,--there was no one man system at Corinth. The teaching should be open to all who are competent to edify the Church, but the circumstances at Corinth, being exceptional rather than normal, nothing beyond this is settled; and that

the circumstances were exceptional is simply indisputable, for the supernatural gifts they possessed passed away with the apostolic age. So lone, therefore, as no brother is shut out who is able to teach, all the requirements of the case are fairly met. Whether those who teach shall do so with or without a previous arrangement is left for each church to determine; no law is infringed either one way or the other. Granting that a teaching plan may be liable to some objections, may not even weightier objections be tabled against what is commonly called the open system? By this method the Church gets her teachers by a kind of experimenting, for which Scripture furnishes no precedent. To get teachers the Church must hear all, accept the competent, and put down the incompetent; but before all this is done the time of the Church has been wasted, weak members offended, and sometimes great and lasting injury done to the incompetent brethren who had unfortunately, used the liberty extended to them. Not only is this experimenting on all competent and incompetent, without warrant, it is contrary to all the teaching we have with reference to the filling up of the various ministries in the Church. Elders must be known to possess the qualifications before appointment; deacons must first be proved; is the Church, then, left to find her teachers in this hap-hazard way? Surely the sound principle that underlies the arrangements as to elders and deacons does not break down just at this point. Experience and observation have taught me that some such arrangement as that recommended in this paper is the only effectual means of preserving the liberty of teaching recognized among us, and which cannot be set aside without destroying the scriptural character of the Lord's-day morning service. I have found that where the church has no speaking plan the teaching has almost invariably devolved on me. The usual invitation to all having been given, and no one responding, the presiding brother falls back upon the evangelist as a matter of course. Some evangelists do not much object to this, and even those who seriously object to it will grow tired lecturing the church as to its own duty in the matter. The consequence is that he simply takes to it at last as a necessity--the least, perhaps of two evils; and the evangelist being put in a false position, and being but human like his brethren, what wonder if he should in time come to regard that as a right which, at the first, he only undertook as a necessity, and the state of things which has prepared him for this, will to an equal extent have prepared the way for a general acquiescence in this view of the matter.

2. BRITISH AND AMERICAN TRADITIONS

      Issues debated between British-born colonials and American evangelists were concerned with the practice of mutual edification, the authority, relative to each other, of elders and preachers, the question of who is eligible to partake of the communion, the acceptance of money from the unimmersed and the question of whether or not the decisions of annual meetings are binding on constituent churches. Documentation on the latter issue will be treated later.

      a. MUTUAL EDIFICATION

A.C.P., 1878-1879, pp. 171-173.

      As to what constitutes the public worship of God we can be in no manner of doubt. Every item of it is given in the New Testament with the precision of infinite wisdom. The Lord's supper is the central figure, around which gather the acts of devotion. From this the worship draws its inspiration. All that is in the worship (or should be in it) is inspired by the death of Christ. He is the subject of the memorials spread upon the table, the inspiration of the songs of praise, and the ground of all supplication and hope. The only forms in this worship are those that show forth His death till He comes again, and which are necessary to express the feelings and sentiments of the mind and heart in prayer and praise, thanksgiving, exhortation, and teaching. Hence, when the Church came together on the Lord's day, it was to commemorate the Lord's death (not to hear a sermon). When thus assembled the Scriptures were read, prayers were offered, "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" were sung, teaching and exhortation given. This done, the Church as a body retired to meet again on the next first day of the week. There was nothing in this worship during the days of inspired men, taken from the pompous ceremonies of Judaism or Paganism--nothing of temple or altar service. "The worship of the Church is not ritualistic, nor symbolic, as was the Jewish temple service, but spiritual, having for its object the glory of God, and the spiritual growth of His people, by which they may be prepared for the worship which awaits the saints in heaven. Every reason and consideration, therefore, points to the total exclusion from Christian worship

of all that God has repudiated by not having ordained it when He established the Church. ("The Remedial System," by Dr. Christopher of St. Louis, Mo.)

      Let us notice each act of worship separately:--

      1. The reading of the Sacred Scriptures. This was, doubtless, at the first a prominent feature of the worship, but it is now much neglected (in U.S.). The preacher reads a chapter hurriedly, and the people listen indifferently, do not always even hear it, but look upon the reading as a matter of course--something to be gone through with before the sermon comes on, oblivious of the fact that the Word of God gives us the thought and spirit of worship. In reading the Word God talks with us, and if we hear not Him, how can we hope that He will hear us? Not only should we hear, but we should take our Bibles with us and see what is read. The practice would aid us in many ways; it would serve to fix the Word in the mind and heart; and, giving attention to it, even for a season, might save us the inconvenience of looking in the Old Testament to find the epistle of Jude.

      2. The prayers of God's people in the assembly, for themselves and for the world, have loosened fetters and swung open iron gates, have shaken earth and enlisted all heaven in their behalf.

      3. The psalms, hymns; and spiritual songs, teaching, and admonishing one another, sung in the spirit and with the melody of the heart, waft the soul to God as on a tide of glory, and express in their pure and sweet delight what flattering speech alone cannot tell. Formality and stilted performance are death to this and to every other act of the worship of Him who is spirit. As soon read the prayers, long drawn out, and enacted by Parliament, as to stifle the soul in song, or introduce machinery to aid in spiritual devotion. The necessity of forms, and elegance of utterance, "to meet the demands of cultivated taste," was, I'm told, once argued in a stage coach by one who read his prayers. The discussion of the elegant, of the aesthetical in worship became animated--the Episcopal preacher all the while claiming that not to make a mockery, to avoid mistakes and vain repetition in prayer, it was not simply expedient, but absolutely necessary to have a prayer book, and read the prayers. A fellow-traveller raised his head, as if from napping, and desired to ask a question. "Certainly," said the Rev. reader of prayers, "If I can give you any information I will be most happy." "Well, I just wanted to know who held the candle for Jonah while he read his prayers in the whale's belly?"

      The true worshipper wishes nothing, needs nothing, in lifting his heart to God, except what is spiritual, and what has been sanctified by appointment from heaven.

      4. The exhortation and teaching, which in the worship of God is mutual to the extent of ability, has been among Americans at least, almost entirely excluded from the worship (excepting what the preacher gives in his sermon), and is sent off to some obscure corner of a prayer-meeting, and even there is not brought out unless the preacher gives an exhortation to that effect.

      We lose power, we fail of enthusiasm, we quench the spirit, we foster vanity, and create itching ears by this persistent and unwarranted exclusion of exhortation, and substituting, therefore, the inevitable sermon.

      To be preached at every Lord's-day morning and night, to listen for ever to one man talking, to hear one man pray and say Amen to his own prayers is to be deprived of the communion of the saints in a very important regard. That the primitive churches had each teachers and exhorters aside from those who gave themselves to the ministry of the Word is simply certain. In shutting these out of the worship we shut out much spiritual enjoyment, we make dwarfs of the members, we obstruct the flow of sympathy and brotherly love, and we impair the health of the whole body. The evil of reducing all teaching and exhortation to the teaching of one man in his sermons, is beginning to be extensively and keenly felt, even among American churches. The sin of it cannot much longer be kept hid. I know brethren who had no worship as a church, no meeting of any kind for four consecutive months because, forsooth, no preacher happened to come that way; and when at length the preacher did come, and they gave him all of ten dollars for coming, the very soul and inspiration of worship was wanting. They had failed to prepare the emblems of the Lord's death. They met emphatically to hear the sermon, not to worship. They needed a real good sermon on what it is to be a Christian. A young lady said; "I do wish they (the church) would hire a preacher. I haven't been to preaching for months. I do wish I could attend preaching:" All of which set me to wondering whether she ever knew what is meant by the worship of God. Preaching has its place, and mine is not the hand to snatch from it the glory of its exaltation, even if I had the power; but to the public worship of the Church it does not belong.

