In this section we will look in turn at South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania. There is no information on relationships in New South Wales. South Australia is over-represented because of the fact that it was there that the Australian Christian Pioneer was published.

1. South Australia
2. Victoria
3. Tasmania

1. SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

A.C.P., 1868-1869, pp. 177-180.

      In a return to primitive Christianity nothing is more necessary and of greater importance than a return to pure speech, that is upon Bible subjects to speak in Bible terms. If a sinner should ask what he should do to be saved, if our speech be biblical, we would not hesitate to answer him in the precise terms of God's Word. If we use words of our own we may err, but if we use the words of God we cannot err. Why not 'speak as the oracles of God' speak? We are quite sure the language of heaven can not be improved. Let us ever have Divine authority in preference to human. By way of illustrating the subject in hand we here insert an extract from an address delivered at the laying of the corner stone of a 'Baptist' Chapel, at Norwood, by the Rev. Mr. Mead. Mr. Mead, we presume, is the leading Baptist minister of this colony. His language is, doubtless, an expression of what is held by the Baptist denomination as such.

      He speaks as follows:--

      'Then again, this stone is a witness of a distinctive belief of the Church as a Baptist Church. We believe in one Lord, one Faith, and on Baptism. We have no standards of belief beyond the Word of God. To us that divine revelation bears this testimony in relation to baptism, viz., that the Lord Jesus himself was immersed in the Jordan, of his own will and purpose, and that he might thereby fulfil all righteousness. We can look at this solemn act of the Son of God in no other light than as an example--an example of binding obligation on all his true disciples. Further, the grand and blessed commission of Jesus testifies to us this, that the Gospel is to be preached to all, and that those who in true faith believe the glad tidings are required to be immersed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The teachings and procedure of the Apostles in regard to this matter we believe to be in perfect harmony with the instructions of their and our Lord.

      'The substitution of another form of outward observance for that required by the Saviour, we think to be less injurious than the theories which connect a sacramentarian efficacy with the administration of the rite. Almost infinite mischief has occurred to God's Church through the adopted belief, that infant regeneration is effected by means of the ceremonial administration of water. We have an equally decided aversion to this theory, if in any case it be applied to an adult submitting to immersion. If a person is immersed in order thereby to obtain the remission of sins, we think this implies an utter misconception of the Gospel. This stone is laid as a pillar of

witness to our conviction that only those who have already obtained the remission of sins, through faith in the atoning blood of Jesus, should be immersed for a testimony to the forgiveness of sins. We believe that it is against the Lord's revealed will that a person should be immersed unless that person's heart has been regenerated of 'the Holy Spirit, and so the person has become a new creature in Christ Jesus.

      'With regard to the distinctive name "Baptist," which the Church here will bear, I cannot say that I rejoice in it. I am in no way ashamed of the name, yet would prefer never to hear it again. We use it as a name in use, and which is pretty well understood. Our fathers in the faith did not adopt the name of choice, but because it was given them, just as the name Christian was first given as a name of reproach to the members of the Antioch Church. There is clear evidence that the name Christian was not adopted by the Churches of Christ during the first quarter of a century subsequent to the day of Pentecost. Neither of the Apostles in their inspired epistles ever address the members of churches by the title Christians. They called the members of these churches Saints, the Beloved of God, the Chosen, the Saved, etc., never Christians. The name Christian is indeed founded upon the name Christ, and equally so is the name Jesuit founded upon the name Jesus. We do not object to, but approve of the name Christian as applied to believers; but as a name in common use, it is often applied to those whose profession is merely nominal. The New Testament gives us in this matter of names a wholesome liberty. In truth, were the Baptist denomination, to drop, its distinctive name tomorrow it would be none the less a denomination than it is now. We have perfect confidence in the truths we hold, and our work here today is a witness of this confidence.'

      Let us 'speak as the oracles of God' speak. Where do the oracles speak of denominations? Do they anywhere speak of the 'Baptist denomination?' We have searched the Scriptures, but have not been able to find anything about denominations. If we 'speak as the oracles,' how can we speak of the Church as cut up into denominations? When we talk of denominations, we lose sight of God's word. Hence we are sorry to hear Mr. Mead intimate so emphatically that the 'Baptist denomination' intends to maintain a character which is not sanctioned by God's authority. He seems to think that if the Baptists were to return to Primitive Christianity, and start in that direction by dispensing with the unscriptural name 'Baptist,' they would be still a denomination. No doubt they would, unless they wholly returned to primitive and Apostolic practice. If, however, all would agree to speak and act as did the Apostles, unscriptural names and denominations would soon be lost sight of, and all would be united in the 'one body'--in the Church, which has for its foundation the 'Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the Chief, Corner Stone.' We suppose, however, we should be thankful for the least indication of a return to the ancient order of things. Hence, we are glad to hear our friend Mr. Mead so openly avow his dislike to the name 'Baptist.' He would 'prefer never to hear it again.' Truly, Mr. Mead is in this respect coming out more fully into the light. Well may we say to him let us 'speak as the oracles' speak. It seems, however, rather sad that he should be compelled to hear so often the name which he 'would prefer never to hear again.'

      Really it is a hardship for any one to be afflicted with a name which is distasteful. We have heard Baptist ministers glory in the name 'Baptist,' but Mr. Mead is not one of that kind. He sees that it is not scriptural, and would like to get rid of it. Mr. Mead is a progressive Baptist. Having taken the word of God for his guide, 'having no standards of belief beyond the word of God,' he sees that the name will not answer. Doubtless the majority of the Baptists in this and the other colonies would like to put away the name 'Baptist,' and does not know how to get rid of it. If it would not be presumptuous, might we not suggest that the easiest method of disposing of such name would be to throw it away. Sometimes men who bear distasteful names, desiring to throw them away, apply to the government of their country for new ones. It seems that our friends, if they would only throw away the name which they 'would prefer never to hear again,' could easily get a new and better one by simply agreeing to 'speak as the oracles of God' speak.

      As to the name Christian, Mr. Mead, notwithstanding his objections, yet approved of the name. Of course he regards it as sanctioned by heaven. What saith the oracles? Let us hear what Paul, Peter, and James have to say of the name Christian. Paul speaks of this name as the great family name,--'For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.'--(Eph. iii. 14-15). Paul never once thought of the whole family in heaven and earth being called after John the Baptist. Paul had heard the name with approval before he wrote this. Agrippa, under conviction, cried out, 'almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.' Paul would, doubtless, have been quite astonished to hear Agrippa say, 'almost thou persuadest me to be a Baptist.' Peter also speaks of the name Christian--'Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but glorify God on this behalf.'--(1 Pet. iv. 16). James, also--'Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which you are called?'--(James ii. 7). What name is this but the name of Christ? Let us 'speak as the oracles of God' speak.

      Mr. Mead proceeds to speak of infant regeneration;--he says 'almost infinite mischief has occurred to God's church through the adopted belief that infant regeneration is effected by the ceremonial administration of water.' We quite agree on this point. Nothing whatever is said in the Bible about either infant baptism or infant regeneration: hence they are innovations, and are wholly unscriptural. If men who speak would speak more scripturally upon the subject of regeneration, much mist which now hangs over it would be dispelled. The mystery in which men clothe that word soon disappears when the oracles are, consulted. We have not room in this article to touch upon this word as we would like. We promise ere long to do so. Mr. Mead goes on to speak of baptism, and seems to be quite frightened at the idea that

baptism has any connection with the remission of sin. He is decidedly more timid than were the Apostles. The Baptists seem afraid of their position, and proceed to make terms with those who discard baptism altogether.

      Note the following:--'The substitution of another form of outward observance for that required by the Saviour we think to be less injurious than the theories which connect a sacramentarian efficacy with the administration of the rite.' This, in plain English, simply signifies that in the view of 'Baptists,' 'infant sprinkling' (a purely human invention) is not so bad after all. There is something which they think is infinitely worse--too bad to be in anywise tolerated. Heterodoxy, in the estimation of the writer of the foregoing extract, does not relate to any innovation such as 'infant sprinkling.' No, that is all right enough, provided only that obedience to Christ in baptism has no connection whatever with salvation! Make baptism a mere outward form and orthodoxy is the certain result. It seems high time our friends were putting away the name which they 'would prefer never to hear again.' Baptists often dispense with what they regard as an outward form, and there are many members of their church in this colony who, Mr. Mead shows in his 'Scripture Immersion,' have never been baptized. In cases when Baptist ministers receive into church fellowship those who have never-been baptized, they take it upon themselves to dispense with a command of the Saviour. No wonder their name is one they 'would prefer never to hear again.' The Baptists, upon the subject of baptism, are the most inconsistent of all denominations. They believe that immersion is the only valid baptism, and yet receive into their church fellowship those who have never been immersed. Baptism is no simply an outward form. We know from God's word that the mind and heart as well as body are concerned in it. Baptism is a mere outward form when an infant or an unbeliever is the subject. Mr. Mead is particularly careful to impress upon his hearers the extreme heterodoxy of any who hold that baptism is in anywise connected with remission of sin. If this be heterodoxy, surely heterodoxy has good company--even the Apostles. Loving to speak as the oracles speak, we shall hear them. We regard uninspired men as human authorities, and inspired men as Divine authorities.

      It is well sometimes to put these in contrast:

      What a pity that Ananias had such 'an utter misconception of the Gospel!' Is it possible that he was so lacking in the knowledge of the Gospel as to dare say to the penitent Saul of Tarsus, 'arise and be baptized, and wash away they sins.' May it not be that Ananias was slightly deficient in a knowledge of Baptist theology. Perhaps he might have been somewhat improved by a few years in a Baptist theological seminary. We venture to say if he had been thus favored, he had never dared say to any one, under any circumstances whatever, 'arise and be baptized, and wash away they sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' We see that Peter and Ananias had no thought of an 'utter misconception of the Gospel,' when they spake so simply, boldly, and grandly. We would like to say more, but space forbids. Which shall we have, human or Divine authority? Which shall we have, uninspired or inspired speech? We say, let us 'speak as the oracles of God' speak.

A.C.P., 1869-1870, pp. 41-43.

      A Society called the South Australian Evangelical Alliance was formed in Adelaide, August 30th. We shall present a few plain, faithful, and practical thoughts respecting this Society.

      The objects contemplated by the Evangelical Alliance we heartily approve. These object every Christian is bound, by his love for Christ, and his regard to his word, to endeavour to secure, whether he be a member of the Evangelical Alliance or not. It is clearly a duty of the Christian 'to promote brotherly love,' and also to strive to maintain it. It is one of the Christian graces which every Christian should manifest daily. It is one of the fruits of the Spirit, and by all means it should be cultivated and cherished. In the language of Paul we say, 'Let brotherly love continue.'

      The second object--'To defend Christian truth against prevailing errors,' is also a proper object. Error of any kind demands the uncompromising opposition of every friend of truth. Truth and error have always been, are now, and ever will be, mortal enemies to each other. There can be no compromise with error without a sad injury to the truth, and to the person who effects the compromise. Many a Samson for

the truth has been shorn of his strength, and has become, for a time, the object of contempt and cruel mockery through the crafty seductions of the Delilah--Error.

      Jesus, who is 'the truth,' said, 'Every plant which my Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up. '--Matt. xv. 13. God has never planted a single plant of error in the mind of any living being, angelic or human. He plants truth, and that only--his Word is truth. The devil and his agents scatter error broadcast through the earth, and many a sincere and honest lover of truth has been deceived by him, and has received into his mind and cherished in his heart some of the plants of the Great Deceiver. It is clearly, then, the duty of every Christian to be certain that he is maintaining and cherishing Christian truth, and this he can do, not by studying systems of theology, works on divinity, or human creeds, but by 'searching the Scriptures daily,' and allowing 'the Word of Christ to dwell in him richly.' The Christian is exhorted to 'earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints'--(Jude i. 3); and while he does this, he will certainly oppose 'prevailing errors;' for what are prevailing errors in the religious world, but departures from the truth? We should strive, then, by word, pen, and life to oppose them. Vain, however, will be the attempt to oppose 'prevailing errors' by means of error. The moment the attempt is made its inconsistency will appear, and the result will prove that it is a suicidal warfare. Divine wisdom, which is perfect, and the truth, which is pure, will most surely effect this object, if properly used. But it is possible to speak the truth in such a manner that it will be despoiled of its power to effect good, or successfully oppose error. Many friends of truth seem to lose sight of this. We have met with some zealous friends of truth who have done more harm than good in their crusade against error, because they have forgotten the instruction to 'speak the truth in love.' Often is truth disarmed and prostrated in the dust by its professed friends. Rashness, harshness, anger, bitterness, envy, boisterous and empty declamation are no friends of truth, and should never be allowed to fraternise with her. If they are found in company depend upon it truth must suffer by the unholy alliance; hence we should always be very careful that the means used to oppose prevailing error and the manner of using them, should be strictly in harmony with the truth. It will not do to be guided by human wisdom, feelings, or opinions, when we have all the necessary directions given in the Word of God--the fountain of Divine wisdom.

      The third object is also a worthy one--'The preservation of the sanctity of the Lord's day.' It is painfully true, that not a few professed Christians do not estimate the privileges of the Lord's day as they ought, and consequently do not 'regard the day unto the Lord.' On this day the institutions of the Lord ought to be observed, and the order of the Lord's house maintained.--Acts xx. 7; Acts ii. 42. Some Christians appear to think they can do as they please on Lord's day, if they attend a place of worship once or twice during the day. In this they greatly err. The day is the Lord's, and should be devoted to His service and not be made a day of feasting, amusement, or worldly pleasure. Of course it is well understood, by every intelligent Christian, that the worldly and ungodly man cannot keep the Lord's day. He has 'neither part nor lot in this matter.' The Lord's day is for the Lord's people, and he must first give himself to the lord, and enter His service before he can serve Him, or enjoy the privileges of 'the people of God.'

      To accomplish these three objects the South Australian Evangelical Alliance has seen fit in its wisdom to adopt a doctrinal basis or Creed, which defines the parties who are eligible for membership in the Alliance, and who in its judgment 'are the class of persons whom it is desirable to embrace within the Alliance.' To this 'doctrinal basis' or Creed is attached the following disclaimer, 'This brief summary is not to be regarded in any formal or ecclesiastical sense as a Creed or confession, nor the adoption of it as involving an assumption of the right authoritatively to define the limits of Christian brotherhood; but simply as an indication of the class of persons whom it is desirable to embrace within the Alliance.' It will be observed that while the compilers of this summary and those who have adopted it, state that it is not to be regarded in any formal or 'ecclesiastical sense' as a creed, they do not say it is not a creed. This they could not do, for it is a creed to all intents and purposes; but they state that it is not to be regarded as a creed in any formal or ecclesiastical sense. The question arises here, In what sense is it to be considered a creed? 'A member of the South Australian Evangelical Alliance' tells us that that Society has no creed. If he be right, it is not to be considered a creed in any sense! This statement, however, is opposed both to facts and common sense. 'A summary of the articles of Christian faith' is a creed, and the doctrinal basis of the Evangelical Alliance is, undoubtedly, a summary of that kind. It does not, however, assume the 'right authoritatively to define the limits of Christian brotherhood; 'but it does assume authoritatively to define the limits of the membership of the South Australian Evangelical Alliance. The preamble states--'That the parties composing the Alliance shall be shall be such persons only as hold and maintain what are usually understood to be evangelical views in regard to the matters of doctrine understated'--then follows the Creed. It is clear that the sense in which it is to be regarded is, that it is to be ,simply the Creed of the Evangelical Alliance, nothing more nor less; beyond this Society it does not claim any jurisdiction, but in this Society it does claim full jurisdiction; hence no person is eligible for membership, who does not hold and maintain the views expressed in the Creed. It is not enough to assent to it or hold it to be true, but every consistent member of the Alliance must maintain the views of the Evangelical Alliance as set forth in its Creed. The question now arises, what right has the Evangelical Alliance to place this yoke upon the shoulders of any Christian? We answer, it has no right. It has

assumed an authority that belongs to God only. Our divine Redeemer alone has the prerogative to make a Creed for his people. This he has done; and in wisdom and in love he has adapted it to all the conditions, relations, and circumstances, in which they may be found in this life. The divine Creed is the Word of God. It is 'profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.'--2 Timothy, iii. 16,17. This Creed is binding upon the conscience of every Christian. It is a pure 'rule of faith,' a sound basis of cooperation, the true bond of union, and the unerring standard in all matters of doctrine and discipline. Then what need have we for a human Creed as a bond of union? What need have we for a human Creed as a basis of Christian co-operation? None at all. It is a worthless and useless thing; for if it contain more than the divine Creed it contains too much, if it contain less than the divine Creed it contains too little, and if it contain the same as the divine Creed we have no use for it. We therefore conscientiously and intelligently reject this human Creed and hold fast the divine Creed. Never can we consent to have the work of God supplanted by the work of man. We cannot even in appearance, much less in reality, 'do evil that good may come.'

      The Lord help us all to 'hold fast the form of sound words,' which he has-given unto us.

      Next month we shall notice some of the reasons, apologies, and arguments, adduced in favor of the adoption of the Creed of the Evangelical Alliance.

H. S. E.      

A.C.P., 1869-1870, pp. 61-64.

      In a previous article we showed that the 'doctrinal basis' or Creed of the Evangelical Alliance, was an arrogant assumption of the Divine prerogative--that it was an usurpation of Divine authority--and lastly, that it was a worthless and useless thing. We are well aware that others view it in a different light. Some admire it as much as the children of Israel did Aaron's golden calf; others are not captivated by it, but think it is a harmless thing; while others think it is quite an unnecessary thing but may be endured, if it be not placed in a prominent position, and its demands be not strictly enforced by its devotees and guardians. Hence the arguments, reasons, and apologies, adduced in its favour.

      We shall briefly notice the chief of them. It was warmly argued that the 'doctrinal basis' should be adopted because 'much talent and much time had been employed in its construction.' This we conceive to be a subtle but weak argument. It will no doubt be considered very sound and strong by a certain class of persons--those who do not think for themselves in religious matters but let others do the thinking for them, and with ears and mouth open are always ready to receive for Gospel truth all that is told them, if it only come to them in the name of talent and learning. With such the argument would be overwhelming and irresistible; but while we are second to none in our respect for, and appreciation of, talent and learning, we are not blind to the fact that this species of argument has always been used by the opponents of scientific and religious truth. It is a weapon that has slain many an honest but illiterate seeker after truth. It is a chain that has bound many a soul in error that has struggled to be free. It is an opiate that has made its thousands sleep the sleep of spiritual death. It is a terrible incubus that threatens to crush every man that dares to move beyond the circle of its authority.

      Let us now examine the argument. Granting that 'much talent and much time were employed' in the construction of the Creed, does it follow that it is a good thing? By no means. Many a thing has consumed much talent and time and yet been worthless. The tower of Babel cost much talent and much time in its construction but it was a worthless and God-dishonouring thing. All the Creeds that men have ever made may all lay claim to 'much talent and much time' in their construction. Are they therefore to receive the approval of every Christian, before he may co-operate with his fellow Christian in objects which his Master and his own heart approve? Nay verily? True they express (like the 'doctrinal basis' of the South Australian Evangelical Alliance) the terms to membership to their respective bodies, and also are necessarily bonds of union and co-operation, but few would think of urging any one of the creeds extant as a suitable one for the Evangelical Alliance, upon the ground of it have taken 'much talent and much time' in its construction. Nay, the proper and legitimate question is, 'Who hath required this Creed at your hands?' The Lord has given to his people a perfect Creed, that was framed by Divine talent, and completed by Divine wisdom, during the period of 1650 years. Is not this a sufficient manifestation of talent and time? Then why attempt foolishly to vie with the Almighty? Why attempt to supplant the perfect work of God by your 'much talent and much time' constructed Creed? There is no good reason why. It was a sad waste of talent and time. Far better would it have been for those who made it, and for the world, if they had used the talent and time their Master entrusted to them, in doing what He commanded them to do, instead of doing what He did not command them.

