Doctrinal developments in the period 1875-1910 were concerned with the movement's central plea, with ministry in general, with the nature of the evangelist's role, with mutual edification, with theology and with discipline.

1.The Plea
a. The General Scope of the Plea
b. Where the Scriptures are Silent
i. Societies
ii. Instrumental Music
iii. An Object Lesson
c. Union
i. General Comment on Union
ii. Roman Catholics
d. Self-Awareness and Self-Criticism
2. Other Doctrinal Issues
a. Church Ministries
b. The Role of the Evangelist
c. Mutual Edification
d. Theology
e. Discipline
3. The Darwinian Revolution
a. Evolution
b. Higher Criticism
c. R. J. Campbell
d. Unitarianism
e. Secularism

1. THE PLEA

      Attention will be concentrated in this section on the general scope of the plea, on conflict over the dictum "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent," on the question of union and on the development of self-analysis and self-criticism.

      a. THE GENERAL SCOPE OF THE PLEA

      Two books edited by A.B. Maston are relevant at this point. They are Pure Gold (Melbourne, Austral, 1897) and First Principles Melbourne, Austral, 1900).

C.P., 1896, p. 141.

Points of Agreement and Difference:

      It will be interesting now to enter more into detail. To take up the various items which enter prominently into "Our Plea" and show how their scripturalness or validity is recognised by our religious neighbours.

      1. We hold that "the Bible furnishes an all-sufficient revelation of the Divine will, and a perfect rule of faith and practice." Theoretically, all other Protestant bodies affirm the same principle, but fail to give effect to it in practice. They take the Bible plus something else.

      2. We hold that the Old and New Testament Scriptures are inspired of God. So do our neighbours, but we differ on the question of their equal binding authority on Christians. "In our view, the Old Testament was of authority with the Jews, the New Testament is now of authority with Christians." Both are necessary in order to understand God's dealings with men throughout the ages, and for a full comprehension of the scheme of redemption, but the laws of the first have either been superseded or else where suitable included in the latter. It may be said, however, that the tendency of the best writers on Biblical subjects is to recognise the essential difference between the Old and New dispensations and that scarcely any scholar of repute nowadays would challenge the correctness of our position on this question. It is true many still continue to use the Old Testament to bolster up erroneous teaching, but it is also true unfortunately that some of our own people do not scruple to do the same when driven into a corner.

      3. We accept fully and unequivocally the Scripture statements regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In-this respect we are emphatically at one with the most reverent and loyal of our religious neighbours, but, to quote the words of Isaac Errett, "we repudiate alike the philosophical and theological speculations of Trinitarian and Unitarian, and all unauthorised forms of speech on a question that transcends human reason, and on which it becomes us to speak in words which the Holy Spirit teacheth."

      4. In reference to the plan of salvation, we hold that from the God-ward side of the question man is saved by grace, and that from the man-ward side, the blessings of that salvation are secured by compliance with the conditions set forth in the New Testament. That faith, repentance, and immersion are in order to the remission of sins. No exception can be taken to this statement, for it is practically the language of Holy Writ, and unless the authority of the Bible is called in question, it must stand. Exception is taken of course to the meaning we attach to the word baptism. With us it means immersion and immersion only. Others maintain that the idea of immersion does not exhaust its meaning--that it means sprinkling and pouring as well. Our point for the present is very simple and requires no argument. It is this: That as it is impossible for all to agree that baptism is sprinkling or pouring, but possible for all to agree that it is immersion, then immersion and it alone is the common ground on which agreement can be secured, and the only absolutely safe position that can be assumed.

      5. We insist upon the weekly observance of the Lord's Supper as being the practice of the primitive church, and therefore binding upon us. The correctness of this position, so far as the Apostolic practice is concerned, is not disputed by any whose opinion carries any weight, nevertheless other religious bodies, for the most part, do not observe it weekly, but at intervals varying from one to twelve months.

      6. We very strongly contend for the usage of Biblical names for Biblical things. Specially do we urge that the people of God shall be known by a New Testament designation. And as Church or Churches of Christ come under that head, we prefer that to any other of human invention. Our religious neighbours prefer to be known by some other names, though at the same time they claim to be churches of Christ.

      7. We contend that the form of church government in early days was characterised by great simplicity, and that the ecclesiastical distinctions of later days was then unknown. In the primitive church we find elders and deacons, and consequently the officers of our churches are thus designated. The correctness of our position, here also is not disputed, and it is not claimed by others that the numerous ecclesiastical titles obtaining amongst the denominations have any scriptural authority.