      It is my deliberate conviction that the preachers themselves are the greatest hindrance to the edification of the Church in the United States. I mean in their everlasting preaching on every occasion--preaching on the Lord's--day before partaking of the supper, preaching at night, preaching at prayer-meeting, so that the churches are nearly preached to death. Although the brethren universally, I believe, hold that on the first day of the week the brethren should meet to break bread, the duty and privilege are recognized theoretically among us; yet, on an average, I dare say not more than one church in a dozen does thus meet in the absence of a preacher. This troubles me more than I can tell. How to remedy it is a monstrous difficulty. Our papers and our preachers--all that I know anything about advocate the meeting on the first day, but then the preaching taking the place of mutual edification has so far quenched the spirit and stifled the energies of the body that it is almost a helpless thing, not able to stand alone. The

preacher now is expected to bear the responsibility of church affairs in this country, and if the church be not prosperous, with scarcely a man in it who is active, why then it is the preacher's fault, and on his devoted head comes down the censure. Well, it is deplorable. I am no grumbler, but I do recognize this wrong, and have exhorted the churches everywhere to correct it. I mean to help them to correct the evil wherever I have the chance.

      Talking with a farmer I learnt his abhorrence of priest-craft thus: A traveller asked him what he thought on a certain religious subject. The farmer told his thoughts, and then asked the traveller for his mind. "Oh!" said the traveller, "I don't think on such subjects. There is a man paid to think for me." The farmer pitied this deluded Roman Catholic in his slavery of body and soul to a priest. We were near a church building, and I asked the farmer about the worship conducted there. He said the preacher came "once a month." "Do you not meet except when you have a preacher?" "No! we meet once a month." I insisted that he, and the people there, occupied the same position practically that the deluded Papist holds theoretically, and that he was wasting his sentimental sighs for the poor priest-ridden Romanist. He admitted the truth in the case, and yet I fear he will go on attending the meeting just and only as the preacher makes his appearance. The preacher is to do the preaching and praying, end if he can sing they would have him do the singing for them also, and when death visits the flock they wish the preacher to "preach the departed to heaven."

      We are becoming a priest-ridden people unconsciously. I do hope and pray that the brethren in Australia will not fall into this grievous error. Caution is needed; for pride, worldly-mindedness, and itching ears, which often attend prosperity, will surely induce the trouble of which I speak.

A.C.P., 1879, p. 62.

      62, BRUNSWICK STREET, FITZROY, August 16th, 1879--It is with pleasure that I am able to forward a cheering report, in relation to the progress of the cause in connection with the church in Langridge Street, Collingwood. Towards the close of last year Bro. Thomas Porter commenced his labours here; the first few months appeared to be a sowing time, but now is the reaping time. For some weeks past, after the evening discourses, numbers have come forward and made the good confession. Since he commenced his labours fifty-six in all have been added to the church. The chapel is always well filled, and the week-night meetings are largely attended, showing an apparent increase in spiritual life; those cheering results are hailed with the greatest satisfaction. Bro. Porter is a stirring preacher, having a good hold on the attention, and having the sympathy of the people. The fact of taking a lively interest in the temperance movement has greatly extended his influence for good, and he is held in high esteem by those in sympathy therewith, which manifestly gives effect to the more important work of evangelization in thus gaining the ear of the people.

R. DICK.      

E.O., 1879, pp. 3306-307.

      MELBOURNE--"The Australian Christian Advocate," in reporting meetings in reference to the church in Collingwood, says:--"The officers of the church at Collingwood having accepted a stipulation made by the Evangelist labouring with them (Bro. T. Porter) that, before he would accept a re-engagement, the uncontrolled disposition of the platform upon Lord's-day mornings should be given to him; this being considered to be a step fraught with serious consequences affecting the welfare of the church as a whole, a meeting was convened for the 7th of July, at Lygon Street Chapel, to take the matter into consideration. A circular was forwarded to all the churches in and around Melbourne, specifying the object of the meeting, and inviting all interested in the subject to be present. At the time appointed, a large number assembled at the meeting-house. It was resolved upon the motion of Bro. Dickens that Bro. A. Shaw take the chair.

      The meeting having been opened by prayer, the Chairman in a brief address pointed out the object of the meeting, and commended the question to the thoughtful consideration of the brethren. Bro. Forbes of North Fitzroy, was appointed Secretary. Bro. Sinclair explained the cause which led to the meeting being called together, namely, that an advertisement appearing in the daily papers of the 7th of June, to the effect that Bro. Porter was to preach at the chapel, Langridge Street, Collingwood, upon the following Lord's day, both morning and evening, resulted in enquiries being made which elicited the fact that Bro. Porter had made this a condition of his re-engagement with the church, which acceded to his request, the truth of which statement brethren present would testify; and that as the officers of the church at North Fitzroy were about to take action in the matter, it was thought to be advisable that any action in reference to it should emanate from the church as a whole, rather than from individual congregations. Bro. Yates stated that he had been thrown into the company of Bro. Porter during the recent

protracted meetings at Prahran, at which Bro. Porter had kindly assisted. On the evening of the tea meeting, held at the close of those services, he was in personal converse with Bro. Porter, and referred to what he had heard concerning the matter before the meeting. He (Bro. Yates) remarked, that it was very likely that he (Bro. Porter) would hear more about the matter before he was done with it. Bro. Porter replied 'that he was prepared to justify and defend his conduct. He had made it a condition of his reengagement with the church that he should have the uncontrolled disposition of the platform on Lord's day mornings, and the church had acceded to his condition.' As he (Bro. Yates) had received this statement from Bro. Porter's own lips, and under circumstances that he could not have been mistaken as to what was said, he considered that there was no room for doubt as to what had been done by the church at Collingwood in the matter. Bro. McGregor proposed the following resolution--'That this meeting, having learned with deep pain and regret that the church at Collingwood has surrendered to the sole control of an individual brother the teaching of the church in its weekly assembly, and regarding the adoption of that course as contrary to the teaching of the Word of God, as subversive of the welfare of the church, and as a distinct infringement upon a Divine and cherished institution of the church, and as inevitably involving in its practice dissension, confusion;--and division of the body, respectfully and fraternally urges upon that church the necessity of--in faithfulness to the Word of God, in consideration of the welfare of the church, in conservation of the institutions appertaining to the Christian priesthood, and in sympathy with the expressed desire of our common Lord for the union of His people--retracing their steps in a path a continuance wherein must of a necessity be fraught with such disastrous consequences.' Bro. McGregor expressed the sorrow which he felt upon learning the step which the church at Collingwood had taken. His connection with the brotherhood extended over thirty years. He had heard of departures from the primitive order and faith; but he had thought that the brethren in these colonies had been so well instructed and grounded in the truth, as to leave no fear of a similar departure here. He looked upon 'Mutual teaching' as a part of 'the faith,' the teaching of Scripture being clear and emphatic upon the subject; he deprecated the action taken by the Collingwood Church as tending to mar the unity of faith, and as against the Lord's prayer for the unity of His people. Bro. Blair seconded the resolution. The meeting ultimately adjourned to admit of the presence of Bro. Porter, who, however, intimated that owing to an engagement he could not be present. After considerable conversation the resolution, as given above, was adopted.

      b. ELDERS AND EVANGELISTS

B.M.H.,, 1869, pp. 427-428.