      But it was also urged that the 'doctrinal basis' was necessary to keep out heretics. It is unquestionably important that every organization contemplating the defence of Christian truth, should have a membership free from heretics. But who can properly decide the question--Who is a heretic? Is it the prerogative of God to decide? or is it the prerogative of man? We believe and affirm that the

prerogative belongs to God exclusively. He is all-wise and he only can judge rightly in this matter. Some men have claimed and need this prerogative. They have proclaimed heretics and burned them; yes more, they have made them and destroyed them. The Pope of Rome assumes the right to proclaim heretics. The supporters of the 'doctrinal basis' lay claim to the same thing, hence their great need of some human standard to measure their members by. This want the Creed is intended to supply, hence the preamble declared 'that the parties composing the Alliance shall be such persons only as hold and maintain what are usually understood to be Evangelical views in regard to the matters of doctrine understated.' Then follows the Creed which cost so 'much talent and time' and is to be the safeguard of the Alliance against the intrusion of heretics. But will the Creed keep out heretics? We shall see. If it does, it will do more than any other human creed has ever done before. In defiance of human creeds heretics, and some of them the baser sort, have entered the green pastures of human ecclesiastical organizations, and 'feeding themselves without fear' have gone in and out at pleasure; while others have been born in these organizations and have grown up and flourished under the shadow of human creeds. Indeed human creeds are impotent to keep out heretics or to put them out. Some of the friends of the Alliance seeing this deemed it necessary that the Committee be invested with power 'to declare any particular member ineligible for membership on ground satisfactory to the Committee.' It is evident then, that all the talk and declamation about the necessity of a 'doctrinal basis' to keep out heretics was a waste of words and time, and that some machinery behind the 'doctrinal basis' was necessary to accomplish that object. But why all this complicated machinery when God has furnished to our hands all that is necessary? In His Word he has declared who is a heretic, and he has also given directions how he is to be treated. He has told us that the Scriptures are 'profitable for reproof and correction;' and further, 'A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject.' But just here we are reminded that nearly all the heresies with which the Church has been afflicted have been found in the Scriptures.' Indeed! It is a novel and startling statement surely, and sounds strangely in our ears. What! Is God the author of heresy? Is the word of God a cage of unclean birds? Surely not. Our apologist no doubt meant that 'many heretics go to the Scriptures to try to prove their heresies to be Scriptural.' But this is quite another matter. A man's opinions and deductions are not the teaching of God's Word, whether they be orthodox or heterodox. God is the author of truth and facts to be believed, but man is the author of opinions and deductions! Hence the apology strengthens instead of weakens our plea for the Bible alone as the basis of all Christian union and co-operation, while it shows the utter folly of adopting a human 'doctrinal basis' for such purposes.

      It was also stated and more than once hinted at, that the Scriptures alone were too vague for the Alliance basis. This is certainly a strange statement. 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.' It is the revelation of the Divine mind to man in reference to his present and eternal interests, and can it be possible that it is so vague as to be inadequate for a basis of Christian co-operation? Nay, our God does not mock us with vagaries; in the Sacred Work our duties and our privileges are most clearly defined, and also the things to be believed, the things to be done, and the things to be hoped for are clearly stated. Our Saviour said, 'Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.' Would our apologist say they are too vague! The Scriptures are declared to be 'profitable for doctrine.' Would he have us believe the contrary? Then why tell us they are too vague? If he had said that the 'doctrinal basis' was too vague for any good and practical purpose he would have spoken correctly, but it is most unwarrantable to say the Scriptures are too vague for a basis for the Alliance, when God has given them to be the Christian's rule of faith and practice--'A lamp to his feet and a light to his path,' and to be 'profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.'--2 Tim. iii. 16-17. Then away with this false plea.

      It is also sagely asked, 'Since we all have our own views of truth and teach them, may we not write them?' We have not the least objection to anyone holding, teaching, or writing his views upon any subject, but we stoutly object to any man calling his views Scripture truth, or making them a 'doctrinal basis' for Christian co-operation, or a bond of union. This the South Australian Evangelical Alliance has done. No man or number of men has the right to bind the conscience of their fellow-men in such dogmatic fetters. How can men successfully oppose 'prevailing errors,' while they themselves are hampered and hindered by a 'yoke of bondage' that they would fain see taken from the shoulders of the poor shackled Papist? If we would be faithfully soldiers of the Cross we must be panoplied with 'the armour of God,' and if we would successfully 'fight the good fight of faith,' we must use 'the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God,' (Eph. vi. 17), and not a human creed. The metal and temper of the one are heavenly, but the metal and temper of the other are earthly: the one is 'sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart,' (Heb. iv. 12), and it only wounds to heal; the other is a dull, mis-shapen thing that wounds but to destroy. Let us, then, hold fast the Word of Life, and 'stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and not be entangled with the yoke of bondage.'

H. S. E.      

A.C.P., 1869-1870, pp. 81-84.

      So much has been said in favor of the Alliance Creed that one would almost conclude that it was a most remarkable document--a model of perfection--a perfect prodigy of learning. No doubt some of its fond admirers think so, but as we are not of the number 'who believe all that is said in favor of a thing by its zealous admirers, without examination' nor of those who say 'it does not matter what we believe if we are only sincere,' we shall carefully and dispassionately examine the document in order to arrive at its true character.

      The first striking feature we notice in the Alliance Creed is its INCONSISTENCY. Its first article affirms--

      'The Divine inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures.'

      Now, if its compilers, or those who adopted it, believe that the Holy Scriptures are of Divine authority and, consequently, superior to human authority in all matter of which they treat (brotherly love, the defence of Christian truth, and Christian union are among the number), we are at a loss to conceive how they could for one moment think that it was necessary to make a creed to supplant the authority of the Holy Scriptures. This they have done, and at the formation of the South Australian Evangelical Alliance in Adelaide, it was clearly demonstrated. A motion was put to the meeting affirming 'the authority and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures,' as a basis for the Alliance, and it was negatived by a large majority. It is clear, then, if those who voted against it voted intelligently, that they did not believe that the Scriptures were of sufficient authority or sufficiency for a basis of Christian co-operation. What a glaring inconsistency it is for those persons to affirm in word that 'the Holy Scriptures are of Divine authority and sufficiency' after they had already denied it in deed. But here some apologists may say, 'Perhaps they attached a different sense to the word sufficiency than that which you have attached to it.' Grant it, and at once another inconsistency appears. One of the strong arguments presented in favor of the Creed before its adoption was, that 'the Scriptures were too vague for a basis for the Alliance;' yet the Creed itself is so vague that it does not tell us for what the Holy Scriptures are sufficient. It affirms that the Holy Scriptures are sufficient for something, but it leaves us in doubt and uncertainty in the important matter of what they are sufficient for. Be it also remembered that the Creed states that the Holy Scriptures are of Divine authority. Are we also to understand that the words, 'Divine authority' are used in a different sense to that which is commonly applied to them, and that in the Creed they mean 'less than human authority?' If so, we have vagueness added to inconsistency, and need an interpreter to explain to us the meanings attached to the words used in the Creed. This is inconsistency with a vengeance. But if the words, 'Divine authority' of the Holy Scriptures be used in their commonly accepted sense, how then is it that the authority of the Word of God is set aside to make place for a human creed as a basis for the Alliance--a creed which can only lay claim to human authority--the authority of the ministers in London, who expended 'much time and talent in its construction?' Alas, alas! Consistency hides her face and weeps, but inconsistency, with bold and impudent mien, answers, 'What is that to thee? Leave that matter to me.' Sadly and reluctantly we leave the first article of the Alliance Creed with its friend and bosom companion--Inconsistency.

      The second article affirms--

      'The right and duty of private judgment in the interpretation of the Holy Scripture.'

      O! shame where is they blush? This is really too bad, 'tis a cruel mockery. It is like binding a man hand and foot, and then telling him it is his right and duty to be free! How can it be possible for a man to use his right of private judgment when a number of men have despoiled him of his right by making a Creed to measure his orthodoxy, and require him upon pain of non-membership in the Alliance to hold and maintain the Creed they have made? It cannot be. It is a right no member of the Evangelical Alliance can exercise so far as the doctrines treated of in the Creed are concerned, and a duty not one of them can perform and legitimately remain a member of the Alliance!

      Another feature of the Alliance Creed is its VAGUENESS. One would have thought from the remarks of its advocates on the vagueness of the Scriptures, that the Creed would surely have been free from this defect, but lo! it is the embodiment of vagueness! There is scarcely an article in it entirely free from this imperfection. We have already referred to this great defect in the first article--a few more samples must suffice.

      The fifth article affirms--

      'Christ's work of atonement for sinners of mankind,'

but it says nothing about when the work was done, how it was completed, or how this work avails for the poor sinner. All these important matters it leaves enveloped in thick darkness; whereas the Scriptures, that they tell us are so vague, reveal to us all this important information, and much more upon this subject.

      The sixth article affirms--

      'The justification of the sinner by faith alone.'

      Considering the importance of justification in the system of redemption, this article is most miserably defective. It is as silent as the grave upon the object of faith, which alone renders faith acceptable to God, and of benefit to man. Christ is the object of the sinner's faith for justification, but this article says nothing about Christ. It is Christless, and is therefore of no benefit to saint or sinner. But this is not all. Not only is this article vague and defective, but it is positively untrue. We shall proceed at once and give you the proof of this statement:--

      Thus you see The Alliance Creed affirms 'justification is by faith alone,' but the Scriptures affirm that 'a man is not justified by faith only.' The Creed attributes justification to one cause alone. The Scriptures attribute justification to six different causes. If the Creed is right the Scriptures are wrong, and vice versa, if the Scriptures are right the Creed is wrong. To affirm that 'man lives by breathing,' and that 'a man lives by breathing alone,' are two very different propositions, and they are as wide as the poles apart. So are the propositions 'man is justified by faith,' and 'man is justified by faith alone.' The one found in the Scriptures, and the other in the Alliance Creed. We believe what the Scriptures teach, and therefore reject the Creed that contradicts them. Yea, 'let God be true and every man a liar.'

      The seventh article affirms--

      'The work of the Holy Spirit in the conversion and sanctification of the sinner.'

      This article is also so vague that it is utterly worthless so far as intelligence or instruction is concerned. It tells us nothing about the work of the Holy Spirit--No, not even what it is! Why did they not come out plainly and speak of the work of the Holy Spirit in the language of the Scriptures? We do not know. But one thing we do know, that the Scriptures teach, not only that there is a work which the Holy Spirit does in conversion and sanctification, but also what that work is, and also inform us, in part, how that work is accomplished. Indeed, all that man can possibly learn upon this subject God has revealed in his Word; hence, the Scriptures are clearer and more explicit than any human creed can possibly be. Where, then, is the vagueness? Is it in the Scriptures, or in the Alliance Creed?

      We now come to the ninth and last article, which affirms--

      'The Divine institution of the Christian ministry, and the obligation and perpetuity of the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.'

      This is certainly the climax of vagueness! Not a word is here stated about who compose the ministry--what are the necessary qualifications for those who enter the ministry--nor what their respective duties are. Look also at Baptism. The Creed affirms its obligation and perpetuity, but not one word does it utter as to what baptism is--what it teaches--or who are its proper subjects. So with the Lord's Supper. Not the least hint does it give as to what it is--what it is for--who may partake of it--when to partake of it--or how to partake of it. Now all these important matters are clearly taught in the Scriptures, and yet the friends of the Creed clamour about the vagueness of the Scriptures, and the necessity of a 'doctrinal basis' for the Evangelical Alliance. Alas! for the frailty of human nature! O! when will the time come when Christians will have full confidence in the Word of God, as their only rule of faith and the true basis of all Christian co-operation? The Lord speed the day!

      We shall now conclude with a brief notice of the third objectionable feature of the Alliance Creed, namely its INUTILITY.

      We have already stated that it was a useless thing, and we shall now give our reasons for the statement.

      1st. It is unnecessary, because God has given us the Holy Scriptures as the rule of our faith and practice.--2 Tim. iii. 15-17.

      2nd. It is insufficient as a basis of Christian co-operation, because a man may believe all that it affirms and yet not be a Christian. The Gospel of Christ is not in it. The death of Christ for sins, his burial, and resurrection are nowhere to be found in the Creed, and no man can be saved unless he believe these facts--Mark xvi. 15,16; 1 Cor. xv. 1-4; and 1 Cor. xv. 14-18.

      3rd. It is unprofitable, because a man may do all that the Creed requires and yet not be a Christian. Where, then, is its safeguard against the intrusion of heretics? Where its benefit or its use? Alas! what an incompetent and unsafe teacher, guardian, or guide is the Alliance Creed! May the Lord preserve us from all such. But, on the other hand, if a man believe the Gospel of Christ and obey it, and make the Holy Scriptures the only rule of his faith and practice, he will not only be saved, but he will have his 'fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.'

H. S. E.      

A.C.P., 1869-1870, pp. 149-156.

      We lay before our readers an article from the January number of the South Australian Wesleyan Magazine. We give it entire, that we may do ample justice to the writer, and that we may all have an idea what this Magazine has to say of us:--

      "Religious rivalry, like other competition, may serve a useful purpose; by keeping the various denominations closer to their standards; or, better still, to the great source of all our beliefs--the Word of God But this spirit of emulation is also capable of being greatly abused, and in unscrupulous hands may be made an engine not only for spreading corrupt doctrines, whose chief recommendation is that they lower the terms of salvation offered to man in the Gospel, but also for waging an unchristian warfare with existing churches, by whose robbery and spoliation only a malicious spirit can be gratified. We are led to make these remarks from having observed the zeal with which one of the denominations in our midst here seeks to propagate its peculiar views. We refer to the body of religionists bearing several titles, but usually known by the name of 'Campbellite Baptists.' If the zeal of this body was well affected, and mingled with true christian charity towards other religious societies, we should feel bound to reciprocate that feeling and concede the utmost latitude possible to the views taught by this sect. But circumstances compel us to adopt another course, and to reprehend in the plainest language the spirit and doctrines of this body of professing christians.

      "And, firstly then, let us look at the spirit of this church. When we state that this is one of uncompromising hostility to all other religious bodies, and especially towards the Wesleyan body, we shall doubtless cause astonishment to some of our readers, though not to all. This hostility is active and intense, and extends to almost every part of our doctrines and church discipline. We presume that this special opposition springs from the fact that our numerous and scattered societies most frequently obstruct the path of its proselytising endeavours. To support this serious charge we might appeal to the facts of the case as observed by those who have watched the operations of this body during the last two years. But we would rather prefer to fall back upon the statements of their own printed organ, the exponent of their spirit and aims. These will show that the conflict and opposition which have hitherto marked the progress of this sect have not been casual acts, incidental to its first struggles for existence, but arise from its avowed policy, which is to pull down and destroy the already constituted Protestant Churches of our land. In the S.A. Pioneer (the printed organ of this body for September last) there is a bitter and scurrilous letter, addressed to 'The Editor of the Wesleyan Magazine.' In this letter we meet with such expressions as these,--"Before we had strength to give you much annoyance, the Wesleyans were competing with other branches of the denominational tree. * * * We can be no worse than you in regard to proselytism. This is our day of small things, and it is only a question of time. * * * But we have resolved to dig and cut away till we have grubbed up the denominational tree by the roots. It will be a hard job, but we expect to get help from the wise-hearted and from the Lord.' We quite agree with them that it will be 'a hard job.' The Church of Rome has taken the same enterprise in hand during the last thousand years, and has not yet succeeded. We think any Methodist who reads the letter alluded to will feel that the Apostolic injunction--'If it be possible as much as lieth in you live peaceably with all men,' is one of the impossibilities implied in it in reference to this body of religionists. Its Evangelist, in reporting progress through the country, classes the opposition of the Methodists and that 'of the world, the flesh, and the Devil' together, though the opposition so often referred to is only that self defence which every right minded minister will use when those he ministers

to are assailed, as he thinks, by clever incomers or wandering stars who practice plausible words and clever mimicry to proselytize them.

      "We notice, secondly, the doctrinal teachings of this Church. It will be satisfactory to existing Churches to know what kind of illumination will bless the world when they shall have been removed off the face of the earth. Those doctrines are--(1) Teaching, (2) Faith (3) Repentance, (4) Baptism, (5) Remission of Sins. See 'Law of Pardon.' S.A. Pioneer, September, 1869. The doctrine of Justification by Faith alone as understood by Evangelical Christians is denied. The faith required is simple belief, and anything beyond this is rejected. Regeneration is dependent upon Baptism by immersion. There may be other qualifications connected with Baptism, but none is more essential than that rite, which is the veritable door of salvation, all other conditions only preparing the way for it. See 'Regeneration,' S.A. Pioneer, August, 1869. As to any inward experiences being connected with this momentous change, that seems to be entirely ignored; indeed, the writer of the above article denies anything of a mysterious character in it, in direct opposition to our Lord's words (John iii. 8). In consequence of such views experimental religion is denied in great part, while the stress is laid wholly upon practical religion, as though the fruit could be produced apart from its root. The Methodistic doctrines of the conscious assurance of the Divine favor--the Witness of the Holy Spirit, and others--are derided and treated as the illusions of fanaticism. Finally, like the Pharisees and Romanists, they assert that they alone possess the key of the kingdom of heaven. We have greatly misunderstood their writings--'if we are in error when we state that, like Popery, they justify their intolerant and bigoted sentiments towards other Churches by the compensating doctrine--'No Salvation out of our Church.' This doctrine is sometimes avowed, but more generally suppressed.

      "Pharisaism and hypocrisy are often found together. What other view can possibly be taken of the conduct of the leaders of these religious Ishmaelites, whose hand is against every man's, in their late endeavors to occupy a place upon the platform of the Evangelical Alliance? What had they to do in such a place after their open declaration of uncompromising war against all other denominations? The Alliance seeks peace and unity. Their object is to destroy and pull down, The Alliance seeks to promote Christian love amongst Protestants. They breathe forth defiance, and deny that charity as latitudinarianism. After this practical example of their religious treachery, we feel assured that our readers will be put upon their guard, and will not readily be deceived by the use of ambiguous phrases, or even open professions of Christian sympathy. It affords us no pleasure to write in this way of professing Christians, but we owe a duty to the Christian public, which should be warned as to the real objects which the leaders of this body are seeking to compass, the spirit which animates them, and the tenets which they tenaciously but cautiously hold. Active and earnest Christian agencies for impressing a careless and unbelieving world cannot be too much multiplied even in this our thinly-populated colony, for after all the exertions of existing religious denominations, there still remains a large number who are indifferent to any form or profession of religion. But to awaken such dead souls on the one hand, and to seduce and lead away from the folds in which they are already gathered simple and credulous Christians on the other hand, are two very different things. The one will always command our deepest Christian sympathy and joy at their success, whilst the other must be classed amongst 'the unfruitful works of darkness.' A Church built upon such a foundation will never receive the blessing of the Great Head of the Church, yet it may beguile unstable souls, and be a fruitful source of temporary injury to other Churches which are truly endeavouring to fulfil their great mission in the world."