      8. In regard to membership and privileges of the church, we hold that only immersed believers can participate therein, inasmuch as the New Testament by its commands and examples debars those who are unimmersed.

      Our religious neighbours are equally emphatic in insisting that what they call "baptism" is a prerequisite to membership and fellowship. They, however, do not regard "baptism" as meaning only "immersion." With this important exception they are just as strict in their ideas of membership as we are.

      b. WHERE THE SCRIPTURES ARE SILENT

      Issues under debate during this period were the legitimacy, or otherwise, of Christian Endeavour societies and Sunday Schools and of instrumental music. A comment on the Dunkards is included as it evidences a growing self-awareness.

            i. SOCIETIES

F. G. Dunn, Victorian Conference Essay, C.P., 1896, pp. 141-142.

      I believe, however, that the churches of Australasia, as churches, are on the whole, consistent with their plea for unity, nevertheless, it is evident to me that there is not wanting indications of danger, arising mainly from societies connected in some way or other with the church. Let me say here that there is nothing in the idea of a "society" which in itself produces in me any feeling of alarm, although at the same time I regard the multiplication of them as being in the long run prejudicial to the best interests of the Church of Christ. With the Christian Standard of America, I can see in them, "Still another stream of tendency, which may become, little by little, insensibly and unintentionally, the means of dangerous ecclesiastical power." It was so in the past, and we have no guarantee that it will not be so in the future.

      No one, I think, believes more heartily in the Sunday School than I do. As a scholar and a teacher I have many pleasant associations connected with it. In my early days it was looked upon as a work which the church, and the church only, had the right and privilege of supporting. I regret to find that now the young of our church are being educated, through the medium of the Sunday School, to regard it as a legitimate thing to take money from wherever they can get it for the preaching of the gospel. This, in my opinion, is a matter requiring reformation, and the way to reform it is for the churches to take the responsibility of the finances, and not leave the schools to find the money the best way they can.

      Now what I said in regard to the Sunday School is true also to a greater or lesser extent with our Musical Societies, and our Endeavour Societies. I have nothing to say against these institutions, so far as the objects are concerned, which they have in view, but I deeply deplore the fact that the good they are doing is ofttimes secured at the expense of principles which have been associated with our movement since its inception in these colonies.

      But it is in connection with the Endeavour Society--the latest of them all, that we find the elements of divergence in the greatest degree, and these divergences are accentuated from the fact that it is claimed on behalf of the society that it is part of the church. I have every sympathy with any legitimate attempt to cultivate the spirituality and usefulness of the younger members of the church, but I do riot see that it is necessary in order to accomplish this, to resort to methods, which to say the least of them, are open to question. I need not tell this audience that the Jesuitical motto, "The end justifies the means," is not one that we as a people can subscribe to.

      Let me now state my main objections:--

      1st. I cannot reconcile it with our position that one part of the church should have a basis of membership differing from the other part. I refer to the fact that Endeavour societies are composed of active and associate members.

      2nd. I object to the pledge which it is required every member shall take. It is immaterial to me though every item in the pledge is unobjectionable. Where is the authority, I ask, for requiring any child of God to subscribe to a pledge in regard to the performance of his Christian duties? What right has any section of the church to form itself into a party and require as a condition of membership subscription to a formula drawn up by human hands? I raise my protest against any section of the church imposing barriers in regard to membership which are not authorised by the word of God. It will not do to say that the pledge is not a barrier, for it is, inasmuch as it bars out all those who object to it. I admit the scriptural right of every man to exhort his brethren to the performance of good works, but further than this the Holy Spirit does not go, and consequently no man or body of men has a right to go further.

      Again, how does the Endeavour Society stand in relation to our attitude towards our religious neighbours in our plea for unity. Does it show that we are applying the principles to ourselves that we advocate in regard to them? Certainly not. On the contrary, it goes to prove that we have no faith in these principles or that we are prepared to surrender them when opportunity offers. We say to those outside that the unity of the people of God is only possible on the basis of New Testament teaching, and yet within ourselves we are giving evidence of disunity by adopting practices at variance with our plea. By the introduction of the Endeavour Society, with its diverse membership and its unauthorised pledge we have brought into our midst the element of disunity. Those brethren who can reconcile this state of things with the word of God and our plea for unity must have very imperfect conceptions of both.

D. A. Ewers, C.P., 1896, pp. 145-146.

      At the request of its admirers we are pleased to present our readers with the thoughtful Conference Essay of Bro. Dunn. It was warmly discussed when read, and it is possible that in the criticism of questionable points some of its many excellencies may have been overlooked. If we deal chiefly with the points on which we differ from the writer, it will be understood that the greater part of the essay meets with our endorsure and hence calls for no special comment from us.