      GROTE STREET, ADELAIDE--"The once flourishing Church in Grote Street is now numbered among the things that were. It no longer exists. The Meeting-house is sold, and closed to the Church. Some of its members have joined other religious bodies, some have united with H.S. Earl in White's Rooms, some have returned to the world, and about sixty of us meet in a room we have hired for the purpose, resolved by the help of God to bear testimony for the truth; and, though deeply humbled, live down the reproach. * * * * "Two years ago, last March, we were a happy, hard-working, and prosperous Church, about 215 members, and the Lord was continually adding to our numbers. We had a chapel which cost about 1,200 pounds, on which was a debt of only 170 pounds. Now the Church is broken up, the chapel sold for half what it cost, and for purposes of worship, closed. Such is the end of the chapter." These two extracts are from two of several letters sent to the B. H. on this painful subject. The several letters are from parties who view the matter very differently, and who are at opposites as to where they place the blame. In the fact that the Church is scattered they all agree, and that the immediate cause is conflict between Elders and their supporters and those who adhere to the Evangelist. Each side, of course, throws the blame upon the other. It is certain that were we to publish the letters the result would be counter statements to end no one knows when. We simply record the fact, and leave those who are nearer the scene of action to determine as to the blame. The best service we can render to the parties concerned, and to all others, is to bring into careful survey, during the coming year, the duties and relationships of Elders and Evangelists. This we shall hope to do so as to afford a useful contribution toward the settlement of questions which have tended to disunion. Our promised Articles on Ministry will (D.V.) cover the ground.

Ed. B. H.      

A.C.P., 1870-1871, pp. 53-56.

      In connection with this exceedingly important subject much may and has been thought, written, and said, and it is a subject which demands the most profound attention and study, seeing that so much, so very much mischief has arisen through mistakes and misapprehensions as to the scripture teachings upon it,

and in the appointing of the men to office that were neither qualified to fill it, nor to discharge its high and holy functions as the Holy Spirit requires. Some things are obvious in connection with this subject to every careful reader of the New Testament. Let us enumerate a few as briefly as possible. The first and model Church in Jerusalem had its elders (Acts xi. 30). The apostles and first evangelists made efforts to appoint elders in every city (Titus i. 5), and in every Church (Acts xiv. 23). There was a plurality of elders appointed by them (Titus i. 5; Acts xiv. 23, Acts xx. 17-38), they were appointed because possessing certain qualifications (1 Tim. iii. 1-13; Titus i. 5-9), they were to take the oversight, to rule, to fee, and be examples to the flock (1 Peter v. 1-3; Heb. xiii. 7-17; 1 Tim. v. 17; 1 Thess. v. 12-13; Acts xx. 28). And while it was required of elders thus to rule, guard, and admonish, and teach the Church, it was required of the Church that they submit to their influence and teachings (Heb. xiii. 7-17. 1 Thess v. 12-13). All these things being obvious, we need not waste words upon them, for in connection with them it is difficult to conceive either a mistake or a misunderstanding, except through shameful and sinful ignorance, or wilful perversion, or disregard of Scripture teachings upon it, with neither of these will I now stop to parley. Some other things, however, are not quite so obvious, and here it is that difficulty, mistake, and consequent mischief often arises. It is not, in the first place, obvious that the term "elder" is confined to the bishop, pastor, or overseer in the New Testament. That it is applied to them is obvious, and that bishops, pastors or overseers are elders is also obvious. But may not the deacon be an elder also? Some regard the term elder as they do the word officer, as being applicable alike to all who hold office in the Church; in other words, that elder is not a specific term as bishop or deacon, but a generic term inclusive of both. This they take to be supported by several facts and statements hard to account for, or understood otherwise. Firstly--In the Acts of Apostles we read of the appointing of elders, but not of the appointing of bishops and deacons. This is at once easy to understand, if the term elder includes both. Secondly--We read in Acts of Apostles of money matters being committed to elders (Acts xi. 30), which is generally understood to be the charge and work of deacons, this is also plain if deacons and bishops are alike elders. Thirdly--We read of elders ruling where it is necessarily implied they were not teachers (1 Tim. v. 17). This will agree well with the idea that elder is not a specific but a generic term. One of the essentials to oversight and feeding the flock is certainly "aptness to teach," but there are elders who rule who do not teach. Then certainly there are elders who are not bishops. Peter calls himself an elder (1 Peter. v. 1), and his work--as also the work of the twelve apostles--is called the work of the "ministry (diaconias) and apostleship" (Acts i. 17-25). Then "the seven" who were specially appointed in Jerusalem to "serve tables" and to attend money matters, are not officially designated deacons in Acts vi. 1-6, but sometime after when money matters are mentioned, and an official title is given to those who were to receive and attend to them, they are called elders (Acts xi. 30). All these facts fall into their places without an effort if deacons and bishops together constitute the eldership; but how are they reconcilable otherwise? One remarkable fact in modern church history is worthy of notice:--bishops and deacons invariably co-operate in all churches ruled by the apostles in all church matters, as though they constituted its presbytery or eldership. How it could be otherwise with office bearers, so as to work amicably and efficiently for the welfare of the Church, it is difficult to conceive; and working so we have a practical illustration of elders ruling in the Church, some of whom labor in the word and doctrine as bishops, and others who rule but do not labor thus, as deacons. Evidently then, such practice is in agreement with Scripture teaching, and should be understood and acted upon by all who acknowledge the authority and revere the author of the book of God.

      Another matter in connection with bishops and pastors does not appear to be obvious to many, viz., whose duty it is to elect and appoint them? That the apostles and first evangelists appointed or ordained them is at once apparent from Acts xiv. 23; 1 Tim. iii. 14-15; and Titus i. 5. But Acts vi. 3-5 clearly makes a distinction between choosing and ordaining. Those whom the Church chose the apostles ordained. Should not such a distinction be everywhere preserved? It does not follow that because apostles and evangelists ordained elders, that the Church did not itself choose or recommend them. It is conceded that modern evangelists, when instrumental in planting churches, are the proper persons to appoint elders in such churches; but is their appointment to be inclusive or exclusive of their election? God's Word nowhere teaches that apostles or evangelists both chose and ordained elders in the churches. Then, on what authority can the modern evangelist undertake both? Timothy was recommended to Paul before he was taken as Paul's fellow-laborer (Acts xvi. 1-3); and in the absence of proof it is as just to infer that elders, bishops, and deacons were elected by the Church and appointed by the apostles or evangelists to the work for which they were chosen, as to infer that they were both elected and appointed by the apostles or evangelists. As there is room and reason for choice as to the method of procedure in this matter, I should, without hesitation, prefer the election to be made by the Church, and the appointment to be made by the evangelist, for such a course has more wisdom in it to commend it to the thoughtful than self-appointment to office--the Church alone appointing to office, or the evangelist alone electing and appointing to office. Let the brother first show that he "desires the work of oversight," then let the Church elect him to the work, and the evangelist appoint him to it as the Scripture requires, and everything is complete, and the work, when done, eminently scriptural. Certainly no one should be chosen who does not "desire the work," for he is to undertake it "not of constraint, but willingly;" and the