      The writer of the foregoing seems to have reached the conclusion that the time has come when some very plain talk should be indulged. We have no objection to the use of the "plainest language." We like plain talk, and only wish there was more of it. By all means let us use that language which is least liable to be misconstrued or misunderstood. Our Wesleyan friend has, as it will be seen, felt himself mightily moved, we suppose by the spirit of Wesleyanism, to send forth a solemn warning against the "Disciples of Christ" as a people. He says:--"We owe a duty to the Christian public, which should be warned as to the real objects which the leaders of this body are seeking to compass, the spirit which animates them, and the tenets which they tenaciously but cautiously hold." Here then is a clear and distinct alarm sounded.

      The valiant Editor has spoken plainly and unmistakably. He has paraded us before the community as Christians by profession, but not Christians in reality. In fact, besides many other things which he may deem very genteel and courteous, boldly insinuates that we are "Pharisees and hypocrites." Strong language is used in this "warning." We only ask that the bold and very confident writer make good his assertions. We ask that which we have a right to demand before a discriminating public--that our faith and practice be tried by "God's word," and not by the simple assertion of any man. This much we have a right to demand. We mean by this not a simple reference to some portion of our teaching, and then the conclusion that of course it is wrong, because it may not accord with modern Wesleyanism; or a reference to a passage of Scripture, and then the assertion that we deny that passage in our teaching. There is vastly too much of this matter of course style of reasoning. Here is the logic of this writer in a nutshell. "You differ from us--Wesleyans--therefore you must be wrong." We have a decided objection to this claim of infallibility. If we are to be "hanged, drawn and quartered," let it be done according to the "law and the testimony."

      But let us look more closely at the words of the writer. The very first sentence is his own condemnation and the justification of those he condemns. Hear him condemn himself out of his own mouth. He says:--"Religious rivalry, like other competition, may serve a useful purpose by keeping the various denominations closer to their standards; or, better still, to the great source of all our beliefs--the

Word of God." This sentence clearly affirms that the denominations have standards which are not the Word of God. This writer puts them down as their standards. He thinks that the Word of God "is the source of all our beliefs," but that their standards are something different. In other words he makes the denominations occupy the precise position of the Roman Catholics, who say that the Bible is not sufficient; but they must have the Bible and tradition. According to them the Bible is not the light, but the Bible must be illuminated by tradition. So then it seems our Wesleyan friends and other denominations have concluded that the Bible will not do, but they must have their standards beside. Just here we may say may be found the great plea which we make. We hold that the "Word of God" is amply sufficient without the addition of any human standards. If, therefore, this doughty champion of Wesleyanism will only point out where we transgress God's Word, not their standards, we shall be thankful. We expect ever to be unflinchingly hostile towards all humanisms in the system of Christianity.

      We are willing to be guided by God's Word, but not by human standards. We were discussing not long since Biblical questions with a Wesleyan minister of years standing. He frankly confessed that it was too much the practice among Wesleyans in Biblical questions to seek to know what 'our Church says,' instead of what the Bible says. We are perfectly willing to take God's Word for our standard, and in doing so we shall never take upon ourselves the name of John Wesley. The Bible gives us a better name than his. The name "Campbellite Baptist" is sought to be fixed upon us. If the writer did not know, he might easily have known perfectly well, that we are not usually known by this name. This name is rarely heard, but is now sought to be fixed upon us, in order, as we suppose, that we may be ranked among those bearing the names of men. If our Wesleyan friends are tired of wearing the name of a human leader we congratulate them, but must respectfully decline being enrolled by them among the followers of men upon the principle that misery loves company. It is no hart matter to find our name. Hence if the writer had wished to do us justice he would not have attempted to fasten upon us a name which he knew was distasteful. If the Wesleyans will say the name Wesleyan is distasteful, and they themselves will set the example, we pledge ourselves never again to call them Wesleyans.

      But our Wesleyan friend reads us a lecture on Charity. We might suppose from what he says that we are of all people under the sun the most uncharitable. We dare say many thought the same thing of the Primitive Christians. Some people think that everything that savors of opposition to their peculiar views is uncharitable. According to our Wesleyan friend Luther must have been very uncharitable; for he was filled with opposition to all that he considered contrary to God's Word. But then this writer being a good member of the Alliance which "seeks peace and unity," might be expected to act as a faultless example as regards charity. Surely we had a right to expect some meekness, some courtesy, at least an absence of naughty words which might grate upon the feelings. Perhaps the writer forgot in his dislike of the "Campbellite Baptists" that charity had any other office in his own case than to cover a multitude of his own sins. Let us look for a moment at the charity par excellence of this defender of the "Methodistic faith." We were just about to write "the faith," but remembered that "Methodistic faith" and "Methodistic doctrines" agree best together. The Saviour tells us that a tree is known by its fruits. We shall have a cluster or two from this tree. What think you of these mild and delicious clusters! Are they not of an odour most sweet and a taste most delightful! Here they are "unscrupulous hands," "clever incomers," "wandering stars," "practice plausible words," "clever mimicry," "intolerant and bigoted sentiments," "religious treachery," "religious Ishmaelites," "deceivers," and such like. And this is our par excellence charity man. Surely the Alliance should vote him a medal with "Christian Charity" on one side and "Christian Courtesy" on the other.

      Who can see any argument in this style of speech. Surely he must have more discernment than commonly falls to the lot of men to see anything else than a tissue of abuse. We might just as well say to our Wesleyan friends that this kind of opposition they have maintained towards us for some time past. They have never yet met us on any issue as to God's Word in a fair, argumentative Christian-like manner. They have dealt in abuse--abuse devoid of argument. They have attributed our work to the Devil. They have tried to keep people from coming to hear us preach by the cry of heresy, water salvation, denial of the Holy Spirit, etc. etc., but they have never yet attempted to meet us openly and fairly.

      The people, however, have a right to hear and will hear. They are not so much priest-ridden as to give up their privilege of reading God's Word for themselves, and deciding for themselves too, the efforts of our friend to the contrary notwithstanding. We know that Wesleyan ministers have persuaded the people not to come and hear us, simply because the fear was entertained that such hearers might think a little for themselves. And yet these preachers must not be accused of keeping the Word of God from any one. Oh, no. That would be very uncharitable, highly uncharitable and reprehensible. We would inform the aforesaid writer that the "Disciples of Christ" are never afraid to go and hear a sermon from any man who loves the Lord Jesus Christ. Whenever a man condescends to that opposition, which by abuse persuades the people not to hear for themselves it shows clearly that he has exceeding little confidence in his position. The truth fears nothing. Error ever skulks in darkness. When a man is girded with truth, he fears no Goliath that may come boastingly against him. Of course, when a man marches forth with one of "their standards" and meets one carrying the Heavenly standard--the--"Word of God"--it is very natural

for him to cry out "heresy," "false doctrines," etc., etc., for he knows full well that God's Word brooks no human standard. We know of a case which illustrates practically this point. A Wesleyan made an agreement with a Disciple of Christ to go and hear one of our evangelists, provided that the visit should be returned, that is they would both go and hear the Wesleyan preacher. When he--the Wesleyan preacher--heard of the arrangement he persuaded this Wesleyan to cancel the agreement. That preacher was simply afraid for that member to hear the truth. He was afraid of the mind becoming unsettled. That same preacher, though heartily disbelieving in unsettling people's minds, delivered a lecture on Baptism, and so thoroughly unsettled the minds of a number that they were very soon afterwards "buried with their Lord in baptism." They are now going on their way rejoicing. Their minds are now settled.

      We are, moreover, accused of special hostility towards the "Wesleyan body." Says the writer--"This hostility is active and intense, and extends to almost every part of our doctrines and church discipline." We entirely disclaim any special hostility against the "Wesleyan body." This charge is simply unfounded. We are, however, hostile with an "uncompromising hostility" to all humanisms in the system of Christianity. Since God has given us a perfect system, we cannot without remonstrance see the hand of man laid upon it for the purpose of change in any particular whatever. If the Wesleyans are conscious of having in their system more humanisms than other professing bodies of Christians, then they may rightly conclude that our opposition will be relatively greater. We oppose only the humanisms among Wesleyans. Whatever among them is in accordance with God's Word has our approval and not condemnation. We oppose the following humanisms, so heartily endorsed by our valiant accuser. Infant baptism, as a humanism, has our "uncompromising hostility," because there is not a single passage of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, teaching it. We oppose the name "Wesleyan," because it is not found in the Bible. We oppose the doctrine set forth in such expressions as "full members," "members on trial," because there is no Scripture for such division. Can our self-constituted evangelically orthodox friend tell us how many of the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost were made "full members," and how many were received "on trial?" Can he tell us whether the eunuch who "went on his way rejoicing" was a "full member" or only "on trial?" Can he tell us whether Paul, who reckoned himself "the chief of sinners," was at once made a "full member" or received "on trial?" If there had been in those days Methodistic wisdom things might not have fallen out just as they did. We have to be thankful that the Holy Spirit, and not the spirit of Methodism guided the Apostles into all truth. In reference to the practice of which we have been speaking, we should lie to hear one single passage quoted from God's Word in favor of it. If there is one, let us have it. In ancient times "the Lord added to the Church daily the saved." Nothing about "on trial" here. Perhaps one of their standards will be a more convenient help to our friend in this matter than the Bible. We shall enumerate one more humanism peculiar to Methodism. Class meetings are made tests of membership in the "Wesleyan body." Where do we find God's will on this subject? There is nothing in the Bible teaching it.

      Now because we do not endorse all these humanisms and teach men so, we are "Ishmaelites." We have no particular desire to wander in the deserts of Arabia, but still, if we must make our choice--either bind these humanisms on our backs, thereby making void the Word of God by our tradition, or be as Ishmael--our decision is soon taken. We want the Bible and nothing but the Bible as our rule of faith and practice. We intend to permit, in matters of religion, no humanisms to be laid upon us as great heavy burdens; we intend to be the Lord's freemen. Let us have God's will and nothing else. If the Wesleyans will agree with us here, there need be no more controversy. But we cannot consent to saying we take the Bible and the Bible alone as our rule of faith and practice, and at the same time teach and practice those things not found in it. Let our works prove our faith. If we really believe the Bible is a sufficient rule of faith and practice, then let us hold it fast, and put no disgrace upon it by solemnly passing a resolution that it is not sufficient, but must have a humanism in the way of a creed to explain its meaning. The Alliance having passed such a resolution, to add a human creed to the Bible, we felt bound by our love and reverence for the Word of God to take no further interest in its deliberations. But this devotion to God's Word our Wesleyan friend, of course, overflowing with "the milk of human kindness," puts down in his chaste, inimitable style, as "religious treachery."

      But our greatest sin in the eyes of this writer is our opposition to denominationalism. A writer in the Pioneer, for declaring his opposition, is charged with having indulged "bitter and scurrilous" language. We see how exceedingly tender our friends are on this subject; we shrewdly suspect they know God does not sanction denominationalism. Now as to this "bitter and scurrilous" language, we simply ask any unprejudiced person to get a copy of the Pioneer for September, 1869, and read the "Letter to the Editor of the Wesleyan Magazine," and see if he can find this "bitter and scurrilous" language. Then let him read the article on Conversion, by the Editor, in the Magazine for July, 1869. This article called forth the letter. It will be at once seen who has indulged "bitter and scurrilous" language.

      But a word or two on the subject of denominationalism. Are denominations sanctioned by the Word of God? We would simply ask, where in God's Word can we find directions as to the formation of denominations? In the estimation of this Wesleyan writer it is a very great sin to call in question the propriety of "denominational walls" to fence off the "denominations" into different enclosures. Are these "denominational hedges" of God or of man? We are perfectly aware that the Alliance have agreed to keep

in repair these "denominational hedges," and if any dare lift a hand against them to destroy any portion, all the shepherds are at once to combine and utterly cast out such an "Ishmaelite." But we would ask that a single passage of Scripture be pointed out where these middle walls of partition, these denominational, these division walls, are justified. Where does God give directions for their erection? Again we say, where? Let us have the Scriptures on the subject, or let the whole thing be considered as another of those humanisms, those heavy burdens. If it would not be presumption, we might suggest a portion of Scripture which might materially aid our friend in his investigations of this subject--see 1 Cor. iii. If "denominationalism" be right, then hold it fast. We presume, however, there are very few who will contend that it is Scriptural. If there are any, we would like to know upon what Scriptures they rest their belief. Let it be distinctly understood that our opposition is directed only towards humanisms in the system of Christianity. It is against measures, not men. In this we are actuated only by love to God and man. We expect to be earnest in our plea for the Bible and the Bible alone. Yet in all this we have no desire to deal in abuse; we wish not to speak disrespectfully of any body of professing Christians, but simply hold forth the truth--not their standards, but the standard, "The Word of God." We have confidence in our position. We have only to hold up the truth, to plead for God's Word, and we can afford to leave abuse to those who have a taste for it.

      But, what of the "doctrinal teachings of this Church?" The Wesleyan writer refers to the "Law of Pardon." We respectfully challenge him to show where that is unscriptural. What is this "Law of Pardon?" (1) Teaching; (2) Faith; (3) Repentance; (4) Baptism; (5) Remission of Past Sins. Now compare the Wesleyan "Law of Pardon." (1) Baptism (2) Teaching; (3) Repentance; (4) Faith; (5) Remission of Past Sins. Which of these is in accordance with God's Truth? Does the Saviour say, "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them," etc. (Matthew xxviii. 19); or "Go baptize all nations, teaching them," etc.? Does He say, "Go, preach the Gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark xvi. 15-16); or, "Go baptize every creature, and then preach the Gospel, and he that believeth shall be saved?" We have no hesitation in leaving the matter to the decision of every true lover of the Bible. Our friend becomes frightened at baptism having any connection with remission of sins. We only ask him to explain why the Apostles connected them. Doubtless it would do his soul good to have Pardon and Baptism at least a page apart in the Book of Inspiration. But the Holy Spirit has connected them. Would it not be well for the Wesleyan Conference, or the Alliance, at its next meeting, to put Peter, Ananias, and John Wesley on their trial for having, contrary to Wesleyanism, dared to say--"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts ii. 38).--"Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts xxii. 16). Now in the Conference or Alliance it would only require two or three speeches about the great "doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, as understood by Evangelical Christians," to ensure their conviction and condemnation. Surely it must have been very wrong of them to have spoken so carelessly on so solemn a subject! But wisdom and prudence have mightily increased since Peter and Ananias were laid in their graves.

      We have not space in this article to say much on "Regeneration." We have only to say that a Christian can not have "Christian experience," or "experimental religion," until he becomes a Christian. Much of what is told as Christians' experience is sinners' experience. Call things by their right names and we shall be agreed on this point. We would ask a careful reading of the articles in the Pioneer on "Regeneration;" we regard them as fully in accordance with God's Word. We may enlarge still further on this subject ere long.

      And now, in conclusion, we have to join with our Wesleyan friend in hoping that the Christian public may know as soon as possible the "real objects which the leaders of this body are seeking to compass," "the spirit which animates them," and the tenets which they hold. In order to further this, we would ask as an act of justice that the Editor of the Wesleyan Magazine insert this article in his paper. In order that justice may be fully done, we tender as much space in the Pioneer as is granted us in the Magazine. We respectfully challenge the most scrutinizing investigation as to our objects and tenets. We have nothing to conceal. We only ask one and all to look into God's Word--if our teaching be not found there, reject it. Our great object is a full return to primitive, Apostolic Christianity. In doing this we are actuated by the spirit of love and truth. If we know our own hearts, we are governed in the whole matter by love to God and man. Our tenets are God's teachings simply, without addition, emendation, or correction. Putting our trust in the living God, and standing valiantly for His Truth, we have nought to fear. For, in the language of an eminent writer--"Truth, holy truth, stands upon the Rock of Ages. It lifts its head above the clouds--above the stars. It communes with God. It holds sweet converse with the hierarchy around the throne of the Eternal King; with those elders, sons of light, and with the spirits of the mighty dead. It is the bright effluence of the bright essence of the uncreated mind. God spoke, and truth was born. It is, therefore, immortal, and cannot be killed. It will survive all its foes, and stand erect when every idol falls. No one knows its gigantic strength. It has been often cast down, but never destroyed. For ages past it has been gathering strength and preparing for a mightier conflict yet, than time records. It needs no fleshly wisdom, nor worldly policy, to give it power or gain a victory. It is in itself redeeming, soul redeeming, and disenthralling. It has passed through fire, and flood, and tempest, and is as

fresh, as fair, as beautiful, and as puissant as ever. He that defends it, feels the strength of mountains, as though girded with the everlasting hills. It gives him more than mortal strength, and enlarges his benevolence wide as humanity itself. Though assailed with unbecoming rudeness, it cannot be destroyed. Conceived in the bosom of everlasting love, its aspirations are to its native heaven. Light and fire, earth's purest elements are but the shadows of its glory. The tongues of lambent flame that sat upon the heads of the Apostles, were but indicative of its irradiating and consuming potency. But its language is that of love, of purity, and peace. In contending, therefore, for this truth the blessing of the Great Head of the Church will certainly rest upon us, all adverse predictions to the contrary notwithstanding. We lift up our hearts in prayer that God's blessing may rest upon all efforts to advance the cause of truth and righteousness in the earth, and that all may realize the solemnity and importance of the Saviour's prayer--"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them who shall believe on me through their word, that they may all be one; as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

T. J. G.      

A.C.P., 1869-1870, pp. 210-212.

      In last issue of Truth and Progress our papers on "Sects" are taken notice of by a Deacon, his paper must then be reviewed. We find he evades attending to say of our arguments; this is not surprising, as I opine he would have found it a hard task, instead of this he finds fault with the style of our papers, and compares us to the Three Tailors of Tooley Street, who commenced their document with, "We, the people of England." Our Deacon has a good deal of wisdom of a sort, he knows that few Baptists read the Pioneer, and if he could only hold us up to ridicule and set us down alongside the Three Tailors, this would serve his purpose better than a hundred arguments; if he had been thoroughly honest he would have given a few specimens of our style.

      We, however, judge he is not quite satisfied with the name Baptist, as he says he does not much object to our using the name Christian, but claims that the Baptists are also Christians. What is it that hinders them renouncing the name Baptist, and becoming Christians in name and thing? We earnestly desire that both he and all men become Christians. We don't want to keep the name to ourselves.

      He says he finds that there are upwards of 120 names given to the Church of God and its members in the Bible. Well it appears as though God has given the Baptists such a profusion of names to pick from, they are not pleased with any one of them, but must have one of their own coining. This looks very bad. We invite him next to count up how many names are given to Christ in the Bible, and will he set them aside because there are so many, and make a new name for him? Say, call him Jesus the Baptist. Probably this deacon never baptized any one, yet we read Christ baptized more disciples than John. So there is a better reason for calling Christ Baptist, than themselves.

      He tells of the Harbinger being called Baptist (properly the Baptist), but though John was the greatest prophet born of women, yet he was not a disciple of Christ, but had disciples of his own, and never was a member of the Churches of Christ; so Baptist is not one of the 120 names.

      He affirms that the phrase "Church of Christ" is not found in the Bible. What use is there in this discovery? Do the Baptists believe that Christ had no Church? Well we have something better, viz., Churches of Christ, and we profess to belong to them. Do the Baptists say they are only a sect, but not belonging to that Church which Christ loved and gave himself for, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with a bath of water by the Word--that he might present it to himself a glorious Church?