      We are prepared to accept the eight planks of his platform, though we are not sure what is meant by the "privileges of the church" in plank 8, and from which, he affirms, the unimmersed are debarred. Are singing, prayer, contribution and partaking of the Lord's supper, for instance, all privileges from which the unimmersed are to be debarred? As he immediately proceeds to say that "our religious neighbors are equally emphatic in insisting that what they call 'baptism' is a prerequisite for membership and fellowship," we might infer that the writer views the above matters of fellowship from the same standpoint as they; but in view of recent discussion there is room for more explicit language.

      There is an occasional recklessness of expression which is scarcely excusable in a carefully written essay. For instance:--"I regret to find that now the young of our church are being educated, through the medium of the Sunday School, to regard it as a legitimate thing to take money from wherever they can get it for the preaching of the gospel." Now, as a matter of fact, no one teaches our young people "to take money from wherever they can get is." In some of our schools children are encouraged to pay for their periodicals, or contribute towards school expenses, and we have heard of evening collections for the Sunday School. Perhaps the essayist had these methods in his mind, but there is a broad distinction between them and the sweeping charge he has made.

      But it is against the Endeavor Society that Bro. Dunn levels his heaviest artillery and produces the most smoke. His objections are--1st, that "associate members" are admitted, and 2nd, that a pledge is adopted. It is to be noted that he does not object to "societies" as such, nor does he take exception to anything in the pledge. His ground of protest is reduced to these two points. Let us briefly examine them.

      1. The essayist overlooks, or is not aware of the fact, that the "associate members" are only associates. They have no voice whatever in the management of the society, are not invited or expected to pray or take any other part in the religious exercises, and are not eligible to fill any office. They are admitted on this express understanding. By courtesy they are called members, but as a matter of fact they merely "associate" with the members, and can take no "active" part in the meetings. Thus the broad line between professed Christians and others, for which we as a people have ever contended, but which in some denominations is largely overlooked, is here carefully preserved. Probably this is one reason why the Endeavor movement has found such favor generally among the Disciples. In connection with most of our churches there are those who habitually attend the meetings and join in much of the worship, but who are not members of the church; in an Endeavor Society such people are made to distinctly understand that while permitted to associate with Christians they cannot be regarded as such themselves, and every effort is made to induce them to accept Christ. One would judge from the essay that associates had the same privileges as active members, and to this extent the paper is misleading, while the objection raised, and which is evidently based on a misapprehension of the real state of things, falls helplessly to the ground.

      2. Bro. Dunn protests against the pledge on the ground that it is a barrier, "inasmuch as it bars out all those who object to it." This criticism also clearly rests on a lack of knowledge. Our good brother should have known that all Christians are eligible for membership whether they take the pledge or not. Those who do not like to promise to read the scripture and pray every day, and to take part in all meetings, may join as "honorary members," and freely take part, and many do so. Where, then, is the "barrier" which our critic has evolved out of his fertile imagination? All church officers are ex officio members, even if they never attend, and they have supreme control. The essayist asks: "Where is the authority for requiring any child of God to subscribe to a pledge, etc.?" We believe Bro. D. is a pledged abstainer and an advocate of total abstinence. Objection to a pledge comes awkwardly from an avowed advocate of a pledge. It is not quite clear to us why the young society should be attacked because it has a pledge rather than the Temperance Society or Band of Hope, with which we have so long been familiar. The writer contends that "by the introduction of the Endeavor Society, with its divisive pledge and its unauthorised membership, we have brought into our midst an element of disunity," but we have not heard of any disunity in our churches from this source. Even were it true that opposition to an Endeavor Society in any church was so strong as to cause a division, it would remain to be proved that the society was responsible. In some American churches the introduction of the Sunday School has been followed by strife, but for this its opponents were responsible. The introduction of hymn books rent scores of Baptist churches asunder, or rather the absurd contention of honest opponents of these "human innovations" did so. It is significant that the essayist produces no scripture to support his unqualified condemnation of the Endeavor movement.

      So warmly has this movement been taken up by our churches in America that the Disciples already rank third among the religious bodies in the number of societies, and at the present rate of progress bid fair to take the lead before many years. The ground taken by the essayist therefore does not

represent the attitude of our brethren on this point. It is not "Our Position;" it is simply Bro. Dunn's position.