language "not of constraint," implies the desire expressed by others that he should undertake it. He may comply with their wish, but must not be urged to it. The Church, then, has the privilege to elect, and the evangelist to appoint the one who "desires the work of oversight," and is duly qualified for it. But here, again, another difficulty arises as to the qualification necessary for the work of oversight. Some contend that nothing short of the qualifications laid down by the Spirit, in 1 Tim. iii. 1-7 and in Titus i. 5-9, should admit any one to the work; others contend that those who come nearest to these qualifications should be chosen. Generally speaking, those who contend for the latter, endeavor to make out that no church is properly organized which has not its bishops or pastors; as this is just a little more than Scripture teaches, it should be regarded as an "untaught question," a mere opinion; moreover, it appears there were churches in the apostles' days without them, how long, it may be difficult to say, but without them, evidently, for a second tour is made by the apostle to ordain them. Had it been the Spirit's intention that those who came nearest to these qualifications in every church should be chosen as the elders of the Church, there would have been no necessity whatever for delay in appointing them. But on such a supposition (for it is clearly suppositious), what hinders the appointment of men to office in the Church in every respect unfitted for it? Where is the stopping place when once these qualifications are viewed thus loosely? The Church must have elders, her best men must be set apart for the work, but as she is literally destitute of good men we must appoint bad. Such is the reasoning of many, but evidently such a conclusion is altogether independent of the Spirit's premises--"A bishop must be blameless as the steward of God." Is it not unfortunate that the Spirit did not say right out in all plainness, every church must have its elders (bishops and deacons), and must appoint her best men to these offices? Such a plain statement would have settled the question authoritatively; and why is it not regarded as settled authoritatively as it is? Ali! this is a heart-searching question. Many desire the work of oversight, who are outside or below these great qualifications. They would be what they are not fitted to be. Some aspire to office as though they claimed it as a reward for the services they have rendered the Church in its struggling days. When kept out of the position to which they aspire, by those who clearly see their unfitness for it, they are sorely chastened and much hurt, for they consider themselves ill treated. Unsanctified ambition for office in the Church is of all things the most to be dreaded disqualification for office. Even if the aspirant for office deserved other treatment, would not his enduring wrong patiently and meekly, when "suffering wrongfully" most certainly bring its reward? But such a trial would be so exceedingly severe! Just so, and so high and holy a work makes it imperative, that all aspiring to it, should be severely tried before permitted to enter upon it. No man is known until he is tried. And as the elder is to be an example to the flock, it is above all things necessary that his fitness be thoroughly tested, ere he is placed in so exceedingly responsible a position. But with regard to these qualifications; if it is not really necessary that all be seen in the aspirant for office, which may be overlooked? And if one is overlooked in one case, may not all in like manner, and for the same reasons? If the principle, let each church choose her best men, is to be acted upon, what will prevent her choosing men altogether wanting in each and all these qualifications? And what must be the consequence of lowering the high standard of office-bearers thus? Evidently, nothing but disaster and death to pure and undefiled religion in the Church! "Like priest, like people:" as is the example, so will be the copy. The Holy Spirit seeks to elevate the standard, by making a high one imperative for eldership in the Church. Imperative, I say, yet not I, but the Holy Spirit, for "must be" cannot be shown to mean may be or need not be. We need a new revelation before anyone can be appointed to the eldership, scripturally, who is wanting any one of the qualifications laid down by the Spirit. If we would stand on solid ground on this, as in other matters, we must not weaken or destroy the "must be" of the Spirit. When once it can be proved that "must be" may be interpreted to mean may be, or may not be, then we may open our mouths boldly and say the sinner need neither believe, repent, nor be immersed in order to salvation. Great mischief will certainly follow when trampling or trifling with the Spirit's "must be's."

T. W.      

A.C.P., 1868-1869, pp. 98-101.

      Every one who gives the matter careful thought, will arrive at the conviction that our preachers ought to be well prepared, educated, and trained for the office, so that they may not have cause to be ashamed of their work, nor we of them. We think, then, all who devote themselves to the work of an Evangelist should have their minds cultivated by a good education. In every pursuit which required much intellectual

effort, a sound and liberal education is found indispensable. Training schools, then, are of great value, and merit the support of all good men. It is only adequate and thoroughly sound teaching that can meet the wants of men's souls. Still we do not hold that all preparation is to be found in schools and colleges. Every student must depend chiefly on his personal efforts to perfect his education, as the learning of the schools is only elementary to that instruction which will procure that measure of fitness necessary to a preacher, and which can only be obtained by the knowledge of God's word. Other knowledge obtained at schools is useful chiefly to inure the faculties of the mind to greater acuteness of perception, and clearness, and accuracy of description. Educated mind is more powerful for active effort; but we think that the required training need not be a tedious or expensive process. As to the knowledge of the original tongues, we think the utility of them is often overrated; it is, however, of advantage. We have among us men in whom we have confidence, who can certify to us of their own knowledge as to the correctness of the translation of the Bible, or point to us where it is at fault; but this learning is, we think, chiefly of advantage among the learned. We know the chief opposers of the truth are learned men, and that they have influence over the unthinking people. About thirty years ago, our brethren in Edinburgh, who met then in South Bridge Hall, opposite to the College, had visits paid them at their meetings, held for proclamation of the Gospel, from some young sparks from the College, who were not a little vain of their learning, and who attempted to bamboozle our preachers with Greek and Hebrew; but some of the chief brethren determined not to be done in this way, and resolutely set to work to acquire a knowledge of those languages, so that eventually when these opposers appeared, Greek met Greek in the fight, and the truth was triumphantly vindicated. Our preachers pre-eminently require to be wise as serpents; indeed, our Lord has given this precept for their special use. It would be a great mistake to commit such a work to any man of whose discretion and wisdom we were doubtful.

      Some may enquire what are the needful steps to be taken to appoint Evangelists. We suppose, then, that they must first give good proof of their competence for the work, and their success in the conversion of sinners must be their commendation to us, and seal of their ministry, and that a church, or a number of churches, can, with as little formality as possible, invite them to engage in the work, and agree to sustain them, and if the Lord's work prosper in their hands, we will judge then that the lord approves of them.

      Another matter of great interest has regard to the field of Evangelistic efforts. We think it an error to have this matter put under the direction of a committee; the preacher must esteem himself more the servant of Christ than of brethren who sustain him, and he ought to be, in great measure, free to fulfil his ministry in such a way as is likely to be productive of the best results. Christians ought to be a large-hearted people. Paul says, in commendation of the Church in Thessalonica, 'That from them sounded out the word of the Lord in Macedonia and Achaia.' Let every church emulate such a noble course of action. When we see churches having among them men able, were they but to devote their mind and energies to the work, to teach and exhort the brethren and strangers, and could afford to send out numbers of preachers to places round--sitting one Lord's-day after another, under the teaching of some superior man like as if they were dumb dogs that could not bark--we think they are tying up their talents in a napkin. Such churches have need that some strong man come among them now and again with a rod; it would be a kindness to smite them; it would be an excellent oil, and would not break their heads.

      This brings us to another matter of much practical value. If the Lord, in answer to our prayers, send us laborers to reap the harvest, it will devolve on us to support and provide for them. It has always been a rule of universal acceptance that the laborer is worthy of his wages, and we judge the reward should be adequate and liberal. We have sometimes had suspicion that with numbers in our small churches who have been long struggling for bare existence, under the mutual exhortation 'alone' plan, that the cheapness of it had its influence in reconciling them to remaining in obscurity, and with no gain on the world around. Now we think when a man gives himself to the Lord and his people in his immersion, he must henceforth regard all his substance to belong to the Lord, and to be liberally given out for the promotion of the Lord's work.

A.C.P., 1868-1869, pp. 121-122.