      He has also made another discovery that the name Disciple is not found in any of the Epistles. Is it not enough that it is found in the Book of Acts? Does he know that the word deacon is only found in one chapter of the New Testament? No doubt the Deacon expects to make a large capital out of these small points. This is his style. He then tells us that "The names generally employed by the Apostles were brethren, saints, elect," etc. We follow the same rule as the Apostles here, and call each other brethren, etc. But we don't choose to be called by Mahometans, Jews, and aliens of every name, brethren or saints, but christians. He then adopts Alford's remarks--the name Christian is never used by Christians of themselves, only as coming from those without the Church. This is exactly where we put our name, for the use of those outside our Churches. The word deacon is also for the use of those who are not deacons, but what would be thought of a man who was at a deacon's meeting, who would go away and say they are not deacons at all, for I heard them call one another brethren.

      He affirms, also, that the word Christian, found in 1 Peter iv. 16, and Acts xxvi. 28, is used as carrying contempt from the mouth of an adversary. Does he pretend to know the intentions of those who used the word, apart from the sense of the words themselves? For if the name Christian is a word implying contempt, we have no doubt he would be willing we make ourselves foolish in so naming ourselves, but it is his style; he expects people to accept his statement on his own authority, unsupported by any proof or demonstration.

      He truly says the name Christian Disciple is not found in the Bible. If he were only to look at our name written over our chapel doors, he would find that we were only Christians; Christian Disciples is a misnomer, a tautology.

      He quotes the words of Agrippa to Paul, in the Union translation--"With little pains thou wouldest persuade me to be a Christian." This rendering is very uncouth; the one they put in a foot note is more sensible--"In little time thou persuadest me to be a Christian." In Paul's answer he virtually accepts of the word Christian as denoting what he was himself. When the historian says that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch, it meaneth that from that period they obtained this name. We would feel obliged to the Deacon were he to inform us in what book it is written that disciples, or baptized believers, were first called Baptists, and in what town or city it happened.

      He says that "Paul found in the Church of Corinth four separate divisions, calling themselves by Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and Christ; and that Paul condemns the latter party as well as the others." We say that the facts of the case are directly opposite, as Paul quotes the words--"If any man boast let him boast in the Lord:" so they who said they were of Christ did this thing--they boasted in the Lord. There were divisions, but they were not separate; or parted into sects and denominations.

      We have only space to notice the Deacon's strong point:--"We find in South Adelaide five separate Churches practicing immersion on a profession of faith, and yet repudiating the name Baptist; and there is as little sympathy or union between those Churches as between any sects that can be mentioned." We have no doubt the Deacon considers this a poser, and that Baptists generally will be disposed, from such reasons at this, to look upon the question of a name as not worthy of serious thought. We confess it to be true that the people called Christians have followed the bad example of the Baptists, and split up themselves into separate divisions. But this has little to do with the scripturality of names. Moreover, if we wanted a human name to operate as a charm to keep us together, we would not choose that of Baptist, but a high-sounding one such as the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. A right name is a good thing, but not everything we want; for charity, we think, is the bond of union among Christians, and without charity we are nothing but a sounding brass; but unless we love one another for the truth's sake that dwelleth in us it is not genuine charity. Hence it is imperative that all who are Christians abide in the truth and love each other fervently with pure hearts. It is not, then, the fault of the name that divisions take place; besides, it is an axiom,--"That the abuse of anything is no reason against its use;" and again, if we choose a name having God's Word for our authority, and any harm come of it, the responsibility rests not with us; our minds then are at perfect ease on this hear. But there is one great advantage connected with professors of religion calling themselves Christians, that if they act an unworthy part we can charge them with being inconsistent, and with the fault of dishonoring that holy name by which they are called; but when a man confesses to being a Baptist or a Methodist, there being nothing in such names, we have no hold of them and they will slip through our hands.

      We then invite the Deacon not to fight so shy, but come up to the point and grapple with us in next number of Truth and Progress; and, also, that he give the Baptists some fair specimens of our style, that they may judge for themselves.

Y. Z.      

A.C.P., 1869-1870, pp. 226-228.

      The Editor of the Wesleyan Magazine, in the April number, has noticed our reply to his onslaught upon the Disciples of Christ in the January number of the same Magazine. We cannot say that this second article is any improvement upon the first. The Editor seems to have no desire to look into the Scriptures to see if we teach the truths therein found, but is content to accuse us of "Jesuitical casuistry," of "an act of dissimulation," of "a transgression of the spirit of truthfulness and love." Of course, if the writer's mind is fuller of abuse and accusations than the Word of God, and if he takes great delight in the use of abuse and accusation, it would certainly be rather unnatural for him to bring his mind to bear upon the Word of God. It is, however, sad, that men professing to follow Christ cannot carry themselves high over such mean things as suspicions with reference to the motives of those who disagree with them. We invited the Editor of the Wesleyan Magazine to make good his assertions concerning us, from the Word of God. If we were in error we were willing to be enlightened. We desire to know the truth and nothing but the truth. But he declines to investigate the truth--he declines to say a word on a single passage of Scripture. We brought forward a number of passages, yet not one of them claims his attention. In fact, it seems that anything will suit him better than a calm and fearless investigation of the truth. When a man persistently shuns the Word of God, we may conclude at once that he is the advocate of some things at least upon which it is best that the light of revelation do not shine. But further, if there had been a desire to do us justice, the Editor might have inserted, at least, a portion of our article. In allusion to his former article, he says, "We wrote then for the information of our people and not for purposes of controversy." Surely then, when we supplied him with information he should have given it. He could not have given his readers more correct information as to our teaching, spirit, and aim, than to have shown them

something from our own pens. We fear the Editor was anxious to enlighten his readers as to his idea of our teaching, spirit, and aim, and not as to our real teaching, spirit, and aim. However, he controls his own columns, and can do as he likes.

      We do not intend to notice his last article at length, for it is scarcely worthy of notice at all. Were it not for two or three things in it, we should pass it by. We feel, however, that we must call attention to a few passages. In reference to us the Editor says--

      "The logic of the writer is of a very singular character, in his remarks upon our statement, 'religious rivalry * * * may keep the various denominations closer to their standards; or, better still, to the great source of all our beliefs--the Word of God;' when he says, 'this statement clearly affirms that the denominations have standards which are not the Word of God.' The quibble here is characteristic enough. They are not the same, only in the sense that the broad river is not the same with its fountain head, or that bread made from flour, which is made from wheat, is not the same as the wheat. We have taken the wheat of the Gospel and made it into as honest spiritual bread as we can."

      We do not see that the matter is made any clearer by these comments. We simply ask anyone acquainted with the meaning of words, to say whether, from the Editor's own language, he would conclude that the "Word of God" and "their standards" were the same. Would the Editor inform us which is the "fountain head," and which is the "broad river?" Which is the "wheat," and which "the honest spiritual bread?" Is God's Word the wheat, and "their standards" the "honest spiritual bread?" But he says--"We have taken the wheat of the Gospel and made it into as honest spiritual bread as we can." We have italicised this sentence for, in its way, it is quite a curiosity. We have read in God's Word that, the Saviour said--"I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger." We also read, that man was "to live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." God has, however, nowhere commanded men to come to Wesleyan ministers to have the "wheat of the Gospel" manufactured into "honest spiritual bread." Roman Catholics claim that they must first manipulate the Word of God before the people can understand it; but this is the first time we have heard a professed Protestant speaking of what man may manufacture as the Word of Life. We know that men may feed on the Word of God, just as He has given it, and do not have to wait for it to pass through human manufactories. We very heartily object to feeding on Wesleyan loaves, because they are not pure. Our Wesleyan friends mingle too many humanisms with their bread. We want the bread as it comes from God. Will the Editor tell us where he finds instructions as to the manufacture of this "honest spiritual bread." According to him, what is the use of circulating the Bible in heathen lands unless there be some to go along with it to manufacture it into "honest spiritual bread." Had we not better send "their standards" to the heathen? As they have been manufactured, perhaps they might conduce to a spiritual growth among those who could digest them. We have a very decided objection to being fed on "creeds," or "books of discipline," or "confessions of faith" some, however, seem to devour them with great relish, and call others ugly names, because they have not the same taste. The Saviour says, "man shall live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God," not by those proceeding out of the mouth of man. It seems that the committee appointed to draft a basis for the Evangelical Alliance proposed one without a creed. However the Wesleyans in the meeting called to adopt this basis, being so fond of their manufactured "honest spiritual bread," threw out the report, and took in its stead a creed. But enough on this point. We shall pass to another item. We have no wish to believe that the Editor of the Wesleyan Magazine would knowingly state what is false, and hence we ask of him an explanation. He quotes a sentence from the Editors of the Pioneer as follows--"We would inform the writer that the "Disciples of Christ" are never afraid to go and hear a sermon from any man who loves the Lord Jesus Christ." He then takes a sentence from Y.Z., a contributor to the Pioneer as follows--"As a rule those who come over to us, never go back again to the sects" Now any one can see at a glance that there is no contradiction between these assertions; for the two writers are not speaking of the same things. The one is speaking simply of going to hear denominational ministers preach, the other is speaking of leaving the Church of Christ and joining denominational churches. But the Editor is determined to have a contradiction, so he proceeds to manufacture a sentence, and attributes it to Y.Z. The manufactured sentence is as follows--"Because they are taught there is no truth in them, and therefore are never found listening to their preachers." Around his own sentence he puts quotation marks, thus attributing it to an opponent. The sentence as attributed to us is simply untrue. But, finally, the Editor says--

      "We shall not pursue this subject any longer. Our object in undertaking it was to show the spirit and aim of the party to those who value their connection with our church, and having done this we do not intend, at present, to continue the controversy."

      Yes! the valiant Editor who provokes a controversy now retreats, and shows his unwillingness to enter into any investigation of the truth. We have said, and we say again, that there are humanisms among the Wesleyans which they will not, perchance for the reason they cannot, defend In our former article we instanced a number of these. The Editor has made no attempt to defend any of them. He knows full well the difficulty of defending them. In our former article we spoke thus:--"We oppose only the humanisms among Wesleyans. Whatever among them is in accordance with God's Word has our approval, and not condemnation. We oppose the following humanisms, so heartily endorsed by our valiant accuser:--Infant baptism, as a humanism, has our 'uncompromising hostility,' because there is not a single passage from

Genesis to Revelation teaching it: we oppose the name 'Wesleyan' because it is not found in the Bible: we oppose the doctrine set forth in such expressions as 'full members,' 'Members on trial,' because there is no Scripture for such division. Can our self-constituted evangelically orthodox friend tell us how many of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost were made 'full members,' and how many were received 'on trial?' Can he tell us whether Paul, who reckoned himself 'the Chief of Sinners,' was at once made a 'full member,' or received 'on trial?' If there had been in those days Methodistic wisdom, things might not have fallen out just as they did. We have to be thankful that the Holy Spirit, and not the spirit of Methodism, guided the Apostles into all truth. In reference to the practice of which we have been speaking, we should like to hear one single passage quoted from God's Word in favor of it. If there is one, let us have it. In ancient times 'the Lord added to the Church daily the saved.' Nothing about 'on trial' here. Perhaps one of their standards will be a more convenient help to our friend in this matter than the Bible. We shall enumerate one more humanism peculiar to Methodism. Class-meetings are made tests of membership in the 'Wesleyan body.' Where do we find God's will on this subject? There is nothing in the Bible teaching it."

      "We opine, that the Editor would be a very long time disposing of these. So he has thought it prudent, at any rate, not to make this attempt. However, we say to him, that we are always ready to look into God's Word in a Christian spirit. We desire nothing but the truth--the truth as it came from God--as it was given by the Holy Spirit to the writers of the Old and New Testaments. When we are writing upon religious subjects, we love to be looking into God's Word, not to be dealing in abuse. When the Editor has disposed of the humanisms mentioned, we have a few more for him. However, for the present, we dismiss him, with the hope that he may soon cease manufacturing his 'spiritual bread,' and begin to direct the attention of the people to the Word of God, where they can obtain the pure bread of life."

T. J. G.      

A.C.P., 1870-1871, pp. 27-31.

Sir--

      In your issue of July last, you charge a clever incomer with being a wandering star and of practicing on Methodists plausible words and clever mimicry on purpose to proselytize them. I know you fancy you have a prescriptive right to pre-eminence among us in South Australia. Before we had strength to give you much annoyance, the Wesleyans were competing with other branches of the denominational tree, and doing all they could to entice the birds to sit on their branch or under its shadow; we can be no worse than you in regard to proselytizing, but there is a difference in our case; sometimes if the Presbyterians or Independents stole a march on you there remained the chance of making reprisals by building new chapels or putting a superior man in the pulpit, but you know well such plans will be lost upon us. That which makes you feel so sore about our making proselytes is, you have an intuitive sense that we have truth on our side, and you despair of making reprisals by argument--it is a bad case, and we do feel for you. If a person forsake you and go over to the Presbyterians he has not gone far away, only hopped over to another branch of the tree, and he may be enticed to come back to you again, but if he come over to us he leaves the tree and all its branches. I do not wonder at your being vexed; lately the denominational tree has got lopsided, the Wesleyan branch was getting too heavy, and my old friends the Presbyterians coalesced and tied their little branches together so as to get more strength to be a match for you; as a rule, those who come over to us never go back again to the sects or to infant baptism, though we have occasionally to mourn over a few making shipwreck of their faith. This is our day of small things and it is a question of time, but we hope soon to constrain the branch churches to cease their strife and strike up a peace; as we have resolved to dig, and cut away, till we have grubbed up the denominational tree by the roots; it will be a hard job, but we expect we will get help from all the wise-hearted people and from God. The Lord hath said, 'Every plant that my Father hath not planted shall be rooted up" and we are sure God never planted this tree. We hope, however, if we are to have war with you, it will be conducted according to the rules of our civilization, and that you will never again pollute the pages of your Magazine with such an untrue tale as you recorded in your issue of last October, where it is related that 'the Pastor of a Baptist church let a man go in a muddy pool of water, making a narrow escape from the crime of manslaughter, through the man being drawn out with a rope after he had floundered some time between mud and water.' I then know the nest where this chick was hatched, and that it was taken under clerical nursing in one of our beautiful northern villages, and it grew up a gosling of good plumage and was sent to you to place on the tables of the Methodists in your magazines as an exquisite luxury. I must remind you, that among those who will stand outside the New Jerusalem, there will be found those who love and make lies. Have you never taken into account those cases where tender infants through exposure to the cold, in being taken out considerable distances to be christened, have thereby caught their death. A man and his wife in the next parish to that in which I was born, took out an infant on a stormy day in a cart to go to a minister on this errand, and the child was found smothered at its mother's breast. When requisition is made who shall answer for the death of those innocents? It had been better the clergy had

never changed infant circumcision into infant baptism as parents would have been able to circumcise their baby boys themselves, and avoided all risks in taking them long distances, as is frequently done to get something called christening done by a minister, and the boys could represent the girls now, as well as in the days of Abraham; besides, we see clearly from Acts xxi. that Paul did not interfere to stop the practice of circumcising the babies--sit had been better to have let what is well alone and not to change to the worse. If God had commanded the change the fact could not be hidden from those who can read their Bibles, indeed no law that ever God made has been changed, many of them have lapsed, grown old and vanished away, but how could it be said that circumcision vanished away if it still remains in a new and changed form. An infant nearly related to me died when it was four weeks old, and the mother fretted exceedingly on account of its not being christened, and her minister came, and I heard him use many persuasives to comfort her and to assure her that the loved child had suffered no loss, and that all was well. I believe almost all clergymen, except Romanists and Ritualists, would adopt the same course to comfort a bereaved mother in a like case; it is plain then to those who will only think, that if an infant can die not christened and suffer no loss, it can also live without it and no harm come of it, and this again is proof positive that it is no law of God, as his laws are all good and profitable to men, here, and hereafter.

      You accuse me of gross ignorance in affirming 'that conversions among Methodists are lacking in the element of faith.' I have never read any of John Wesley's sermons, but I have been seventeen years in South Australia (a long time this for an incomer), and I have an everyday life picture of Methodism in my mind, and I am convinced I have made no mistake. An old friend of mine on hearing that some persons had been telling lies about him, said, 'let them tell as many lies about me as they like, but let them not tell the truth, for it is the truth that hurts us worst.'--so I expect if I had not in my account of you come near the truth, you would not have honored my shallow article with your attention: and you have furnished proof yourself that it is so. Your words are, in your description of conversion--'The witness of the spirit is a direct testimony to, or inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God witnesseth to my spirit that I am a child of God.' Now I read in the Bible that faith comes by hearing, and that hearing from God's word; and this is the only divine faith I know anything of--the testimony of God's Spirit given in word (not in impressions) is what we are to believe in order to conversion; as David says--'The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.' The most remarkable case of conversion we read of in the Bible is that of Saul, the persecutor, and we can distinctly see that it was some words he heard that converted him. I believe that God's Spirit bears witness with the spirits of his people that they are sons of God. But how doth the Spirit of God give his witness? Is it in word or not? Christ, when expounding to the disciples the mission of the Spirit, says--'Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all truth for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak;' and by looking to the fulfilment of this promise of the Spirit, we find that the Spirit spake in the Apostles by giving them utterance, by giving to them in the same hour what they should speak. The Apostles were only earthen vessels, and the treasure that filled them was the Spirit of Truth. Thus, when Ananias and Sapphira told a lie to an Apostle, they are charged with lying against the Holy Spirit. There are then two witnesses of our adoption, God's Spirit and our own spirit; and it is very important to understand where the testimony of both witnesses begins and ends.

      I then think you make the grand mistake of setting down the witness of your own spirit as that of God's Spirit; and in order to make the passage to suit for Methodism, you require to give it a twist, and read it--'The Spirit beareth witness to (not with) our spirits.' But to let you better understand what I mean 'I will relate a story:--'One of your preachers, a good man, became unsettled in his mind about baptism; and one day being on a journey, and finding himself in a solitary place, he resolved on seeking direction from God, by prayer, and after wrestling with God to show him the right way, got an answer by some internal impression that he should be immersed and join the Baptists, and he obeyed; would you call this the witness of the Holy Spirit? I think it likely you would be disposed to say to this man as Zedekiah said to the prophet Micaiah, 'whither went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak unto thee.' I think if this man had searched God's written word and considered what he read accurately, he would have found out God's will, and been able to lift up his heart and voice and sing with David 'the entrance of thy word giveth light, it giveth understanding to the simple;' but there is proof to be found in events that occur now and again that your conversions on revival occasions are only the witness of the spirits of those operated on under a certain amount of excitement. Suppose one of your ministers comes to a village to get up some revival services and he find that influenza prevails and many of the people are hoarse, how under such circumstances, with no effective aid from singing awakening hymns, and from the groans and exclamations of the worshippers, would the effort to get up a revival succeed? My idea is that the accident of a hoarseness prevailing among any people would operate as a serious hindrance to any successful revival effort under your management, and it does appear very marvelous how such an incident should hinder the work of God's Spirit in the conversion of sinners.