      It is very refreshing to turn to the paragraph referring to the danger of "exalting matters of opinion to the region of principle, and advocating "the widest liberty in all questions of a more or less difficult nature." How the writer of that paragraph can so strongly object to young Christians having liberty to promise to read the word of God and pray every day and to meet to help each other grow in grace and knowledge, is beyond our comprehension. His idea of "liberty" seems like that of the Sunday scholar in America who explained that "The Pilgrim Fathers came here that they might worship God according to their own conscience and compel every one else to do so." We could see the point of his protest were union with the society demanded as a condition of church membership or Christian fellowship; but that the advocate of "the widest liberty" should seek to withhold from others the freedom he himself enjoys, to act in this matter as he deems best for the cause of Christ, appears somewhat peculiar.

      The essayist hold strong opinions about Endeavor Societies, but when he states that their existence among us "goes to prove that we have no faith in these principles or are prepared to surrender them" he clearly "exalts a matter of opinion to the region of principle." It will be necessary to produce more powerful arguments against the Endeavor movement than are contained in this essay if we are to check its onward progress.

D. A. Ewers, A.C., 1898, p. 347.

      A few years ago the advocates of the Christian Endeavor movement claimed that, although it had not destroyed the denominational fences, it had at least removed the barbs from the wires. It would seem that of late the fences themselves are in danger. One of the fundamental principles of the movement is loyalty to the particular church of which each society is a part, and in order to stimulate this, denominational rallies are held in connection with the great conventions at which distinctive principles are emphasised. Besides this, such themes as "What we owe to our own church," and "What our church stands for," find a prominent place on the syllabus of the societies. But, notwithstanding these efforts, the inevitable tendency of the movement is to weaken denominationalism. In every great convention repeated reference is made to Christian Union, and all such allusions are always warmly applauded. Earnest pious young people in their enthusiasm care but little for the comparatively trifling points that differentiate some of these denominations, and "interdenominational fellowship" bids fair to destroy denominational loyalty. There is in the United States a body of Christians over one million strong, whose avowed object is to destroy sectarianism and bring about union among all who believe in Christ, by a return to the undenominational Christianity of the New Testament. In point of numbers and influence they already stand third in the C.E. movement there, and not long since a Presbyterian paper contended that the Endeavor Society was, by its unsectarian platform, playing into their hands. So distinctly is the danger to denominationalism felt in America, that the Methodists and Baptists have largely withdrawn from the movement and formed their Epworth League and Baptist Young People's Union. The other religious bodies still co-operate on the original lines. What is to be the future of the Endeavor movement it is impossible to say, but no thoughtful man can doubt but that in the providence of God it has already been instrumental in assisting to promote the development amongst the denominations of the spirit of unity, without which organic union is of course an impossibility.

A.C., 1904, p. 301.

      The following has been called forth in answer to the many questions that have been asked and the many statements that have been made about the Endeavor movement among us:--

      1. The Christian Endeavor is not the church.

      (a) As an institution it is unknown in the Scripture.

      (b) It includes more than the N.T. church does in its membership.

      (c) The initiation is different, so it cannot be the church.

      2. The Christian Endeavor is not even a part of the church.

      (a) The sum of the parts is equal to the whole. But the sum of all C.E. societies could not make the church, because the result would be greater than the whole. The church only knows of one class of members--the C.E. more.

      3. The Christian Endeavor is not a substitute for the church.

      (a) There is only one institution authorised to perform the functions of the church, and it is not the Endeavor.

- 406 -

      (b) There is only one institution delegated by God to preserve and to execute the ordinances of the church, and it is not the Endeavor.

      4. The Christian Endeavor is not of divine origin, though it may have divine sanction or favor.

      (a) Institutions of divine origin came by revelation; the Endeavor did not.

      (b) Institutions of divine origin have their governing principles and initiatory steps stated; the Endeavor came by these as by growth.

      5. The Christian Endeavor is not sectarian.

      (a) It is for Christ and the church, not a Christ and a church.

      (b) Its active members are known simply as Christians or Christians simply without any other appellation.

      6. The Christian Endeavor is neither denominational, undenominational, nor inter-denominational.

      (a) It stands--a protest against all divisions;--for everywhere and always the members are Christian Endeavorers, not Presbyterian Endeavorers, Methodist Endeavorers, etc.

      (b) In conventions, councils, etc., they are known only as Christian Endeavorers and Christian Endeavorers only.

A.C., 1916, p. 411.