      We need wise men, of large experience and ability, to nip all bitterness at the root before it spring up and defile the church; to watch against dangers and temptations within and without the church; to be ready to warn, admonish, exhort, strengthen, comfort, teach, and encourage, as the exigencies of every day and of every man's case require. Pastors competent and faithful are of great value to promote and maintain purity of doctrine, and edification, peace, and prosperity of the Churches of God . . . Let us premise that the pastor's work is one for which he is only accountable to Christ and his people. Evangelists have no superiority or special oversight over them, neither have they over Evangelists. Christ hath set the members in the body as it hath pleased him; each member has his vocation, his province of duty, and its responsibilities. They who suppose that pastors are to be under surveillance to a

diocesan bishop, to a provincial presbytery, or conference, have obtained their convictions from some other source than the revelations of Jesus Christ. There is something imposing having a show of wisdom in such arrangements; but they are only commandments of men, propped up with inferences and reasonings upon fragmentary passages of scripture. Apostles, evangelists, and bishops are all shepherds or pastors; their respective offices overlap each other. Apostles even performed for a time the work of deacons in Jerusalem till a certain exigency arose that rendered it needful the labour should be laid upon others. But over all the shepherds there is only mention made of one chief or superior--Christ--and to us it clearly appears that all ecclesiastical organizations for establishing a species of authority over pastors or congregations is an invasion of the prerogative of Christ, and robs his people of their rights, and interferes with their duties. Such a state of things belongs to the spiritual Babylon, where confusion is wrought by the crude and mutable inventions of man. Thus, since men have taken in hand sitting in conclave to settle the order and administration of church government, they have enacted over and over again the scenes of the confusion of tongues at Babel, and God, in judgment, has divided and scattered them. During a somewhat long life we have seen cause to be grateful to God for not committing his people to the government of assemblies of clergymen who have manifested frequently extraordinary pugnacious propensities, contending for mastery like game cocks.

Y. Z.      

      c. THE COMMUNION QUESTION

B.M.H.,, 1861, pp. 139-140.

      I do not know the minds of the brethren in England, it not being expressed at your meeting, in reference to the correspondence between Bros. Campbell and Tickle; but from what I have heard from the brethren here, they do not feel perfectly satisfied with Bro. Campbell's reply, there being a kind of reservation in connection with the words invite or debar. No one can doubt the extensive travel of our esteemed brother; but we have to look to the records of travel as given in the Harbinger to see how the gatherings of the people are accomplished, and what are the opportunities for observation as to who are those who have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine handed down to us by the Apostles, and who are not. It tells us he was at one place to-day, another to-morrow, and arrives somewhere else on the Saturday eve, meets with the church of that place on the Lord's day and a large concourse of people. Now, only imagine the words "no debar" written on the brow of the officers of the church! Where would be the discriminating power of our brother to detect it? If the practice obtained in one instance, why not in all? So the matter appears to stand as before Bro. Tickle's letter was written. I do not insinuate that the practice does obtain, and sincerely hope it does not, but I do say, with the brethren here, that it is not altogether a satisfactory statement.

      We invite, but it is according to the precedent of the Apostle Peter, on the day of Pentecost, "Repent and be baptized." Then they that gladly received his word were baptized, were added unto them, "the church," and they continued steadfastly in the Apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer. The gist of the Epistles teach the same important and essential truths to the saints, or holy ones. "Buried with Christ in baptism." "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you," etc.

      Let the churches of Christ, whether in England, America, or Australia, seek to walk by the same rule, mind the same things. Then wilt our consistency be apparent to all, we shall be honoured by all, and be more greatly blessed by him who is above all.

C.O.C., p. 133.

      (3) The most important difference, however, between the two movements, as they finally developed, is founded upon the communion question. The old churches of Great Britain have always been very rigid in their views concerning who have a right to partake at the Lord's table. They have been, from the beginning, what are known as "strict communionists." Indeed, their practice became so rigid at this point that they finally did not hesitate to use a sort of police system by which suspected persons in the congregation were interrogated before they would be allowed to sit down with the saints at the Lord's table.

      Now it may be well not to judge of these brethren too harshly. Religious society in the United Kingdom is very different from what it is in the United States. There a state church prevails, and all the people within a certain territory were reckoned members of the church which represents that territory; consequently every person is a member of the English Parish church whether he wishes to be so or not, and he comes to realize that this membership entitles him to all privileges in the public worship. Of course, taking this view of the matter, any person who wished to do so would feel at liberty to commune

at any public service where the Lord's table was spread. It was to guard against this abuse, which came out of a territorial church, that the "Old Brethren" insisted upon what has been called "strict communion." However, they soon made strict communion stricter, if such a comparison is allowed. They not only excluded those who were not baptized believers, but also baptized believers, where these believers were known to refuse to pronounce the peculiar shibboleths which we have had under consideration. The final result has been the practical alienation of some of the best men in England from the "Old Brethren" churches, and has compelled these men to either drift hopelessly without any church affiliation, or else to unite with one of the denominations.

      d. MONEY FROM THE UNIMMERSED

C.O.C., p. 133.

      (2) Another extreme, which was less reasonable than the one just mentioned, became a cardinal feature in the practice of the "Old Brethren." Their doctrine of "mutual teaching" was bad enough, when carried to its logical consequences, but the refusal to accept any contributions, except from members of the churches, became an offense to the public as well as a weakness in the movement itself. The people of England are remarkable for one thing, namely, they do not care to go to church at all and occupy a seat without contributing in some way for the privilege. It seems to be a sort of conscience that every churchgoer in the United Kingdom must give something, however small, at every service he attends, and to be denied this sacred duty is more than the average Englishman can stand. The practice of the "Old Brethren," in this respect, at once shut out the people from attending their churches, as no one was permitted to contribute to the support of the cause unless he was already a member of the communion.

      Of course, the American churches have never practiced any such exclusion. They have always felt that if ungodly men wished to give of their substance to the cause of religion, this, by so much, subtracted from the power of Satan to do harm. Indeed, it has been contended by some American disciples that if Satan would surrender all his means to the churches no one ought to object, as by a proper use of this means, the cause of Christ could be greatly advanced. It is not our purpose to discuss the pros and cons of these respective views, but simply to state the facts, that all may understand the grounds which have brought failure to the English churches, notwithstanding their soundness with respect to the gospel and other important things.

3. ETERNAL PUNISHMENT

A.C.P., 1869-1870, pp. 202-204.

      We have just received the April number of the Australian Christian Pioneer, and notice an article with the above heading from the pen of our Bro. Carr. His closing sentence speaks of "running slander through the multiplication table," which we confess our inability to understand. But in the preceding paragraph he writes "we are helplessly driven to this conclusion, viz.--The bodies and souls of all the wicked will be punished in hell eternally. We hold this conclusion to be absolutely irresistible; and as we have given the exact thought of every passage in the New Testament on the subject, there can be no such thing as an offset to this argument."

      On reading this we thought of the message of Ahab to Benhadad, "Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off." But our friend states that he has "given the exact," thought of every passage in the New Testament on this subject." We ask, Where? and echo replies--Where? Where has he given the exact thought of Matthew x. 28, "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul, but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." That the passages quoted by our brother prove the future punishment of the ungodly, we admit and maintain as firmly as he; but they by no means prove that the punishment will be amending. We rejoice to know that the horrible dogma of the unending torment of the wicked is being freely canvassed by thoughtful men everywhere, and we are not sorry to find an opportunity has occurred to say a word on the theme in the Australian Christian Pioneer, although we know that the space the editors can afford to give us is so limited that justice to the subject can hardly be expected. Our brother has strung together several passages as proof of the above proposition, all that we can do is to ask our readers to refer to them, and we confidently predict that if they lay aside their pre-conceived theory, they will readily acknowledge that his dogma is not found in any of them, or in all of them combined. Before our brother can prove his proposition from these passages he will have to prove that man is necessarily immortal; if he succeed in this he may establish his proposition, but not before. "If the being human entitles to immortality or renders immortality certain let it be proved from the sacred pages. As yet it has not been proved but assumed; and then endless misery follows easily after it." Our friend evidently relies on Matthew xxv. 46,

      "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." He seems to think this sufficient to settle the question, because it is, he says, a precept! And yet it is not a "precept;" though it is a "direct statement." However, the question before us must not be merely, "Do this and a few other texts in the Bible, prima facie, assert eternal punishment?" We concede that; but we ask, "are these texts, when taken in their prima facie interpretation, unbalanced by conflicting texts and certain other conflicting Scriptural phenomena?" And again, "is this prima facie interpretation the only fair interpretation of which they are susceptible?"