      Faith is a volition of the soul, coolly and deliberately performed by reflecting on the testimony and evidence presented to the mind, and is not born out of sudden and fitful excitement; by such methods you may produce fanaticism but not faith in Christ. One grand feature of the religion of Christ is that it

is pre-eminently rational. At one time there was a mystery that enveloped the minds of men; Paul calls it 'the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel.' This promise by the Gospel can be no other than as we read it, 'he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,' this is the best, most explicit, and assuring promise ever made by God to men. Suppose you were afflicted with a mortal disease and you heard such favorable reports of a physician as that you said you believed in him, and you went and made personal application to him, and he gave you a prescription that he said would certainly cure you, well, you looked at it, and you found that among other things you were to do you must perform certain ablutions in pure water, but you gave way to your self-will, you were quite offended, and disappointed, and said what good will ever cold water bathing do me, or can it ever reach the seat of my disease; and you would not have it though you were willing to try the other things prescribed, as they agreed better with your own ideal of what would do you good. Well what in this case would your faith in this doctor come to? I would think it came to very little indeed. Apply this case to the Physician of Souls, the Lord Jesus, and if you believe in him give such proof of your faith in him, as the men of Corinth did; of whom the Bible reports that many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were baptized. Akin to all this is your practice of praying with, and for men and women, in order that God may pour out his Spirit on them, to convert them. Your people near to me actually talk about pulling down God's blessing on the people, my idea is that you think God is either wanting in sympathy for, or is inattentive to the wants of poor sinners' souls, and that you think you can prevail upon him in the exercise of your greater warmth of feeling, to show mercy to the people by pouring out his spirit on them. Now my mind is, that God is more pitiful to poor dying sinners, tens of thousands of times over, than all the praying people in the world are, and that if it were really needful for the conversion and salvation of sinners that God should pour out his spirit on them, he would do it without any one asking him; neither man or angel asked him to send his only Son to save us, nor did any one ask Christ to die for our sins. Peter the Apostle earnestly besought him not to die, and if God's pity or love for men extended so far as this, the obvious conclusion is that he will on no account hold back his Spirit if it be needful. Apostles besought men to be reconciled to God, not God to be reconciled to men. I then believe that among Methodists are many who have faith in Christ and if they only knew his will, would run to perform it and would die for Christ if required. All I contend for is that they did not get their faith through, or at the period of their conversion, it might be before or after, and always obtained through the hearing or reading of God's word; and I believe there are among you many believing men and women who are most desirous to be converted but cannot get it, as God has so constituted their minds that they cannot be brought under the required excitement, as they are by nature so cool and unimaginative, such excitement requiring what some call a mercurial temperament. I would like to add much more, but I cannot hope for more space in our little magazine, at a future time, God willing, I will try to show wherein the prayers of saints avail for the conversion of the world.

Y. Z.      

A.C.P., 1870-1871, pp. 13-15.

      Truth and Progress, the Baptist magazine, has deemed it proper to go out of its way to say something about the course of the Christian Pioneer.

      In the following style it gives vent to what evidently it has been for some time anxious to say. It seems that Truth and Progress can only notice any opposition to its peculiar views under the heading "Notices to Correspondents." There may be prudence in this, but not one iota of manliness. A paper that styles itself Truth and Progress, but shuts its columns against any discussion of the great matters of our faith is surely a contradiction in itself. But let us turn our attention to the sweet morsel of editorial courtesy and Christian candor tossed so contemptuously from the editorial table of Truth and Progress to the Pioneer. Here it is in all its beauty. Just look at it one and all. Here is the piece in its entirety:--

      "W.H.B. and O.A. Carr--Communications have been received from these writers, but the editors cannot insert their articles. Ever since its first issue, the Christian Pioneer has denounced and pecked at the Baptists. No Baptist Minister or member, that the editors know of, has troubled these crotchety brethren with explanations or vindications. The solemn trifling upon mere items which characterizes that periodical, all Baptists have regarded as affording a great deal of pleasure to the Christian Pioneer writers and readers, while it did them (the Baptists) no harm. W.H.B. and O.A. Cain only reiterate statements wearisomely repeated in their own magazine every month, and the editors of Truth and Progress do not feel justified in wasting their space and their readers' time, in giving currency to such petite criticism."

      We hope the editor of Truth and Progress will not find fault with us for printing this precious morsel in full, and hide themselves as did an editor not long since, under the plea of "having written for the information of our (his) own people."

      We would call the attention of our readers to the foregoing, and ask them how much it contains of "petite criticism," "denunciation," "solemn trifling," and "pecking." But let us look at this morsel in detail. A bold charge is brought against the Pioneer--"Ever since its first issue the Christian Pioneer has denounced and pecked at the Baptists." Waiving the elegance of these phrases, especially the last one, we confess ourselves somewhat surprised at such language from such a source. It seems as clear as the light of day that these editors make no distinction between the truth and the individuals who profess to hold it. Most assuredly a system may be controverted, and the individuals who hold it may neither be "denounced" nor "pecked at." Yet the editors seem to be impressed with the idea that "Baptist truth" is so closely interwoven with "Baptist natures" that if any one dares to suggest, in a Christian spirit, an error in their teaching he is at once to be held up as denouncing and pecking at their dear selves. We have never, so far as we know, denounced the Baptists, nor, as it is elegantly expressed in Baptist phraseology, "pecked at" any professedly religious people. We are quite conscious that in all we have said of the Baptists our aim has been to elicit truth. We have not even gone so far as to style them "crochety brethren;" but we said, they are inconsistent, and this we are prepared to establish at any time and in any place. In fact, their inconsistency is too apparent to be denied:--But more of this anon. We have never gone so far-as to say the Baptists teach Roman Catholicism, as a Baptist minister once accused us before a large number of his brother ministers. But of course this, in the estimation of our Baptist editors, was not "denunciation" nor "pecking at." It was with them a dignified and courteous way of setting forth the truth and exposing what they conceived to be error, though it was known at the time the right of reply would not be granted. In fact it is well known that when that charge was made the chairman of the meeting ruled a reply out of order. But of course all this was strictly in keeping with the Baptist idea of justice and right. In fact we do not remember in one single instance of having used abusive language towards the Baptists. We have no desire to be at variance with the Baptists, yet, in order to a union with them, we have no idea of sacrificing the truth. We understand very well the course which Truth and Progress has marked out towards the Pioneer--one of ridicule and contempt. However we inform our Baptist brethren that we shall not get out of temper, but continue to present the "truth as it is in Jesus," without fear of man before our eyes. Truth and Progress has adopted the mode of answering an opponent which is the most unmanly possible. It is one by which, when an argument cannot be answered, retreat may be easily covered. But now, more particularly to our offence against the Baptists. We have at different times presented articles touching upon the "Design of Baptism." This, of course, clashed with the peculiar views of the Baptists; and since then the Flinders Street oracle has not ceased to give its monthly responses in direct opposition to the teaching of our articles. We felt called on to show that these responses were directly opposed to the teaching of the Apostle Peter in the opening speech of the reign of heaven as declared on the ever memorable day of Pentecost. We deemed these irreconcilable, and did not hesitate so to state. For this we are accused of "petite criticism," "denunciation," "solemn trifling," and "pecking." We have affirmed and still affirm that the Flinders Street oracle and the Apostle Peter are at variance. Let us present them again in contrast, and let any reader of this paper reconcile them if he can. We confess ourselves utterly unable to make them agree, and as Truth and Progress by its silence tacitly confesses its own inability to make them agree, we suppose they must be left at disagreement.

      Alluding to immersion we have the following language from Flinders Street:--

      "These did not submit to immersion in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins, or in order to get in baptism a guarantee of forgiveness, but because they were assured on the testimony of God's Word that they had already been 'justified by faith.'"

      The Apostle Peter in answer to the question "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" said "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts ii, 38.

      We simply place these two utterances together, and confess ourselves utterly unable to reconcile them. Why cannot Truth and Progress come out in a manly article, which would contain no "pecking," no "denunciation," no "petite criticism," and settle our minds on this subject. Full surely the Editors, and "Ministers of our Churches" contributors, have some able criticism they might offer. We have our own opinion concerning the course of Truth and Progress on this subject. We shrewdly suspect there is a good reason for fleeing under cover of ridicule. We may be in error, but we candidly confess it as our opinion, that the Editors and contributors, feel their inability to give an intelligible explanation of the language of the Apostle Peter, in Acts ii, 38, looking at it from a Baptist stand-point. Let us be understood. We do not mean to say that these writers may not have a theory in their own minds, and one perhaps satisfactory to themselves; but this we affirm as our conviction, that none of them can, from a Baptist stand-point, put this theory on paper so that it will be intelligible to those who read it. If they do so, we will confess our opinion to be wrong. We call upon our Baptist brethren, who seem to be conscious of possessing such critical acumen, and who of course would not consciously deal in "petite criticism," to give us an article on Acts ii, 38, or else candidly confess that they are not able to do so. We think this would be in much better taste than to charge one who has made the attempt with "denunciation," "solemn trifling," and "petite criticism." We simply say, that they would not be "troubling" us, if they would give us a still further explanation of the subject upon which S.M. touched in the April No. of Truth and Progress.

      But doubtless there are other subjects in reference to which Truth and Progress has found fault with our course. We have said the Baptists were inconsistent. We now briefly lay before our readers again the grounds for this assertion. In the first place then, the word "Baptist," as applied to a church, signifies, according to the usage of the Baptists, that the members of that Church have been baptized. A Baptist Church then, according to this usage of the word, would be one where all the members had been baptized. But is this so in the Baptist Church in South Australia? Is it not well known that the Editors of Truth and Progress receive persons into the churches for which they preach without baptism? Would they be kind enough to tell us by what law of language they would call such unbaptized persons Baptists? They may be able to call them Baptists whenever they are able to say that "a man who is not a Baptist is a Baptist." They, however, in their action set aside a commandment of the Saviour. The Saviour solemnly commanded His Apostles to "go and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." We presume this is still the instruction which is to guide us in preaching the Gospel, and receiving men and women into the Church. We cannot conceive by what license any preacher can leave baptism out of his instructions. Especially do we see a great impropriety when Baptist ministers leave out baptism. Perhaps they may consent to enlighten us on this subject.

      In conclusion, we repeat what we have before said, our only object in any controversy is to elicit truth. May we all ever be enabled to hold fast "the truth as it is in Jesus."

T. J. G.      

A.C.P., 1870-1871, pp. 121-130.

      It is quite evident that ritualism in its essence is but a departure from the simplicity that is in Christ. If the children of God worshipped Him simply in spirit and in truth, we should never hear of ritualism. But we do hear of it--we have it in our midst--pleasingly written accounts of its doings laid before us by the papers of the day. But why should such a thing as ritualism exist at all if it was not known in the days of the Saviour and His apostles? The question is easily answered. Many who reckon themselves the faithful followers of Christ are conscious of a dissatisfaction on their part with the simplicity of worship as revealed in God's Word. They crave for something to appeal to the senses more than the worship in spirit and truth, so plainly set forth in the oracles of God. However much men may seek to deny this, and persuade themselves that their ritualism is harmless, yet the fact of dissatisfaction with God's plan reveals itself as the foundation of all such practices. How strange it is, too, that men professing to love Jesus and Him crucified, should suppose that practices not enjoined by the Word of God can have any permanent attractive power! The professing Christian world have largely buried beneath tradition the great truth that "the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." When dependence is placed on other things than the Gospel to attract the people, it is sad and forcibly presents before us the foolishness and presumption of man, who imagines that he may, by invention of his own, bring souls to Christ. Man is very loth to accept the Word of God as it is, and be guided altogether by heavenly wisdom. We fearlessly affirm that practices, commonly known as ritualism, have not the shadow of foundation in the Word of God, but are directly the creations of uninspired man. Hence it is sad to find that these practices so fraught with human wisdom, and consequently with evil, have a place in our very midst.

      We have put at the head of this article, "Ritualism in Full Bloom," and we hesitate not to say that we shall find it in what follows.

      We extract the following from the Register's account of services held in St. Paul's Church:

      "A public service for the reception and religious designation of choristers was held on Sunday afternoon, December 11, at S. Paul's Church. There was a large congregation, and the proceedings were conducted throughout by the Very Rev. the Dean of Adelaide. The choristers numbered twenty-three altogether, there being fifteen boys and eight men, and they were all dressed in the customary white surplices."

      After a few preliminary exercises, the Dean is represented as speaking to them to the following effect:--

      "Dearly beloved--We are assembled today for the purpose of receiving and setting apart as singers in the Church of God certain of our number, who have already been tried and proved. We wish by this act to signify the fact that the office of chorister is a sacred one, requiring in those who are admitted to it seriousness and humility, and pledging them to seek the grace of God to live before Him as His good and obedient children. We wish those who sing here to consecrate themselves to that special service with prayers and vows; that as, on the one hand, they may neglect nothing tending to fit them the better for the work they have undertaken, so, on the other, they may be helped to overcome those faults which might bring discredit on true religion."

      It is assumed that there is an office in the Church called the "office of chorister." Upon this office the scriptures are most profoundly silent. Not one word in all revelation about such an office, and yet one who professes to be a minister of Christ, and doubtless is pleased to be called the "Very Rev. the Dean of Adelaide," gravely tells us that the "office of chorister is a sacred one," and proceeds to admit

persons into it. It is profoundly astonishing that those who have their Bibles, and profess to hold the great truth enunciated by Chillingworth, that "the Bible and the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants," will accept without a protest this departure from the Book which they profess to esteem so highly. But, then, the "fifteen boys and eight men were all dressed in the customary white surplices." Would it not be a startling discovery if any reader of the New Testament should ever find anything even approximating this? Who would ever dream of those who sang in apostolic days being dressed in some fantastical way so as to distinguish them from the rest? It is true that we have instructions upon the subject of singing, but the Dean has no use for this upon this occasion. The reason is quite evident--such instruction presupposes the non-existence of any such office as that of chorister. If the office of chorister had existed in the apostolic Church, we without hesitation affirm that we should never have had the following language from the Apostle Paul addressed to all the brethren at Colossae:--"Let the word of God dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord."--Col. iii. 16. According to the Dean, Paul should not have addressed such language to all the brethren, but those occupying the office of choristers; and to suit the Dean's theory his instruction should have read thus:--"Ye choristers, dressed in white surplices, let the word of God dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord."

      But the Dean says--

      "We wish by this act to signify the fact that the office of chorister is a sacred one, requiring in those who are admitted to it seriousness and humility, and pledging them to seek the grace of God to live before him as his good and obedient children."

      This seems to intimate that in some sort of way these are to be pre-eminent for their virtues, that those who are not in the "office of chorister" may please God with some less degree of devotion. This to say the least is misleading. The things spoken of are undoubtedly required of every Christian, not any particular class in the Church.

      The Dean further says--

      "We wish for the sympathy and help of the congregation. The maintenance of a choir like ours cannot be other than costly, and we ask you in your offertory today to help in providing the means of maintaining it."

      When we read this we began to think of the cost of music among Christians in apostolic days. Would it not be a great help to us if we could find how much was spent by the Church in Jerusalem for the "maintenance of the choir?" But we think we shall be a very long time ascertaining this matter, as the apostles have been so persistently and profoundly silent upon the subject. We shall perhaps not err if we advance it as our opinion that the "maintenance of the choir" cost them not one penny. Why so? Simply because they had no white surplices to buy, or organist to pay, and no officer called a chorister to pay. They did the singing themselves, and not by proxy. In fact, "Ritualism was in full bloom" in St. Paul's Church when, without any instructions from the Word of God, the "office of chorister" was created, and persons inducted into it.

      In conclusion, we would say let all the followers of Christ mark every departure from the faith, and hold fast the simplicity that is in Christ. In the worship of God let us be satisfied to do just what the Bible tells us, no more, no less, then we shall be safe from every innovation--yes, pre-eminently safe. In fact, one departure leads to others, until finally Rome is reached. Ritualism tends towards Rome. The maintenance of costly choirs--the creation of the office of chorister--the clothing them with white surplices--are not far from the offering of incense and sprinkling of holy water--transubstantiation--and the worship of the host. Would that all christians would beware of the first departure from "the faith once delivered to the saints," they would then not be troubled with the second.

T. J. G.      

A.C.P., 1871-1872, p. 315.

      To the Editors of The Australian Christian Pioneer--

Sirs,--

      As a friend of Rev. S. Mead, as well as of the gentleman whom I take to be your correspondent A.T.M., I have been pained and surprised at the letter appearing in your last issue; pained because in the nature of things, the insinuations made will be accepted without question by many readers; and surprised because I had believed A.T.M. to be possessed of a sense of propriety which would have forbidden the writing of such a letter. In now addressing you I do not wish to appear as a vindicator of Mr. Mead, but to refer to one or two points of public interest introduced into the letter. If any explanation or refutation were necessary I presume Mr. Mead would supply it, although I may remark that it is not usual for persons who have any respect for themselves to reply to letters of a character deliberately insulting. That A.T.M.'s letter is of this kind is the opinion expressed to me by some who are neither of Mr. Mead's Church nor of the same denomination. I ask my candid reader what less objectionable term than "insulting" can be applied to a letter which in the present instance speaks of "puny efforts to oppose the truth," "misnaming and misrepresenting in order to avoid

argument," and to "gain a round of applause," to say nothing of charges of want of courtesy and other sinister states of mind.

      Your correspondent takes umbrage at the use of the name "Christian disciples." Now, as this is the name commonly used by the public as well as by members of his own Church, it is somewhat startling to be told that in using it we "go outside the common rules of courtesy."

      When and where has the name been publicly repudiated? I have had an intimate knowledge of Christian Disciples for several years, but never before heard the name objected to. Within the past month a member of one of your Churches said in conversation, "I always thought we were Christian Disciples, but it appears we have no name." What ground, therefore, is there for catching at one outside the denomination who uses the same name? We are now asked to use the name "Disciples of Christ," and are to presume that there is some fundamental distinction between that name and "Christian Disciples." If the former name is preferred I know of no one who would object to use it; it is a distinctive name, not being a term commonly applied to believers in general. It is idle, however, to suggest the name "Christians," as a name for one denomination; it assumes that all others are not Christians, and it fails to distinguish the body intended to be referred.

      In one of your numbers for 1871 there was a statement to the effect that "Baptists do not observe the Lord's Supper weekly." Having in view the practice of Baptist Churches in and near Adelaide, I thought the statement was, to say the least of it, rather remarkable. Your correspondent, I find, makes another statement equally remarkable, viz., that the "Baptists have learned the plan of weekly communion from the Disciples of Christ and A. Campbell." We do observe the Lord's Supper weekly, but to say we have learned it from the Disciples of Christ is to draw the curtain over history. The fact is that weekly communion was practiced by Baptist Churches in Britain and on the continent before the time of Mr. Campbell, and if he did not learn it from the Scotch Baptists, he at least "followed in their tracks." We Baptists in South Australia having learned from the Scriptures are in the same tracks.

      The plan of weekly communion is, however, only one of a series of things which A.T.M. states Baptists have learned from the Disciples of Christ. He states so, but gives no evidence; and although it is not a question worthy of contention, I challenge him or any one else to prove the statements, and until that is done he cannot regard them as other than mere matters of opinion in which one man's "no" is as good as another's "yes."

      Your correspondent refers to a plea for the "restoration of Primitive christianity."

      It must be remembered, however, that the body known as the Disciples of Christ is not the only one which seeks to follow the simple teachings of Christ and His Apostles. It may be that all do not interpret those teachings alike, but when one in all good conscience differs from another it is not for that one to arrogate to itself solely the position of truth-seeker. This spirit of offensive assumption has done in the past and is now doing more than anything else to perpetuate bitter sectarian feelings, and all the evils resulting therefrom.

      One more remark I feel constrained to make. It is not my opinion only, but that of those who have been among the Disciples of Christ, and of many who have come into contact with them, if they wish to teach and reform the Churches around they must not omit from their plan of Primitive Christianity one of its most vital characteristics, one which is seldom seen in their attitude towards other denominations, and one which I regret to say is entirely absent from both the tone and substance of A.T.M.'s letter. I refer to Paul's words in 1 Cor. xiii. Yours, etc.

W. N.      

A.C.P., 1873-1874, pp. 204-207.

      A short time since the Wesleyan Conference was held in the City of Adelaide. During the course of that Conference the Chairman (Mr. Binks) and another minister (Mr. Bickford) gave utterance to their views on the subject of Infant Baptism and Infant Membership. Mr. Binks said that he had always held that infants by virtue of their baptism were members of the Church, and hence that attention should be paid to them, and they should be cared for an members of the Church. These statements called forth an article in the last number of Truth and Progress, the Baptist organ, from the pen of Mr. Mead. This article we regarded as fair and just in its tone. We thought the writer had written in a fair and Christian spirit. In fact we only wish our Baptist brethren would write so fairly on the design of baptism. We could see nothing in the article itself the least offensive. In fact it simply discussed the questions of infant baptism and infant church-membership, and expressed a hope that Wesleyans would put away infant baptism, and only practice that which the Scriptures authorize. But we shall quote a passage--

      Looking upon the "second resolution" passed in the same Conference we are glad again to observe the right sentiment. It urges the preaching annually of one or more sermons at the Conference season "addressed especially to the young people who have been brought up in Wesleyan Methodist families and sabbath schools," pressing upon them the guilt and danger of religious indecision, and the duty and privilege of "uniting themselves in Church membership with us." Very good. But what if the preachers of these annual sermons happened to be Messrs. Binks and Bickford, and that they gave utterance to such views of infant baptism as

they have recently been propounding? How the young people must be staggered and confounded to hear exhortations about decisions for Christ, and about joining the Church, when they have been previously told that their baptism in infancy was the door of admission into the Church, and that they thereby became actual members of the Church! When did their membership cease? And how?

      From this it is evident that no unchristian spirit prompted the article. But it is at the same time evident that the question contained in the above passage is very hard to answer. This is a key to solve several little mysteries about controversy. When a question is very hard to answer men have various ways of meeting it. One is to be perfectly silent--take no notice of it at all--affect to disregard it. Another is to endeavor to show that it is of no consequence if answered. Still another is to abuse the man who dares to ask such naughty questions--to affirm that he has some secret, ill-natured motive prompting him to do so. Now it seems to us that of all ways of conducting discussion this last is, to say the least, the most unlovely. Would it not be far more manly either to reply in a dignified and Christian spirit, if we can reply, or if we can not, just say we can not. Anyone would suppose that the Evangelical Alliance, which has been in existence in Adelaide for several years, would have so cultivated the brotherly feelings at least of its leading members, that they would never think of imputing unworthy motives when a scriptural topic was mildly and kindly broached. But alas! for that question of infant baptism--baptism without faith preceding. When this subject is presented, Mr. Binks, a leading member of the Evangelical Alliance, has no better answer to make to his Baptist brother than what is contained in the following advertisement, taken from the Register newspaper:--

      BAPTISM.--Rev. S. Mead's Assumptions and the "Wesleyan Theories."--I have prepared a long reply to Mr. Mead's public attack upon the Wesleyan Church, which, if I publish, cannot but pain the minds of many Baptist friends; and as I find from many of those to whom Mr. Mead--or his friends--has sent Truth and Progress, that the attack is regarded as the outcome of a jealous, proselyting, and unchristian spirit, I have resolved for the present to follow the advice in Matthew xv. 14--"Let them alone," etc.

W. L. BINKS.      

      We ask the attention of our readers to this advertisement as, in Mr. Binks' estimation, the best answer that could be made to the remarks of Mr. Mead. From this it is most clearly evident that infant baptism and infant membership are in great straits for any argument. In fact, in Mr. Binks' hands it is utterly defenseless. His advertisement is but an acknowledgment that he is utterly unable to defend the position taken in his address to the Conference. There is, besides, an animus superadded which is quite unbecoming in a Christian, much less a minister of the Gospel and a member of the Evangelical Alliance. To every one who has read Mr. Mead's article it seems utterly absurd to say it is "the outcome of a jealous, proselyting, and unchristian spirit" But in Mr. Binks' estimation Mr. Mead has become a blind leader of the blind, and therefore he is to be let alone. It is rather strange that Mr. Binks should have come to this conclusion so soon. The Pharisees whom the Saviour characterised as blind leaders of the blind had persistently rejected all attempts on the part of Jesus to enlighten them. They were persistently blind. Mr. Binks has made no effort at all--if he has it has not reached the light--to instruct Mr. Mead, who simply asks for light and instruction. It seems to us that a brother of the Alliance should at least meet with as much consideration at the hands of another brother as the Pharisees at the hands of Jesus, especially when we consider their treatment of Him. We have much curiosity to see that "long reply" which Mr. Binks has no doubt so laboriously prepared. The publication of it might possibly be the means of restoring Mr. Mead's eyesight. It surely is not very pleasant for our Baptist friends all to be blind for the want of a little effort on the part of the Wesleyans. We are also at a loss to understand how this reply could pain the minds of Immersionists. Immersionists do not get pained by presentation of the Scriptures on this subject. Does Mr. Binks mean by this to tell us that his reply to Mr. Mead's article is full of abuse? If he does not mean this, what does he mean? Immersionists are not so easily pained, for they are firmly persuaded that they have the truth on their side. Truth is not easily pained, and by no means easily offended. There is something very dignified about truth. But when a person is conscious of holding a weak position, he loses his dignity, and becomes very easily pained and still more easily offended. We cannot help but feel that this advertisement is an acknowledgment of the very great weakness of the position held by the advocates of infant baptism and infant church-membership. In fact, we are by Mr. Binks forcibly impressed with two thoughts. First, the utter untenableness of infant baptism and infant church-membership; and secondly, that all the alliances in the world will never bring about any cordial union between Baptists and Paedo-Baptists. There can possibly be no hearty union when a portion of God's Word is set aside for the sake of this union. Alliances on the principle of hiding away a portion of the truth or else touching it very lightly, have always seemed to be simply shams. Put baptism in its proper place and we need no Alliances. What are commonly called evangelical alliances are little better than agreements on the part of some to be well night silent, if not altogether so, upon some portion of God's truth.

      But another advertisement in connection with the former also appeared in the Register. We shall give it as illustrative at least of broad and deep assertion. In fact we may well say it is a "gem serene," in the way of assertion--a perfect specimen:--

      BAPTISM--Immersion unnecessary and unscriptural. Not one text in the New Testament either asserts or proves the doctrine of the Immersionists. To exclude children from the membership of Christ's Church is Antichristian. See "Hibbard on Baptism," "McLeod," "Hannah," etc.

      It is noticeable that it requires human authority to prove infant baptism and infant membership. Infant sprinklers need "Hibbard on Baptism," "McLeod," "Hannah," etc. Yet their faith in these things is very weak, notwithstanding all the human supports. The New Testament is quite sufficient for the Immersionists. We say--Immersion is scriptural: See the New Testament. We desire Divine, not human authority. We shrewdly suspect that Mr. Binks' "long reply" had much human testimony in it, or else it needed not to be so long. We should like to see the whole subject discussed fully, and believe the people at large would be pleased and instructed.

T. J. G.      

A.C.P., 1874-1875, p. 271.

      GORE--.On the 22nd of May, after a brief illness; Jane Santo Gore. The editor of this paper is called upon to mourn the departure of one near and dear to him--his wife. How precious are the words wife and mother! My wife has left us at the early age of twenty-seven. She leaves three children. She died in the hope of the Christian. Her faith was strong and her hope was bright. She took a tender and affectionate farewell of those whom she so tenderly loved. The burden of her requests to all was that finally they might meet her in heaven. Truly was here a pure and beautiful Christian life. She was a noble, faithful and devoted wife, and kind and tender mother. She loved her Saviour with a love pure and simple. She was prepared to go that she might be with Him whom she loved so well. Her family she loved devotedly. We shall sadly miss her from the family circle. I shall miss her at all times. No one without experience can realize the loss of a wife and mother. There is a void which nothing can fill. The only consolation that can soothe the heart comes from faith in Christ. We know that our blessed Lord does all things well. My dear wife quoted to us a number of those rich promises of which God's Word is so full. Though she would like to remain for the family's sake, yet she said, "It is better to be in heaven with Christ than here on earth." We had just returned from a visit to America. I was ill a number of weeks in America. I shall never forget her patient and gentle ministrations of love during that sickness. Truly she was a ministering angel. But she has gone to the mansions above. We mourn not as those who have no hope. My wife was a fine example of early Christian training. She was the third daughter of Bro. P. Santo, whose name is known in all the Churches. In this excellent family she was brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. At the age of thirteen she obeyed the Gospel, and has been a shining ornament of the Christian profession ever since. She was peculiarly pure, gentle, and loving in her disposition. In fact she always seemed to take the Saviour for her example. Most of us have faults which mar our happiness. She seemed as free from these as any person I ever knew. Her character is well portrayed in the first verse of the hymn which was sung at her grave:--

      How awful and desolating is the approach of death when it invades our own households. We behold it around us; truly it seems sad to witness its ravages; yet we never realize it until it rends our hearts by tearing away the loved and the loving. But what wondrous consolation have we in our faith in Christ. None seems so precious as our Lord and Master, who by a single word could overcome death and cause the tomb to yield up its victim. "I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live." Glorious words these! May the Lord help us all that we may be able to bear up under the dispensation of His providence. Lord, help us to realize that we are altogether in thy hands. Amen.

T. J. GORE.      

A.C.P., 1878-1879, pp. 97-107.

      Mr. Chairman and Christian friends--It gives me pleasure to be present this evening and take part in this meeting. I am here at the kind invitation of my friend and brother in Christ, and your esteemed chairman, Mr. Mead. The subject assigned me is this:--"Believers' baptism a protest against baptismal regeneration." It is my earnest desire to look upon this subject from the standpoint of the Scriptures only. It seems as clear as any truth can possibly be revealed that in the Word of God, in the days of the Apostles, faith in Christ preceded baptism, and consequently baptism into Christ followed faith in Christ. I shall not take up your time endeavouring to prove this proposition. We shall take this to be true. Baptismal regeneration, as we have always understood the doctrine, implies that all that is contained in regeneration takes place in baptism, that some change in the human spirit is wrought in this appointment of the Lord. Against this the baptism of the believer must ever stand as a most powerful and significant

protest. Hence believers' baptism must ever be in opposition to the baptism of infants. The following language used with reference to infants implies that the work of regeneration takes place at the time of baptism, and through baptism alone:--"We call upon Thee for this infant, that he, coming to Thy holy baptism, may receive remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration." From our study of God's Word we must enter a most emphatic protest against the idea of any change of character in the act of baptism. Whatever change is wrought by the Holy Spirit through the Word must take place by faith, and be antecedent to baptism. Through faith and repentance the spirit is turned to the Lord, and baptism follows as an act of faith. According to my idea of baptismal regeneration all that would be necessary to become a child of God would be to be baptized. This seems to be that which is set forth in infant baptism. When the believer in Christ comes to baptism he comes with mind, heart, and will all changed through faith in Christ, and repentance toward God. He comes with his character changed. Just here I wish to be very explicit, for I believe the "Disciples," with whom I am identified, are at this point often very much misunderstood. We have no conception of any change in character wrought in the act of baptism, but this change must precede baptism, or else that baptism is of no value whatever. From the Word of God it is clear that baptism is an act of faith; and--as such can--only have its proper value and significance. When dissociated from faith it becomes of no value, in that it cannot be the means of any blessing. So much as to the negative teaching on this subject. We must not, however, be thought to imply by what has been said that God has not placed baptism in a certain position in the plan of salvation, and made it a channel of blessing. As the first act of faith we are more likely to underrate than overrate its importance. We are much more likely to underrate than overrate God's appointments, and more likely to overrate than underrate man's appointments, as witness the history of human tradition.

      My object will be now, as briefly as possible, to present at least a portion of the positive teaching on the design of this institution. It is one thing to say what baptism does not express, and quite another to say what it does express. Upon this subject we speak with no dogmatism. In fact, the less dogmatism we have, on points wherein we may possibly differ, the better. We can be positive and not dogmatic. In reference to the importance or non-importance, in the first place, of Christian baptism we might say a word or two. I always feel that any attempt to divide God's Word into essentials and nonessentials is most unfortunate, and at the same time highly presumptuous. Who gave poor weak man the privilege to say of his Lord's commands, This is essential, and that is non-essential? God has not given us a list of essentials and non-essentials. We pray because God has so commanded. We are baptized, because it is commanded. Why call the one as essential and the other a non-essential?

      I would like to ask my brethren if it does not strike them as presumption for any human being to say of any of God's commands, now in force, that they are non-essential, and may be lightly esteemed or neglected at pleasure. The true attitude of every believer must always be, in the fullest sense of the expression, "Not my will, but thine be done." Looking upon the plan of salvation as forming one perfect whole, it seems most clearly set forth that every portion of it has its place. If man takes it upon himself to put aside any part of it under the plea of non-essentiality, he is assuming a most dangerous office, he is questioning the wisdom of Him who revealed the way everlasting. He who accepts God's will must never be its judge. As a sinner he received that will. He cannot, if he comes in simple faith, ask how much of that will is essential and how much non-essential. I should feel that it was an advance in the understanding of God's Word, when these terms are entirely disused, and when we come prayerfully to the study of His will, and, having found what it is, do it reverently and in faith, knowing that the Lord will assuredly bless His obedient children. We may remark that all duties enjoined upon man--faith, repentance, baptism, prayer, etc.--are purely receptive, and not procurative. The blood of Christ has procured pardon--remission of sins. But there are means on the part of man by which he may receive all blessings which have been procured by the blood of Christ. If he neglects any one of these receptive means, as an intelligent Christian, he cannot have that full realization of blessing which he might otherwise have. Let it be clearly understood that all that god asks man to do, is in its nature receptive, and not procurative. When this thought gets deep hold upon us, we shall not be afraid of detracting from the glory of God by works which we may do. We shall enter fully into the meaning of the Scripture, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

      But we must not dwell here.

      1. We may now pass to the first positive element, which we shall this evening notice in the institution of Christian baptism, as preceded by faith and repentance. It is in its nature transitional. In our understanding of the intention of this institution, if we overlook this, we at once lose its striking significance, and perhaps will not recover it again. When a man believes in Christ he is at once prepared to be transferred. His whole being feels now the entire necessity of a full and complete transition into a state of being entirely different to his former state. As Paul puts it, when he has died to sin, he is buried with Christ, and rises to walk in newness of life. The transition is a burial with Christ in baptism into His death. This was the first thought presented by the Saviour in this institution. It is intimated in John iii. S, but comes out fully in His commission to the Apostles after His resurrection, "Go, teach all

nations, baptizing them in (into) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." My brethren here tonight will quite agree with me when I say that the preposition "eis" is in its meaning transitional, and should by all means be rendered "into." The believer, one who has been taught--who has heard the Gospel, is upon that faith baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I feel that just here it is our high privilege to note that only in the institution of baptism have we the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit joined together in one name. The thought presents itself to my mind thus:--This institution is to the believer a striking protest against all forms of Unitarianism, and further when he comes by faith, for there can be no transition without faith, but when with regenerated mind and heart he takes faith by the hand, and walks down into the waters of baptism, and is baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he passes thus openly before angels and men into the noblest relationship on earth. (Let it be most distinctly marked that there can be no transition without faith--faith is the leading, the moving power). He now most solemnly, by faith in the precious blood of Christ, takes God as his Father, Christ as his elder brother, and the Holy Spirit as his comforter. How fully, how grandly is presented here the real and true personality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. What an irrefutable answer to all forms of Deism and Unitarianism. There is a world of thought in the way in which the Saviour puts baptism in Matt. xxviii. 16-20. This transitional element is prominently set forth by Paul in Romans vi., "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death." Here the believer is baptized into Christ, into His death. Again Paul to the Galatians, "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." Again to the Corinthians, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" He thus intimates that they were baptized into the name of Christ. Thus in this institution the believer experiences a change of state, but no change of character, and consequently the transitional character of baptism, in no sense being an inner change, is entirely separate from what is known as baptismal regeneration. Before leaving this point we may quote words from Mr. Spurgeon, which we were glad to see in "Truth and Progress" for the present month. Mr. Spurgeon, in speaking of his own baptism, and of the minister who baptized him, says:--"Between himself and us there existed this special bond that on May 3rd, 1850, we were baptized by his hands into the name of the sacred Trinity in the River Lark, which is the Isleham baptizing place." Mr. Spurgeon says into, not in the name, thus giving prominence to the transitional element in baptism. He further brings out the transitional element in believers' baptism by the following remarks:--"Mr. Stevenson in 'The Rev. C. H. Spurgeon, his life and work,' makes it out that we joined the Baptist Church a year before we were baptized; but not so, we never dreamed of entering the Church except by the ordinance which symbolizes death to the world, burial with Christ, and resurrection to newness of life." Notice, Mr. Spurgeon so fully recognized this transitional element in baptism that he says most emphatically, "We never dreamed of entering the church except by Christ's own way"--that is believers' baptism. And in this who can say that he was not in perfect accordance with the Word of God?

      2. In the next place we must notice the intimate and inseparable connection between faith and baptism, which not only implies that faith should precede baptism, but that baptism should follow faith. These propositions seem, at first sight, to be the same, yet they are, in reality, very different. It is common with all who hold that faith is a necessary prerequisite to baptism, to insist upon the presence of faith in order to baptism. But when we find a believer is there the same earnest desire that he may be baptized as an act of obedience immediately following faith? We must specially mark the thought that in apostolic days they were not separated, but most closely conjoined. It would be useless for me to refer to such cases as the 3,000 Pentecostians, Ethiopian eunuch, the jailer, the Corinthians, and, in fact, all cases of conversion recorded in the New Testament. This intimate connection between faith and baptism is in direct opposition to infant baptism, and, of course, to any possible form of regeneration by baptism alone, or baptismal regeneration. To illustrate this intimate connection we must refer to some portions of the Scriptures. It is found in the Saviour's own language, and also in that of His Apostles. In the memorable conversation of Christ with Nicodemus we have this language, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." I am fully aware that this is one of the passages on which the ablest of men have held different views. Yet it is but just to remark that the larger number of Bible students, from the fathers down to the present time, have thought that in this verse Christ had in view Christian baptism. I would not speak dogmatically where so many differ. However, I may say that after much reading and study, I am of the opinion that the Saviour here speaks of Christian baptism in connection with its invariable antecedent, faith. If so, it is not only an illustration of the intimate connection between faith and baptism, but also of that transitional element of which we have been speaking. "He cannot enter into the Kingdom of God,"--that is His Kingdom on earth. This language seems to be exactly parallel with that used by the Saviour, when, after His resurrection, He said to His Apostles, "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." The work of the Spirit through the Gospel is to produce faith--that which follows faith must be baptism. If I am correct in paralleling these passages, then the matter stands thus:--He who is born of water and the Spirit has believed and been baptized; and vice versa, he who has believed and been baptized has been born of water and the Spirit. We cannot realise

that Christ's language to Nicodemus would differ substantially from His language to the world. We have, however, to remember that Nicodemus was a learned man of the law. The Saviour had His reason for speaking to him as He did. But when the Saviour comes to send a message to all the world He uses very plain language, and says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." It seems to me that the only way to understand the Word of God is to explain the more difficult passages by the simpler, and not the simpler by the more difficult.