      In our controversy with sectarians we daily have enough to do with "Scrap Doctors," and we are sure that our friend has had some experience in this line. When the Unitarian brings forward John xiv. 28, "My Father is greater than I," as an argument against which "there can be no such thing as an offset;" when the Universalist points him to John xii. 32, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me," as proof of universal salvation; when the Sectarian appeals to Romans v. 1, "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," as a support of his "faith alone" theory; when the Roman Catholic directs his attention to the Saviour's words in Matthew xxvi. 26, "Take, eat; this is my body," to support the tenet of transubstantiation; when the Calvinist shows him Acts xiii. 48, "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed," as an impregnable bulwark of his fatalism; what does our brother do? Does he accept the prima facie interpretation of these passages as correct, or does he reject it? We wait for a reply. We are inclined to think that he is in the habit of comparing Scripture with Scripture to ascertain whether the prima facie interpretation is correct. And, good reader, notice--the passages we have quoted are all "direct statements."

      The dogma which our friend has advanced is one that has driven thousands to infidelity; is one that can only be defended by arguments based on the reversal of the common axioms of morality; is one that has driven many mad; and is one which ought to drive all who hold it to the same goal. This being our firm conviction, we will contest this with him step by step, foot by foot, yea, inch by inch, and demand for it evidence that shall be irrefragable. Is our brother trusting to the word aiwnion? We will most attentively peruse what he has to write on it Meantime we refer him to another passage where the word occurs: 2 Thessalonians i. 9--"Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and the glory of his power." While we believe that being punished "with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and the glory of his power" will be an everlasting punishment, we do not believe that "everlasting destruction" can mean "everlasting preservation."

      But without further comment from us, we will submit for our friend's consideration some remarks by S. Minton, of London.

      1. "Scripture declares that the 'everlasting punishment' of the wicket will consist of 'everlasting destruction' after or by means of the infliction of 'many' or 'few stripes,' according to their several deserts. The popular theory teaches that it will consist of everlasting pain.

      2. "Scripture declares that God will 'destroy both body and soul in hell,' The popular theory teaches that he will destroy neither one nor the other, but preserve both of them alive for ever, in unmitigated agony.

      3. "Scripture declares that 'our God is a consuming fire.' The popular theory teaches that he is only a scorching fire.

      4. "Scripture declares that the 'fiery indignation' will 'devour the adversaries.' The popular theory teaches that it will do no such thing, but only torture them.

      5. "Scripture declares that the wicket will perish 'like natural brute beasts.' The popular theory teaches that there will be no analogy whatever between the two cases.

      6. "Scripture declares that whosoever 'will save his life' by unfaithfulness to Christ, shall ultimately 'lose it' in a far more terrible manner. The popular theory teaches that no man can lose his life more than once, and that the second death is no death at all, but eternal life in sin and misery.

      7. "Scripture declares that whosoever 'doeth the will of God abideth for ever.' The popular theory teaches that every man will abide for ever, whether he does the will of God or not.

      8. "Scripture declares that if we desire 'immortality' we must seek it 'by patient continuance in well doing.' The popular theory teaches that every man possesses inherent indefeasible immortality, and what we have to seek for is, that it may prove a blessing and not a curse to us.

      9. "Scripture declares that the 'wages of sin is death.' The popular theory teaches that it is eternal life in misery; in other words, that God will inflict upon impenitent sinners a punishment infinitely greater than what he has pronounced to be their due.

      10. "Scripture declares that 'the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.' The popular theory teaches that eternal life is the common possession of all men, and that the gift of God through Christ is the privilege of spending it in holiness and happiness.

      11. "Scripture declares that 'the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil.' The popular theory teaches that they will never be destroyed at all, but that a portion of the universe will be specially set apart for the eternal exhibition of them in their fullest maturity.

      12. "Scripture declares that Christ is to 'reconcile all things to God.' The popular theory teaches that all things will never be reconciled to God; that discord and disorder will never cease, but only be confined to one particular locality.

- 330 -

      13. "Scripture declares that in Christ 'all things consist.' The popular theory teaches that a whole kingdom will 'consist' for ever, although not in him.

      14. "Scripture declares that 'he that hath the Son hath life, but he that hath not the Son of God hath not life;' that 'if we live after the flesh we shall die, but if through the spirit we mortify the deeds of the body, we shall live.' The advocates of the popular theory say that the life of believers and unbelievers, of natural men and spiritual men, must be of equal duration--that the doctrine of eternal happiness, and the doctrine of eternal misery must stand or fall together--in other words, that if what the Scripture asserts to be true, what it denies must be true also."

      Will our brother kindly examine these "direct statements," and if he regard them as unsound or illogical, point out wherein they are defective? As soon as he does so, and replies to the queries which we have submitted to him, we shall be able to see whether there is any "offset to his argument."

M.      

A.C.P., 1869-1870, pp. 235-240.

      To Editors of A.C. Pioneer--
Dear brethren--

      In May Pioneer someone, whose signature is "M," professing to be a brother and adopting the editorial "we," has an article headed "Eternal Punishment," but should be more properly headed "an instalment of Thomasism," or Destructionism. That this writer is one of the Editors I do not believe. Why, then, is he allowed to assume the editorial style to the confusion and bewilderment of many simple brethren? "M" evidently expects the full use of the Pioneer in order to prove that the punishment of the wicked will not be unending; that the unending punishment of the wicked, is a "horrible dogma," "one that can only be defended by arguments based on the reversal of the common axioms of morality; "one that has driven many mad," and ought to drive all who hold it to the same goal. If such propositions must be discussed at all, they ought to be discussed with avowed infidels, not with persons claiming to be disciples. As a subscriber and a Christian I must protest against the use of the Pioneer for such a purpose by a professed brother.

      But, is it necessary that such speculations should be brought before young and inexperienced brethren in our public periodicals? Can we not learn something by the bitter experience of very many Churches in America and England, without having to pass through their trials? Thomasism, and one of its constituents, Destructionism, has now been before the world for about forty-five years, and what has it done for its author, the Church, and the world? Its author is a complete moral wreck; it has injured all the Churches with which it has come in contact; and it has hardened the world in wickedness.

      We are commanded to follow the things which make for peace, and the things whereby one may edify another; but Destructionism has always made for division.

      Paul says, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. "M" and his destructionist brethren say, it is not so fearful as we think: it is only enduring punishment for a short time, or not at all, and then going out of existence. It is just the kind of punishment which all atheists and all suicides seek. Whoever speaks of executed criminals as now enduring punishment? We speak of them as having once endured the punishment of death; but according to the reasoning of "M" they are now enduring the punishment of being deprived of conscious existence. If this be a punishment, then a Nero, or a Caligula, or any other vile murderer, is only enduring the same punishment as is endured by the innocent babe in its dreamless sleep. From such wretched teaching as this may God deliver the Churches! But that the brethren may see that this is no new question, and that Destructionism has long since been weighed in the balance and found wanting, will you reprint the following questions, put to the late Alexander Campbell twenty years since, and his unanswerable replies.

AN OLD DISCIPLE.      

A.C.P., 1869-1870, pp. 265-266.

We endorse the above, and therefore hasten to express our sense of profound gratitude to our Bro. Carr for voluntarily informing us where we can find the meaning of prima facie. We tender him our thanks. But as

a knowledge of English is of far more importance to us than a smattering of Latin, we shall be still further obliged by his giving us an authority for such a phrase as "that much Latin." But while receiving lessons in English, we are sorry to have to confess ourselves so obtuse, as not yet to understand what he means by "running slander through the multiplication table." He referred us for an explanation to James, iii. 6, and all we can say is, that we have looked at the passage, and find that is one we read before he was born, and that it throws no light on this peculiar phraseology. We will not, at present, further intrude upon the kindness of our friend, although we have noticed in his writings one or two other strange phrases from one who speaks of tyro critics of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and talks about the Ignoratio Elenchi.

      Our brother commences his rejoinder by stating that we deny the eternal punishment of the wicked. If he had said we deny his dogma, the proposition which he advanced, he would have been nearer the mark. We do not deny the everlasting punishment of the wicked, but we do deny their everlasting torment. He then asks whether the readers of the Pioneer have read our remarks in the May number (he has here violated controversial etiquette by publishing, without having asked permission, who his critic is), and, lest their attention should not have been directed to the article, he exclaims, "Hear him!" We suppose they have now had the benefit of hearing us twice. We, too, have heart Bro. Carr. And what an explosion! But, good reader, that is all. It was only powder--there was no shot in it. The smoke has cleared away, and--mirabile dictu--we are not hurt! We undertake to examine all he has written, and give our readers the benefit of our examination. First, then, we do not envy the spirit manifested in the paragraph in which he uses the words "annihilate" and "annihilation" six times, in so many lines. We reserve what we have to say on annihilation until we come to his No. 2, and we will not insult the common sense of our readers by supposing that any of them will be captivated by such arrant nonsense as "the more wicked, the harder to annihilate." No! Annihilation is a physical act beyond the power of man, but with the omnipotent God, we know nothing of degrees of difficulty in works of a physical character.

      Now for denial No. 1. "We deny," says Bro. Carr, "that the word 'everlasting' can be used in such a sense." What sense? we ask. We used an adjective in conjunction with a noun. Our brother then really denies that an "everlasting destruction" would be an "everlasting punishment." Now both are predicated of the sinner, and one term must be explained by the other, or one must be accepted and the other rejected. Here then is a dilemma for him. But why cannot "everlasting" be connected with "destruction?" He may deny, and we will affirm and prove it. Our brother must surely know that the signification of an adjective is, to a very great extent, determined by the word which it qualifies. Take a common case for illustration--clear water, clear-head, clear day, clear stage, clear table. Here the adjective "clear" becomes defined by the object which is qualifies. So with the adjective "everlasting." Our friend, though, quietly slips from an adjective to an adverb, and speaks of "everlastingly." Let us take his own example and see where it lands us. He says, "the word 'everlasting' cannot qualify one action without that action continue, e. g., If a man breaks a tree, and, because it can't be mended, we say it is everlastingly broken; the adverb 'everlastingly' does not qualify the actor breaking, but qualifies the remaining (of the tree) broken; and we mean that the tree, being broken, everlastingly remains broken. The tree must exist broken or we could not say it is everlastingly broken." Well, we never heard such an expression as a tree being "everlastingly broken;" but whoever would suppose that "everlastingly" qualified the actor breaking?^* All acknowledge that it would qualify the remaining (of the tree) broken. Is the tree, then, everlastingly in the act of breaking? If not, how does the action continue? Moreover, is our friend going to inform us, that because some one has said that a tree is everlastingly broken, that that tree will exist in a broken state to all eternity. Thus endeth our brother's first illustration.

      We noticed above, that our Bro. Carr informed his readers that we believe in annihilation. For what motive then does he proceed to insinuate that we either believe in annihilation or in purgatory, and to italicise purgatory? We denounce this as a piece of special pleading unworthy of the solemn subject we are discussing. He knew very well that we did not believe in purgatory. His annihilation sentence proves that. He repeats, "the word 'everlasting' cannot qualify the act of punishing." Who said it did? Our brother is very bold, but he is fond of fighting phantoms. Our everlastingly broken tree appears on the scene

      ^* Since writing this, we have received a private note from Bro. Carr, complaining of some typographical errors, viz., that the word "actor" has been, here and in other places in his article, substituted for "act of." He says, "it is strange that mistakes in print should occur in no articles but mine." We can assure him that he is not alone, but that he has companions in misfortune. He further complains of mistakes in his article "S. & M. on Faith," if it is any consolation to him, we can assure him that we growled loudly over typographical error, made in our reply to him. But respecting the error before us we do not think the correction "act of breaking" for "actor breaking" materially affects our reasoning. By the remaining (of the tree) broken, we understand the result of the act of breaking. So now by everlasting punishment we understand the result of the act of punishing, which we have shown consists of two items. The analogy which our brother has endeavoured to draw between breaking and punishing is scarcely parallel. He uses the very "break" transitively, and this requires a putting forth of physical force, but we do not regard punishing by the Almighty as something which requires the constant exercise of this all the time that the sinner is suffering punishment, i. e., that force is necessary to compel him to suffer in the same way, that force is necessary to break a tree.

M.      

again, "just as the tree must exist being broken, or we could not say it is everlastingly broken, so the wicked must exist being punished, or we could not say they will be everlastingly punished." The only legitimate conclusion from our brother's reasoning is this:--the wicked will not exist for ever. We are not in despair of making him a convert! for, good reader, notice, he states we may say a tree is "everlastingly broken," "because it can't be mended;" now everyone knows that the "everlastingly broken tree" will decay, and become no longer a tree; so too may we speak of the punishment of the wicked as everlasting, when their state "can't be mended," when their condition is irremediable and irrevocable, and when at length they shall be consumed--"into smoke shall they consume away."--Psalm xxxvii, 20. Our friend then endeavors to apply to our reasoning the reductio ad absurdum. Pay attention to what he says--"If the act of punishing be the act of annihilating." Ali! but if it be not? if the punishing comprehend more than the annihilating? What then? On whose side lies the reductio ad absurdum now? Our friend next tries his hand at constructing a Sorites, and having finished he exclaims, "the whole thing is wrong any way you look at it." Quite right friend, for your antecedent is wrong, your chain snaps at the first link! An acquaintance with logic is not required to perceive this. His antecedent is, "if the wicked exist, they are not annihilated." He emphasises exist. And by exist he means continue to exist. And by exist he means

      continue to exist, and that for ever. But this is the very question at issue, and which he has undertaken to prove; so that his sorites is only a petitio principii. We hope, that the next time our friend tries to construct a sorites, he may be pleading a better cause and succeed better. But if he does not mean to exist, continue to exist and that for ever, he must mean exist for a time. It would be wise in our brother to write so that there can be no mistaking his meaning, and save us the trouble of guessing what he means.

      However, if he means this, exist for a time, then his hypothesis is a mere truism, and he might with equal propriety have written, if sparrows exist they are not annihilated. So true it is, that the whole thing is wrong any way you look at it."