      Paul also has a number of passages, in his epistles, strictly parallel with these. In Eph. v. 26--"Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." Any one who has consulted the original text will find that all that is implied in cleansing is antecedent to the work of sanctification. It would be clearer if we translated it thus:--"That he might sanctify it, having cleansed it in the bath of water by the word." In the word cleanse Paul refers to the time of their entrance into the Kingdom of God--of their present salvation; and in the word sanctify he looks at the object of their Christian life. In Titus iii. S we have another parallel passage, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." In the phrase; "renewing of the Holy Spirit," there seems to be a reference to faith, and in the "washing of regeneration" a reference to baptism. Were we to go into Acts of Apostles we should find the intimate and inseparable connection between faith and baptism always maintained. Hence, as this intimate and inseparable connection was always maintained by Christ and His Apostles, we, His followers, should always keep them in connection, and, by no fear of overrating the importance of baptism and underrating that of faith, neglect baptism. This very connection is a standing protest against any and every form of baptismal regeneration. No act of faith can be a mere ritual. Ritualism is outside the Word of God, and hence outside of faith--for "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." We can never dissociate those things which our lord and His Apostles have so inseparably joined together.

      3. I must now refer to those passages which seem to set forth some connection between believers' baptism and remission of sin. I am aware that here I am treading on much controverted ground, and yet, I firmly believe, on ground where much is yet to be learned. Putting entirely aside any magic effect which is supposed to be wrought in baptismal regeneration, there are passages which place believers' baptism in connection with remission of sin. Whatever the connection may be, and however slight it may be, yet, as long as there is any connection in the Word of God, it impresses the thought that believers' baptism should not by any means be neglected; and that he who knowingly neglects it does no presumptuously The neglect of it is a presumptuous sin. We note here that this very connection of believers' baptism' with remission of sin is a continual protest against any idea of baptism separated from faith. If baptism did not stand in connection with faith, it could not stand in connection with remission. A command of God apart from blessing we have not in the Scriptures. A command of God separated from faith we have not. Hence, a ritualistic ordinance is one without a blessing, because it is without faith. Hence, the more intimate believers' baptism stands in connection with blessing, the farther it is removed from ritualism, and the greater the protest against baptismal regeneration. The first passage we note in this connection is the Saviour's language already quoted, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." We shall not attempt in this brief address to point out the connection existing between believers' baptism and salvation in this passage. We might, however, indicate that by comparing Mark xvi. 16 and Luke xxiv. 47 this salvation seems to be the present one; also indicated in Eph. ii. 8, and consisting in remission of sin. Without noticing the impression made by these words upon able minds in years gone by, we might take two of the ablest preachers of the present day, Mr. Spurgeon and Mr. Talmage. Mr. Spurgeon says:--"I believe with all my heart that if you believe in Jesus Christ you will be saved, whether you are baptized or not; but I would not like to run the risk, mark you, for I have not got that in my text. It is 'He that

      believeth and is baptized shall be saved,' and I would take the two commands together, and obey my Master's will throughout, and not leave out that which did not suit my inclination, and accept only that which did." That "I would not like to run the risk, mark you" is very significant on the part of Mr. Spurgeon. If baptism were a mere ritual, having in it no faith, what risk could there be in neglecting it? Certainly none; for many who hold infant baptism neglect it in their families, and yet think they are running no risk. In this thought we quite agree with them. Mr. Talmage on the same passage says:--Oh, you say, a little water sprinkled upon my face, or my whole body immersed, won't have any effect on me. I can be a Christian without being baptized. Can you? I can't. Baptism is not water, it is a public acknowledgment of Jesus Christ, and I cannot be a Christian without publicly announcing my faith in Him. I do not say that you cannot. I cannot." That "I cannot" is very significant.

      Let us now come to the answer given by the Apostle Peter to the enquiry, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter replies, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." The connection here between believers' baptism and the remission of sin, and also the reception of the Holy Spirit, is most marked. We may differ as to what that connection is. My only point which I care to make here is that connection exists, and hence the institution, as established by our Lord, is presented by His Apostles without a moment's hesitation. In connection with faith and repentance they commanded baptism, and promised the

blessings of God. And yet in this connection we cannot see any baptismal regeneration--the presence of faith in all cases is a protest against it. Whatever may be the connection between believers' baptism and remission of sin, I do not think we can err in speaking just as the Apostles spoke under like circumstances. The Apostle Peter knew that after faith and repentance came baptism, and he openly declared it, and so 3,000 believers were immediately baptized. If we have the courage of the Apostles we shall not go wrong. Ananias says to Saul of Tarsus, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Peter says, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

      All such passages as these teach us to be careful not to underestimate the Lord's institution. As Luther intimates, we should "not deface the majesty of baptism, nor speak wickedly of it." "For baptism," says he, "is a thing of great force and efficacy."

      Just here I must indicate another point. The Scriptures never confound regeneration and remission of sin. Remission of sin does not take place in man, but in the mind of God. It is given to man as a pure gift. It is the consequent, not the accompaniment of regeneration. God forgives--man receives that forgiveness.

      4. We must not omit to notice pointedly the nature of believers' baptism. It is an act of obedience, and as such must ever be a protest against baptismal regeneration. It is not a question of water at all, but, as Dr. Landells strongly put it, a question of obedience. With the heart man obeys. "Ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine delivered you." Obedience to the Lord must ever spring from a renewed heart, and, hence, can never be a mere ceremony--a ritual. Only a renewed heart can render true obedience to any of God's commands.

      5. Again, the typical signification of baptism is one of the strongest protests possible against baptismal regeneration. It is in itself a burial. Those who die are buried, and only those. Those who die to sin are those only who are buried with Christ in baptism. All the change in the inner man must be comprehended in that expression, "Died to sin." He who has died to sin has rejected sin as the master; he comes to the waters of baptism, does not come to seek there a change of mind, or heart, or will, but he comes to testify by his burial that this has taken place. Unless baptism indicates this change it can only be a mockery before the Lord.

      We have now presented believers' baptism from five standpoints. If it is a transition, the believer should not stand still. If it is intimately and inseparably connected with faith, then the believer should maintain this connection. If it stands in connection with remission of sin, then it should not be neglected. It if is an act of obedience, then it is to be remembered that "obedience is better than sacrifice." If it is a burial consequent on death, then full surely this burial should be consequent on this death.

      But again, and finally, we may notice that some portions of the professed followers of Christ may look more at some of these items than at others. For instance, it is perfectly possible to have the mind so fully occupied with believers' baptism as an act of obedience as to shut out the other points well nigh altogether. Or this may be the case with its typical significance, as given specially in Romans vi. Some minds are very fond of this, and in their expositions almost entirely overlook the others. Again, it is perfectly possible to fix the attention so much on its connection with remission of sin, that the other phases are overlooked. Surely this ought not to be so. We need, of this institution, as well as of all other portions of God's will, not a partial or narrow, but a full-orbed view. This is the earnest desire of the Disciples, and we believe the Baptists also. And although I stand before you tonight in no official connection, and binding no one by my utterances; yet, if I know the hearts of my brethren, I can say of them that they earnestly desire not only to know the whole will of God, but also to do it. In conclusion I hope that these few thoughts may serve to bring our minds and hearts into closer contact with God's truth on the subject which is before us tonight. I thank you for your kind attention.

A.C.P., Dec. 2, 1878, pp. 104-107.

      The Scriptures declare to us that godliness has the promise of the life that now is, and that which is to come; but as a man's life here consists not of the abundance of the things that he possesses, we cannot from this infer that health and prosperity are assured to the godly, for if these are wanting, there is a superabundance of the favour of God, which is better than life, to compensate for bodily affliction and poverty. There is again the first commandment with promise of long life and prosperity to those who honour their parents, and we may reckon on this promise being fulfilled, and so far as my observation and experience goes, I have the conviction that God is not forgetful of His promise. But there may be long life without good health. Some limit the command to honour our parents only to childhood; but God's Word warrants us to extend it to the limit of our parents' lives, and for this we may in most cases stand indebted to God's long suffering for having opportunity to render honour to our parents up to old age. All the promises of God are sure of fulfilment; all of them are conditional. We may fail to comply with the

conditions, but God's word of promise will not fail. It is, however, most desirable that we have health and a measure of prosperity so long as we remain on earth. As God's good and perfect gifts, no wise man will undervalue them. They are those things for which we may pray to God to bestow on ourselves, and for our families and brethren; but there are certain limits which our prayers must not exceed, even for objects so desirable. With respect to this I will now address myself. In the third epistle of John, addressed to Gaius, he says, "Beloved, I wish (or pray) above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." There might be other good things the Apostle knew of, but these for Gaius were the most valuable, and to all the people of God whose souls are safe, these are the choicest of blessings. Good health, with some prosperity in worldly matters, all will with one consent say are blessings to be desired above all things, and if we abound in brotherly kindness, we will earnestly wish all our good brothers to have. If we are in such accord with them as to weep with those that weep, and rejoice with them that do rejoice, we will feel a general interest in a brother's health and prosperity. We are not bearing each other's burdens if we do not take a deep interest in our brother's welfare, and it will be a grief to us if we hear of any sickness or trouble befalling any of our dear brethren in Christ, and our hearts will be glad to hear of any of them being is good health, and of their business prospering. We can easily sympathize with Paul, who, when speaking to his brethren of their former experience, when they endured a great fight of afflictions, partly while they were made a gazing stock, both by reproaches and afflictions, and partly while they became companions of them that were so used; and with what he says in another place, that if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it, or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

      John took it for granted that Gaius' soul prospered. He adduces good proof that it was so. He says--"I rejoiced greatly when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, even as thou walkest in the truth. Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren and to strangers." John, like other Apostles, praised and blamed his brethren as circumstances required. It will be well so much can be said of all to manifest that they have prosperity of soul; though I do not find the word prosperity applied to the soul in any other part of the Bible. Yet it indicates that the soul is making progress toward the mark, the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, being strengthened with might by the Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in our hearts by faith. David says of the Israelites that when they lusted for flesh in the wilderness, that God gave them their request, but sent leanness into their souls. So it may be found with many who have all their heart can desire of worldly goods, that their souls may suffer for it--the outward man may prosper, while the inward man is sickly and dying. Peter says to the scattered strangers, "Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that you love one another with a pure heart fervently." By our following such exhortation, we will have prosperity of soul. It is manifest that the prosperity of the soul is of primary importance, as in our wishes or prayers for brethren and dearly loved friends, we can only desire health and prosperity in the world, in like proportion to the prosperity they have of soul.

      We are here reminded of Christ's words in His discourse on the Mount to the Disciples--"Take no thought, saying what shall we eat, or what shall we drink, or wherewithal shall we be clothed; for your Heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." It is not good or desirable for ourselves or others that we should have either health or prosperity if the soul is in poverty, because these good things would be unsanctified and unblessed to us. "The blessing of the Lord it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it." Paul says, "Unto the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled." If any man have good health and strength, and hath prosperity in business pursuits, and he doth not consecrate these good gifts to Christ and His service, he is only a dead man among the living. If the long suffering of God and His goodness leadeth them not to repentance, better were it for that person he had not been born. He is in body, soul, and spirit, a lost man. Solomon says, "If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial, I say that an untimely birth is better than he." "Moreover he that hath not seen the sun, nor known anything, this hath more rest than the other." He also says, "The prosperity of fools destroys them." It proves a snare to them; engrosses all their thoughts, their care, and their whole heart's affections, so that their health and prosperity proves to them rather a curse than a blessing. They get elated with pride, and forget God. A poor, lean, starved soul is a terrible calamity to a man, as it bereaves him of all enjoyment of either earth or heaven, and of all hope.

      But all God's children will set a proper value on health and prosperity, and will esteem it a great privilege that they can ask such things for themselves and all others they love, and once assured of the prosperity of their souls, they will have boldness and confidence in asking such things from their Father who is in heaven, who knows we need such things. We have, then, a direct interest, so far as our health and prosperity is affected, in the prosperity of our souls, because from John's words to Gaius, our health and prosperity is inseparably connected with our soul's prosperity. I think all the people of God will have such confidence in their God and Father, as to believe that He will be willing to bestow on us those most valuable earthly gifts, provided there be no some valid reason for His withholding them. Connected with

the interests of our souls let us only consider those words--"He that spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things." No one, I think, can adopt this sentiment and not conclude that God will prosper him, and give him health, if he ask it of God, unless there exist some cause or reasons how we should not enjoy them. I then think that no one who is afflicted by adverse events or bad health, but should begin to have searchings of heart, and make enquiry as to what causes existing in himself, connected with the state of his soul, that hinders our Father in heaven bestowing on us health and prosperity. God is not like the fathers of our flesh, who chastised us through caprice, but He always does so for our profit. God giveth to all liberally, but He bestows His gifts to men wisely and with discrimination, and His afflictions measured out to His own people are generally blessings in disguise. Paul says, "No chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous; nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them who are exercised thereby." I have, then, been trying to show what kind of exercise is required to examine and know ourselves, and that our souls be corrected; also that we pray to God, and say with David, "Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts, and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting."

      In many of our congregations we find they are burdened with chapel debts, and some have not means to pay for preachers. All this comes of our people being few, and also poor. Now, what is the remedy for this state of things. Prosperity of soul. If brethren are poor in soul, this is a sufficient cause how they should be poor in purse, and it is very desirable that our brethren prosper and be in health, in order that they be able to furnish material aid to the good cause. We are happily free of violent persecution; we do not require to take joyfully the spoiling of our goods; there are abundant facilities for all who have youth, health, and strength to earn money in these new countries, and if frugality and economy are practiced, brethren generally may become prosperous. It still holds to be the rule that the hand of the diligent maketh rich. I do not expect we can enjoy health unless we be subject to those natural laws which it is necessary to attend to to preserve health, nor yet that we can be prosperous in the world without diligence in business--without discretion or economy; but I expect every brother and sister who has a healthy and prosperous soul will abound in every good work of this kind. I have noticed that those people who spend their time or their money on frivolities are generally as heedless and regardless in securing an interest in the good part that will not be taken from them by death, or any other enemy. Our time is our life; this is what life is made of, and if men throw away their life in this world, it may be expected that they will neglect the great salvation in the world to come. Paul says, "Let ours also learn to maintain good works (honest trades) for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful."

      Paul to the Corinthians says, "If we would judge ourselves we should not be judged." This is the very point I have been aiming to establish and enforce. He says also, "But when we are judged we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world." Because of certain informalities and abuses they had committed in eating the Lord's Supper, Paul says, "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." Now let me suggest this inquiry to some brethren. If it were so that those brethren who were guilty of informality in eating the Lord's Supper were for this cause weak and sickly, and some slept the sleep of death, how will God deal with you for your absenting yourself frequently from the Lord's table for reasons the most trivial--bad roads, showery weather, or great heat, and such like excuses? Will it be at all wonderful if God send on you weakness and sickness, or death? It appears to me there are one or two things you cannot escape--you will either be judged in such manner in this world, or escaping that, you will share in the condemnation of the wicked in the great day of judgment. God judgeth His own people here in this world, and this is greatly preferable to being judged hereafter, and then if God afflicts His people with weakness and sickness and death in the middle of our days for disobedience, is it not a natural inference that He will also bless His obedient children with health and prosperity?

Y. Z.      

2. VICTORIA

B.M.H., 1865, pp. 363-364.

Dear Bro. King,--

      The representative of that soul destroying monster, the Parliament Church of England, had also to display his zeal and drive his pointless arrows at the audacious few who, having found the old paths, dared strive to walk therein. Of course your humble brethren were not much dismayed, and need not be, for notwithstanding the personal solicitation of him who assumed the title of "Lord Bishop of Melbourne," the nominal Episcopalians seem to like their money better than their faith, and the State with hardened heart denies the use of civil power to priestly hands. Here are no tithes or church rates filched from the honest man to support in sinful luxury lords over Christ's heritage, and we hope soon to see the time when what they now receive (in common with other sects) from the general revenue shall be

withheld by the voice and example of those who are a day's march nearer Zion, and the things of Caesar no more shall contaminate the things of Christ. Some eight or ten months ago the disciples of John Calvin obtained sufficient subscriptions (on paper--300 pounds per annum, we believe) to pay a minister, also a grant of land whereon to build a meeting-house, and a "Rev." gentleman was inducted in the usual manner of doing such things as pastor. His flock were apparently much scattered, for he could only gather the Wedderbourne portion together once in three weeks, and in the interim there was no assembly, and we never heard of the Lord's table being spread--in short, failing in their duty to God, it was not difficult to forget promises made to man, and the unfortunate young pastor left in tribulation and sorrow. He appeared an amiable, sincere man, so far as he had light, and professed willingness to fraternise with all who loved the Lord Jesus, even although they required faith to precede baptism. Oh! work noble brother, work as thou hast done, and may all who in truth love the Captain of our salvation aid thee to sweep from this lovely earth every vestige of the soul-freezing mystery of iniquity and the ignorance on which it lives.

B.M.H., 1867, pp. 178-179.

To the Editors of the Harbinger,--

      Dear Brethren,--In a letter from H.S. Earl, dated Adelaide, South Australia, June 28th, 1866, addressed to Bro. Franklin, and quoted from the American Review, he says, "This is not only a good field for evangelization, but also to present the claims of Christian Union. The Baptist, and others, are themselves urging the plea, and are favorably and kindly disposed toward us; indeed, in a conversation I had with Mr. James Taylor, a short time before I left Melbourne, he said, 'I do not see any good reason why we should not be one people.' He, and the Baptists generally, both here and in Victoria, are far in advance in scriptural knowledge and practice of the Baptists in England, and in some instances, of those in America. He (Mr. Taylor) repudiates the title of 'Reverend,' attends to the Lord's Supper every Lord's day, and is opposed to human creeds as a bond of christian union, etc., etc."

      But, Messrs. Editors, H.S.E. does not state that Mr. Taylor is an open communionist and that his chapel is built on ground which was the gift of the Crown. Two recent cases of receiving state ground has lately been under the consideration and ban of many in this neighbourhood. Some two or three years ago, a congregation at Emerald Hill, in union with Mr. Taylor received a grant from the Crown, of land on which they built a chapel; and about one year since, an offshoot of Mr. Taylor's congregation, also received a similar grant near Hotham, Melbourne. Besides much public indignation, ten pastors of Baptist churches, addressed a tract to them, which will speak for itself. (Enclosed). Union with an open communionist and a receiver of state aid! No! no!

R. S.      

      It is possible that the remarks by H.S.E. and those of R. S. are both correct. The Baptists in Australia may be more open to consideration and less sectarian in spirit than in England and yet union with them at present remains an impossibility. Mr. Taylor's intimation, that he saw no reason why the two peoples should not be one, was not, as we understand it, given by H.S.E. for the purpose of intimating that, he saw no reason, but merely as showing that the Baptists are ready to consider the question. Of course we understand that H.S.E., and all with him, would join R.S. in saying "No Union with an Open Communionist and receiver of state aid!" The course taken by Mr. Taylor, and justifiably repudiated by his Baptist brethren, is in England properly characterized by baptists generally as a disgrace to the Baptist name but that is no reason for our not taking advantage of their willingness to hear and consider our plea, if that can be done, without yielding any point of the faith or order of the Church of God, and without sanction on our part of their sectarianism.

B.M.H., 1868, p. 362.

      PRAHRAN, VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA, July 18th, 1868.--Br. Hamill is still laboring here, being (for the present) supported by the Prahran Church. He has been in but poor bodily health. Yet the interest and success are unabated. Of course the faithful preaching of the truth has aroused a little opposition, leading in one instance to correspondence between Br. H. and a Presbyterian minister, the whole of which was published in the daily paper.

J. PROCTOR.      

A.C.P., 1868-1869, p. 151.