      But he says the wicked must exist, or we could not say they will be everlastingly punished. Who desires him to say so? We do not, the Scripture does not. Let him keep to the Scripture term, "these shall go away into everlasting punishment," and then other portions of Scripture will explain in what that punishment consists. Our brother is looking at punishment in only one of its elements. To punish, is to afflict with pain, loss, or calamity for a crime or fault. Punishment is any pain or suffering inflicted on a person for a crime or offence, and suffering is the bearing of pain, inconvenience, or loss--Vide Webster. Now the Scripture shows that the punishment of the wicked will consist of suffering and in loss. Many or few stripes will be inflicted according to the desert of each, and ultimately loss of life--the second death to all eternity. We have given an authority for our use of the word "punishment," we will also show that the Greeks similarly understood the word. Thucydides (book ii. ch. 87) says, kolasqhsetai ths spepouse zhmia. The lexicons explain zhmia as the opposite of kedros.

      We now come to our brother's explanation of aiwn. He confesses that he cannot get the idea of eternity out of it when it refers to--(1) The Jewish age, (2) The Gospel dispensation, and (3) The present world without reference to dispensations; but, when it refers to the future state, designates eternity. Then the word changes its meaning with the period respecting which it is used!--"To know the meaning of the word in any passage we have to find out what period of time the passage refers to." By what law of language is this? On what ground can he draw an arbitrary distinction in the usage of the word between this world and the next? If this were permitted language would be unnecessary. No! The word "everlasting," when applied to "priesthood," "covenant," "hills," etc., qualifies the nouns to which it is attached and not the time in which this "priesthood," etc., exists. In other words aiwn implies the whole duration of which the subject is capable. And now comes the question, "Is man necessarily immortal?"

      We asked our brother to prove this from Scripture. As yet he has not attempted to do so. We defy him to do it, either from Scripture or by reason. Let us notice two other instances of this word. In Hebrews ix. 12 we read, aiwian lutrwsin euramenosa In Jude 7 we read, prokeintai deigma puros aiwniou dikhn u pexousai. Now, redemption has been obtained; yet it is called eternal or everlasting. Why? Because Christ will be everlastingly redeeming? If our brother's reasoning is sound he must be. Is the fire which consumed Sodom and Gomorrah still burning? or has it been long since extinguished? It is called eternal fire. Is it still burning? Our brother knows it is not. Then eternal redemption is not necessarily eternal redeeming, eternal fire is not necessarily eternal burning, eternal punishment is not necessarily eternal punishing, and eternal destruction is not necessarily eternal destroying. But the effects of the redemption and of the burning have continued and will continue through all succeeding ages, so, too, will the effects of the everlasting punishment and of the everlasting destruction be final and irremediable.

      Now for No. 2 "We deny," says Bro. Carr, "that 'destruction' means 'annihilation.' There is no word in the Greek Old or New Testament for 'annihilation.'" We will not occupy any of the small space allowed us by examining the last assertion. We do not wish our silence to, be construed into consent, we simply pass it for the present. But against his first assertion we refer him to Noah Webster, and he will find that destruction consists in the annihilation of the form of any thing, that form of parts which constitutes it what it is; as, the destruction of grass or herbage by eating; of a forest by cutting down the

trees; or it denotes a total annihilation; as, the destruction of a particular government; the destruction of happiness. He also gives "eternal death," and instances "broad is the way that leadeth to destruction." Under this head our brother makes an ad captandum appeal, by substituting the word "annihilate" for others in several passages in which apollumi occurs. We are pleased to notice he is improving in his idea of a definition, he is evidently an improvable scholar; but we have to remind him that we have not accepted apollumi and "annihilate" as equivalents. Let us look at this word. First, what does the English

      "annihilate" mean? Evidently friend Carr is using it only in the philosophical sense of blotting out of existence, and he writes as though that were the only legitimate use of the word. In this sense it is beyond the power of man, but it does not follow that it is beyond the power of the Almighty--He can create and He destroy. But there is another usage of the word, and as we know our brother is fond of Noah Webster we have pleasure in once more referring him to that gentleman, who will inform him that to annihilate is to destroy the form or peculiar distinctive properties so that the specific thing no longer exists; as, to annihilate a forest by cutting and carrying away the trees, though the timber may still exist; to annihilate a house by demolishing the structure. Annihilation is the act of destroying the form or combination of parts under which a thing exists, so that the name can no longer be applied to it; as, the annihilation of a corporation.

      It is of very little consequence whether the word "annihilate" is found in the English Testament, the main question is--Is the idea there? Our brother gives us a little etymology: olluw means perdo, and from perdo we get perdition; ergo, perdition is not annihilation but the state of the lost. Perdition is a word seldom used in our day, but it means entire loss or ruin, utter destruction. So Shakespeare uses the word, e. g., "The perdition of the Turkish fleet."--Othello ii. 2. "To lose or give't away, were such perdition As nothing else could match."--Othello iii. 4, et al.

      And when the word is used by writers of our own day it is used in the same sense. Thus we have just glanced at a Saturday Review, recently from Europe, and we find this expression--"We called to mind how many heroes had been saved from perdition."

      To return, olluw means perdo (we must confess that we do not know where either this word or ollumi occurs in the new Testament), what then is the force of ollumi? Does not the preposition apo give it an intensive signification? And so if any word can express it this means wholly lost, lost entirely. But our friend appears remarkably fond of "annihilate." For the edification of his readers he substitutes this in several passages of Scripture, but let us kindly caution him that in doing this he should not substitute active for neuter verbs or vice versa. Does our brother call this argument?

      We are sure that our readers will see that the idea of loss pervades every passage. Preservation is not there. Did space permit we would show this, but it does not and so we must leave it to the judgment of our readers. But, in controversy, we always like to hit an opponent with his own weapons. It is so eminently satisfactory to both sides, and the spectators are in general equally pleased. Well, on the next page our brother states that the word "destroy" means "punishment." Now, as "destroy" is a verb and "punishment" is a noun, we take it for granted that he means "punish" and not "punishment," and therefore take the liberty of substituting "punish" for "punishment." Good reader, then take his own word "punish" and substitute it for "annihilate" in the passages quoted by him, and see what nice work it makes. Or will our brother kindly oblige by giving one word that will be a suitable equivalent for the original in all these cases? While on this question we will give our friend a hint. "One good turn deserves another," and as our friend so benevolently informed us how we might find the meaning of prima facie we return the favor. Some persons, when they find one word in explanation of another or where another would serve the purpose, think the words are synonymous. This has led them into absurdity. Words may be so far equivalent as in certain situations to be equally fitted to fill the same place, when each continues even in such situations to have its characteristic meaning. Friend, this may on a future occasion be of service to thee, though it come from a tyro critic.

M.      

A.C.P., 1871-1872, pp. 87-89.

      In the September number of the Pioneer, under the heading "The Crisis at Ballarat," appeared a letter giving us the information that the friends at Dawson Street, Ballarat, had been, and were, acting in anything but an orderly manner; that they were producing, not harmony, but discord in the Churches in that section; that, instead of "endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (see Eph. iv. 3), they were causing strife by propagating, both privately and publicly, the dogma of annihilation. In that issue we promised to say something more on this painful affair in the October number of the Pioneer, but finding that a part, if not the whole, of Bro. H.'s letter was called in question, or declared to

be false by some of the friends at Dawson Street, it was deemed prudent and right, before we said any more, that the letter should be withdrawn if not true, or, if true, that the brotherhood should have the proof thereof.

      We have thought much on this unpleasant matter at Ballarat, and as the document which appeared in the Pioneer in September last is flatly disputed by some of the friends at Dawson Street; yea, some of them declare the letter to be false, we here give some of the proof concerning the truthfulness of Bro. H.'s letter. We deem it useless to lay before the public all the proof furnished us showing the said letter to be true. We hope the five Churches will be satisfied with our decision in giving publicity to the following letters only. These six letters we think will satisfy anyone who loves the truth as to the truthfulness of the letter called in question.

G. L. S.      

[NOF 310-334]