      On the cover of our last issue we gave a passing notice of this work. We feel, however, that it deserves more than such a notice. The author has handled his subject so well, has set forth the truth so clearly, sifting it from all admixtures of error that his work richly deserves a large circulation. There is a charm of novelty about this little book which makes it interesting. The author is not satisfied with the old beaten track of reviewers, but has marked out one for himself. His style is racy; sometimes rather biting, but perhaps none too much so for the subject and the occasion. Hear what the Victorian Baptist Magazine says of this tract. In the February number, under the heading 'Book Notices' the editor speaks thus:--

      This is a pamphlet just to our mind. We have read it with deep interest, and must say that Mr. Carr has done good service to the cause of Christ by his bold, manly, and clear elucidation of the Word of God upon the question of baptism. Here we have 120 pages, divided into four chapters, and every argument advanced in Mr. Ballantyne's tract sifted, weighed in the scale of truth. Mr. Cain shows that he is quite master of the subject. We find no craftiness, no handling the Word of God deceitfully, no straining or trying to make the Word of God prove a thing which it does not contain, no exalting baptism, or attaching to it that undue importance which those who practice infant sprinkling must of necessity give it. Mr. Ballantyne came out boldly and threw down the gauntlet, advanced a number of reasons which would no doubt influence shallow minds, and exert some influence upon those who leave others to think for them; but he has put some excellent weapons into the hands of the man who replies to him, and by a process, simple and clear to the lowest capacity of intellect, the reasons advanced for infant sprinkling are proved no reasons. Indeed, like all error, it is suicidal. We have no hesitation in saying that if Mr. Ballantyne is not ashamed of his scholarship, his falsification of historical facts, and his illogical arguments, he ought to be. He has put forth his hand to touch the ark, and God has employed Mr. Carr as the instrument to give him a good whipping, which he has done in a mild but firm manner. Regarding infant sprinkling, as we do (whether baptismal regeneration be distinctly taught or not), to be one of the great sins of the Church, leading to error everywhere, a portion of the mystery of iniquity, we welcome this book, and should like to see it scattered broadcast throughout the land. To all lovers of the truth we say, buy the book, read it, and see how the varnished clay of error is dashed to pieces by the simple yet immortal truth of God. The book is published by T. Smith, Gertrude Street, but we believe can be had from most of the booksellers.

A.C.P., 1870-1871, pp. 71-72.

MARYBOROUGH, September 17th, 1870.      

      The cause of Christ, commenced here in the year 1862, has for some time been in a very languishing condition, arising from the removal of several members to other localities; from those remaining being located very far apart; and from there being no evangelist. The few brethren, however, continued to hold together, observing the institutions of the Lord's house, and endeavouring to bear their testimony to the truth. At length, in the last week of July, Bro. Surber came amongst us for the first time for a brief visit, and to introduce our Bro. Wright, who was prepared to devote himself to the work of an evangelist. Bro. Surber commenced his public labors here on the evening of Friday, the 29th July, by addressing an audience of about fifty persons, which included several of the brethren who had come a distance of fourteen miles through pelting rain in order to be present. The audience were evidently favorably impressed, and from that night went on increasing at almost every meeting, till the chapel could hold no more. Meetings were held on the Lord's-day, and three other evenings of the week, at which Bro. S. spoke eloquently and earnestly of the glorious gospel in its various relations to man. The ear of the people was thus gradually gained, the interest continued to deepen, and the numbers to increase, whilst during the addresses the attention was riveted. Still, it was not till the second week's labors were closing that one man responded to our brother's appeals, came forward and confessed Christ. In the third week three were restored to the Church, and four other persons came forward, including two who had been members of the Wesleyan society. This roused opposition, and during the fourth week lectures were given to counteract Bro. Surber's teachings; nevertheless the meetings were crowded, many were unable to gain admission; and during that week eight persons came forward. At the close of the fourth week Bro. S. was obliged to leave for Melbourne, and so occasioned a break in the interest; but on his return on the following Wednesday, the congregations at once rallied, and fresh interest was manifested. Bro. S. was now accompanied by Bro. Wright who assisted in the services. The Methodist ministers had previously appeared as opponents of our principles; the Episcopalian minister now came forward in the same way, and has announced a continuation of discourses with the same object. It was now considered incumbent on Bro. S. to appear more prominently in support of our principles, and accordingly the largest hall in the town was engaged, in which on Tuesday and Thursday evenings, the 6th and 8th September, Bro. S. lectured on the "Mode and subjects of Baptism" to crowded audiences, notwithstanding the then prevailing rain and floods. The attention was most respectful, and many were led to think. The services were still

continued in the chapel, and this week thirteen persons came forward, and, confessing Christ, were baptized into his name. Friday evening, the 9th, closed Bro. Surber's labors and the special effort thus conducted with so much of zeal and talent, and love. The immediate results of this effort are, the addition of twenty-seven members to the Church of Christ here--namely, twenty by faith and baptism, five by restoration, and two received from other churches, besides six others baptized and added to the church at Adelaide Lead. A general congregation has been brought together, the Sunday-school has been materially increased, much misapprehension and prejudice have been corrected, many have been led to "search the scriptures," and we trust an impetus has been given to the cause which will be continued. Our Bro. Wright has commenced his labors under encouraging circumstances. At each of the two meetings he has conducted since Bro. Surber's departure two persons came forward and confessed the Saviour. For all these successes we feel we are, under god, indebted to our Bro. Surber's self-denying labor of love. He came among us a stranger, but his amenity and kindness, as well as Christian zeal and talent, have secured a hold on our affections and gratitude which we desire to cherish through life. We have but one regret--Bro. Surber's extreme labour has told painfully on his health. Will the brethren unite with us in praying that his valuable life may be long spared for the Master's work, and that the "Good Lord will also raise up and send forth many more such laborers into his vineyard."--

GEORGE HESKETH.      

A.C.P., 1871-1872, p. 127.

BEECHWORTH.--November 11, 1871--      

      It may be interesting for the brethren to know that a union of the small gathering of believers known as Baptists, and the Church known as the Disciples of Christ, has taken place in this town. Both Churches have been attending to the same institutions on every Lord's-day. Our separation has been equally felt by all to be a cause of stumbling to the world around and contrary to the mind of God. We have come together simply as Christians, taking the Word of God as our only guide in faith and practice, and we feel assured that our union will tend to the glory of God and our own happiness and up-building in our most holy faith. We now number some 60 members, and have amongst us some able and truly devoted preachers of the Gospel. I may just state that, as a Church, we do not seek especially to be allied to any organization of Churches elsewhere, but individually, when sojourning in other parts, will feel it to be our duty to seek out brethren with whom we can unite in the worship of God in accordance with primitive practice, and we will be glad to receive among us all baptized brethren who walk worthy of their high calling.

J. INGRAM.      

A.C.P., 1876-1877, p. 118.

      CASTLEMAINE, Nov. 21.--On Oct. 2, Bro. H. L. Geeslin and self commenced a series of services in Castlemaine and suburbs, preaching each evening and continuing them up to November 16th. The whole district was moved. Many were led to give to the Scriptures a more patient and careful study, and many were led to the Saviour who had not attended any place of worship for years. The immediate results of the meetings were that fifty persons were baptized and three united who had been previously baptized. We attribute these cheering results partly to the labours of Bro. Strang, some eight months ago, and partly to the earnest and united efforts of the few noble brethren in Castlemaine. They have proved themselves true co-labourers, and will receive their reward. Some twelve of the additions were promising young persons, and the remainder were thoughtful persons of mature years. Bro. W.W. Davey will follow up our labours, and instruct and organize the Church. The ministers were in arms, and lectures were delivered on Baptism, which were reviewed in a kindly spirit.

M. W. GREEN.      

A.C.P., 1876-1877, pp. 126-127.

      On the 6th, 7th and 8th of November the sixteenth annual meeting of the "Baptist Association of Victoria," was held in the building of the Collins Street Baptist Church, Melbourne. The churches in Victoria connected with the association are thirty-four, and report a total membership of two thousand three hundred and forty-eight. Increase by baptisms during the year was three hundred and thirty-two, and the net increase after deductions was two hundred and eighty eight, or an average of a fraction under eight and a half persons to each church, which may be considered fairly encouraging. Their contributions to the general work of the church in connection with home and foreign missions, and the training of young men

for the ministry, were four hundred ninety-three pounds, five shillings, and seven pence, or an average of fourteen pounds, ten shillings, and two pence for every congregation connected with the association, exclusive of the money contributed to cover the working expenses of the individual congregations. This also may be said to be creditable to the Baptist friends, and indicates a commendable amount of interest in the general welfare of the cause. The retiring chairman, James Martin, B.A., of the Collins Street Church, after opening the meeting by the usual devotional exercises, introduced the chairman for the year, Philip Bailhache, of the Albert Street Church, who then delivered the chairman's annual address upon "Church Prosperity," noticing some prevalent mistakes about it, some of the essentials to it, and the chief hindrances of it. The address, which is given in extenso in "The Victorian Freeman" to which the Association has given birth and which is in its first number, is a very able one, and deals with the subject in a simple but comprehensive manner; but at the same time contains a few expressions, which place the consistency of the Baptists to their principles in rather an invidious light, and to which, in a kindly and fraternal spirit, their attention is invited.

      In the course of his address, the speaker, after referring to the fact that "true church prosperity" and not "denominational "prosperity was his theme, says, "I do say; however; that I am quite, one with him (Jas. Martin, B.A.) when he said at Kyneton, 'That if any denomination can show a reason, for its separate existence, it surely is our own." He then affirms that no section of the Christian Church can say that the Baptists are wrong in their distinctive belief and practice, and adverting to the holders of infant baptism, he says, "They are wrong if they think we see any scriptural warrant for the liberty which they take." Again a little further down he adds, "We do before all Christendom affirm, that with the exception of our own sect, (italics ours) the whole Christian world is, so far as the ordinance of water-baptism is concerned, unbaptized; in fact, that they have not that sacrament which nearly all of them affirm to be the key of entrance into the visible Church, and which some of them regard as of the very essence of salvation. In a word, we do not recognise the validity of their baptism, as it is generally administered (italics ours), while they all concede the validity of our own." We wonder what the upholders of infant baptism will say to this exhibition of the charity of the Baptists; but passing by them, we are constrained to ask our Baptist friends themselves, how they reconcile these statements as to their "belief and practice" with their present attitude, and how the speaker himself can harmonize them with other utterances found in the same address? Reference is made to the fact that nearly all who practice infant baptism affirm it "to be the key of entrance into the visible Church." Does Mr. Bailhache deny this position which is so generally taken by Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Wesleyans, Congregationalists, etc.? Surely, if anything is made plain in the New Testament, it certainly is the fact that by baptism believers are introduced into the body or church of Christ. Passages in proof are so abundant that we cannot think it necessary to cite any. The mistake of the advocates of "infant baptism" is, not in reference to this part of the design of baptism, but is one purely as to who are the proper subjects of baptism. We presume, however, that Mr. Bailhache himself will not deny what in Scripture is so clear, that baptism is into Christ, His body or church. Now taking this for granted we notice the statement that "We do before all Christendom affirm, that with the exception of our own sect, the whole Christian world is, so far as the ordinance of water-baptism is concerned, UNBAPTIZED." Will it be credited that the speaker of these words, who here affirms that all Christendom, with the exception of the Baptist sect, is unbaptized, is nevertheless seeking to lead unbaptized Christendom into the Baptist Church in their admittedly unbaptized condition! The legitimate inference from the words quoted is, that with the exception of the "Baptist sect," the whole christian world is outside, and not in, the body or church of Christ. We do not desire to misrepresent, and knowingly have not done so. Still it will not occasion surprise if the estimable gentleman, who is chairman of the Victorian "Baptist Association" repudiates the deduction made. This, however, is not a present concern, but rather, is the deduction a legitimate one from the statements of the gentleman himself? Only one way of escape seems possible; and that is to deny that the Scriptures teach that baptism is into the body or church of Christ. As we can scarcely think this position will be taken in the face of so many Scripture statements, we pass on to notice the inconsistency of the course which he so earnestly urges upon the Baptist churches in regard to that unbaptized Christendom which is outside of the (visible) Church of Christ.

      In connection with the words previously cited--that Paedobaptists are wrong if they suppose the Baptists "see any Scriptural warrant for the liberty they take," he says, "But they are right when they say that, as a denomination we are too exclusive and too prone to attach an undue importance to which we hold to be one of Christ's commands." "I know that to us, the evidence of our Baptist views is so copious, unencumbered, and conclusive (italics ours) that we are surprised others do not see it." "But Christians cannot afford to be divided, and we must therefore try to be conciliating." "The words which our chairman uttered last year on this point, are to my mind so weighty and important, that I must give them a resurrection, another list of readers, and a fresh lease of life. He said, "Our fathers, when compelled to separate from others, left no course open to the others but to separate from them. They closed their churches and fenced their tables against all who did not think as they. In fact, they virtually said, "Because you leave no room for us, we will leave no room for you." No course could have been more suicidal. Their illiberality, however conscientious, thinned their numbers and retarded the spread of their opinions.

      Had they adopted a more liberal policy, I doubt not that we should have been tenfold stronger than we are today. . . . I cannot suppress my conviction that we are still standing in our own light, and hindering the spread of our opinions by our hesitation to open our churches and welcome all believers to membership on a basis quite as broad as that which Christ himself has laid." (?)

      With the morality of the course here recommended, in view of the clearness of the testimony upon which (they say) their "belief and practice" rests, and the duty of every Christian faithfully to practice and preach the whole counsel of God, we have not now to do. Our desire is to call the attention of our Baptist friends to the utter inconsistency of their position with regard to the religious world around. They say in effect, "We affirm that the whole Christian world, with the exception of our own sect is unbaptized, and consequently outside of the (visible) Church of Christ. We do not recognise the validity of their baptism, although they concede the validity of our own. The evidence of our Baptist views is so copious, unencumbered, and conclusive, that we are surprised others do not see it." And yet in the face of these very bold and positive statements, the past and present chairmen of the "Victorian Baptist Association" earnestly urge upon their churches to receive to their membership those who neglect that ordinance, the evidence for which is so copious, unencumbered, and conclusive: and who though they may be received into the Baptist Church, are not, the Baptists affirm, in the (visible) Church of Christ. And why are they thus urged to throw open their churches? Why is there to be this large exhibition of charity? Is it not that members may be drawn from Paedobaptist churches, who, but for this stretch of a charity falsely so called, would not seek to unite with them. It is clear that the object of this unscriptural recommendation is purely for the purpose of proselytising from the Paedobaptist's ranks, for it is urged that had the Baptists carried out the policy now recommended, they would have been "tenfold stronger than they are today." Surely the Paedobaptists will not be in danger of being imposed upon by such a transparent charity as this! Without desiring to be unduly censorious, we cannot help saying that it is very evident this plan is urged simply as a means of gaining increased popularity and numerical strength. Both these objects are good when the means used are legitimate, but we cannot refrain from asking our friends, where in Scripture we shall find the authority which justifies a giving up of God's truth, in order, either to an increase of numerical strength and popularity, or, in order to make, what we then mistakenly imagine still to be His truth, more acceptable to men? No good has ever come of yielding up truth, nor can any real success follow. Did the Baptists admit that there is some, even if but inferential ground for "infant baptism" in Scripture, the course recommended could be better understood; but in the face of the chairman's words, that "they (Paedobaptists) are wrong if they think we see any Scriptural warrant for the liberty they take," and "the evidence of our Baptist views is so copious, unencumbered, and conclusive, that we are surprised others do not see it," it does seem, to say the least, a deliberate "selling of the truth," the price received being a possible increase in numbers. And what then becomes of the statement "that if any denomination can show a reason for its separate existence, it surely is our own? "Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Wesleyans, and Congregationalists, all regard baptism as an ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ, to be observed until he comes again, and make it an indispensable pre-requisite to membership, and communion at the Lord's table; but the Baptists, who plead that their views on this matter justify their existence as a separate denomination, are willing to dispense with baptism altogether!! They are certainly in danger of being regarded as notoriously the most loose and inconsistent of all religious bodies, for they stand out as the only people in all Christendom, (admitting the ordinance at all), who, while affirming that baptism has been commanded by the Lord Jesus, are willing to deliberately ignore it, and receive to their membership and communion, persons whom they affirm have never submitted to water-baptism at all!!!

      The above is written in no unfriendly spirit, but with a sincere desire to see the Baptists firm in their adherence to the truth, and if the words seem to cut deeply, we would remind them, "that faithful are the wounds of a friend."

M. W. GREEN.      

A.C.P., 1876-1877, p. 210.

      We have received from the author a pamphlet of some sixty-nine pages, entitled as follows:--Christian Baptism: Its Subjects, Mode, and Design; by Matthew W. Green.

      Bro. Green lives in Melbourne, and is well-known to the brethren throughout the Colonies as a faithful and successful preacher, and a valued contributor to the A.C. Pioneer. In the course of his labours he has deemed it necessary to prepare a small pamphlet whose title is given above. It may be best to give in his own language his reasons for its publication, and his design and method in its preparation. We quote from his preface. He says--

      Having been requested, along with a co-labourer, to undertake a series of evangelistic services in the town of Castlemaine, those services led to the delivery, by the Presbyterian minister of the town, of two Sunday evening lectures upon the Subjects and Mode of Christian Baptism.

      Having reviewed these lectures in the same kindly spirit that was manifested in their delivery, and a strong desire having been expressed that the review should be printed, it was decided that, as the review of the

lectures would have little more than a local influence, and as they necessarily only covered part of the ground taken up by the advocates of infant sprinkling, it would be better to give the work a more general bearing, taking up the argument usually brought forward by Paedo-Baptists.

      Our effort has been to avoid personal references as far as possible, and especially those which might be regarded as offensive. The arguments have been noticed in a spirit of kindliness and fairness, the only object sought being the elucidation of the truth. The apostolic injunction is to "Prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good;" and as far as this encourages controversy as a means of bringing out the truth it has our hearty approval. Many profess to despise controversy, and regard it as an evil. Paul did not so, but used it as a powerful agency to advance the cause of truth. Controversy, when conducted in a Christian spirit, is only good; and they who seek only truth have everything to gain by the most searching investigation. It is error, not truth, that seeks to hide itself from the light of day.

      The chapter on the Design of Baptism was not included in the review. It is added to give completeness to the present publication, and as an aid to those who seek to understand the purpose of the divine institutions.

      We have read the pamphlet and regard it as a very good manual on the subjects which it treats. Bro. Green has written in a pleasing style, avoiding all personalities which sometimes disfigure writings upon themes in anywise controversial. He has brought together a good deal of useful information in small compass. We shall not enter into detail in criticism, but recommend the brethren to obtain a copy for themselves. Brethren may accomplish good by circulating the pamphlet as widely as they can. These publications oftentimes accomplish what larger and more exhaustive works fail to do, from the fact that many will read the shorter who have not the inclination for the larger. The price of the pamphlet is ninepence, and may be had by addressing M.W. Green, St. David St., Fitzroy, Melbourne. Any in this colony who desire it can obtain it on application to T.J. Gore, Adelaide. Will the brethren in South Australia send in their orders at once, as we have on hand a number of copies.

T. J. G.      

3. TASMANIA

A.C.P., 1874-1875, p. 46.

      HOBART TOWN, August 13, 1874.--Since last report six persons have been added to our number here, two from a sister church, one a baptized believer, but who has been working among the sects, and three by faith and obedience. Two of these have been for many years preachers among the sects. We trust that now their energies and talents will be given to the advocacy of the "faith once delivered to the saints" in its simplicity and purity.--

GEORGE B. MOYSEY.      

[NOF 337-373]