      We believe that nothing better has arisen to take the place of the Christian Endeavor Society in our churches. We like the spirit of Christian unity encouraged by this great movement and the practical training given in the meetings that has developed so many of our most useful and consecrated church members. Many teachers, church officers and Sunday School teachers owe a great deal to the early training received in the Endeavor Societies, and we are sure this society is the greatest factor we have for the practical development of the spiritual life and Christian service of our young people.

            ii. INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC

F. G. Dunn, A.C.S., 1886, pp. 302-303.

      There are a few apparently small matters transpiring in our midst, which are causing us some little anxiety, not on account of their present importance, but on account of the possible evils that may grow out of them. We stay to instance only two of them. The first in connection with one of our large city churches, where recently an entertainment was given, the principal feature of which was the sacred cantata of "Under the Palms," the proceeds of this entertainment coming from all and sundry, that is, from those who chose to pay, such proceeds being applied to a distinctly religious purpose. The second case being that of a small country church where AN ORGAN has been introduced into the evening or gospel service, as additional attraction to induce sinners to come and hear the glorious gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

      To take money directly or indirectly from unbelievers, or to introduce an organ into the gospel meeting, cannot be a matter of faith with anyone; it can only be a matter of opinion, and as such may be done or not done as may be deemed most expedient, always provided that no other divine law is violated by so doing. This is the highest and broadest ground that can be taken by the most liberal and "progressive" brother amongst us. We emphasise our point. If the thing proposed be "only a matter of opinion," there is no imperative necessity that it should be done at all; and if we have liberty to do, we also have the liberty not to do. The question in such a case is this--shall we exercise our liberty by doing this thing? or shall we exercise the same undisputed liberty by not doing it?

      Just here we place a distinct divine command--"Give no offence to Jew nor Gentile, nor to the Church of God." This is a negative command prohibiting all things calculated to give offence. Alongside it we place the positive command--"Let all things be done to the use of edifying." Nothing is to be done that will not edify or build up. All things done must have, both in intention and in fitness, the quality calculated to edify.

      The combined wisdom of the brotherhood hitherto has decided that it is unwise, if not inconsistent for us to introduce instrumental music into our services. Is it in order (we again ask) for a single congregation to depart from this established practice? when they know that to do so will give offence to many, and lay the whole brotherhood open to the charge of inconsistency. But they say, it is a matter of opinion. Just so; therefore it is not imperative that you should give offence to "The Church of

God." But you say it is "a fad," brethren have weak consciences. Well, have you not read the statement of Holy Writ--"When ye sin against the brethren by wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ? Is it then a matter of opinion "to sin against Christ?" Is it a trifling matter that you offend the Church of God, in order to secure a temporary pleasure, or add a doubtful attraction to your "evening meeting?" It is time these brethren who are for ever pleading their right to do anything or everything not distinctly forbidden should take a serious view of the other side of the question; and we write this with the desire of inducing them to do so.

      We have full confidence, however, in the general good sense of the brotherhood; and we are not very much afraid of their imitating a bad example.

      This is not a day for us to pander to the weak methods of sectarianism. It is not a time for us to raise a flag of truce and go half way to meet the enemy, it is a time for us to stand fast. Trust in God and his truth. Sectarianism has exhausted all these kinds of attraction; and should we at this late hour enter for the race of popular applause, it would only end in our ignominious defeat. If the free will offerings of the brethren will not support all our church agencies, then let those that it will not support be at once abandoned. And if the preaching of the ancient gospel in simplicity and earnestness will not attract the lost and the ruined, let us not seek to substitute a semi-entertainment to attract them. When God's methods fail, there is little hope of human expedients succeeding. A word to the wise is enough.

A.C.S., 1886, pp. 809-810.

Dear Brethren,--

      The question "Is it advisable that an organ be used at our Sunday evening services held for the proclamation of the gospel?" is one that will ere long come prominently to the front and demand our consideration.

      That some few of our members object to the organ at an evening service I believe, but why? Most of these who can afford it have one at home, because they like it and desire their families to learn it. This shows that they do not think there is anything wrong in itself. If wrong at all it must therefore be because of its associations!

      There really appears but one argument against it, and that is "to introduce the organ would expose us to the danger of following in the wake of the sectarian churches."

      This, however, is more imaginary than real, as the errors of sectarianism are in no case to be traced to the organ, but antedate its introduction by centuries.

      For, in very truth, if one argument can be brought against the instrument I will undertake to show that the same argument can be used with still more damaging effect upon most of our practices which are at present looked upon as right and proper.

      1st. As a matter of fact the fashionable churches have gone further astray with their singing than with their instruments of music. They engage theatrical stars and opera singers to praise God at so much a song!! But shall we abstain from singing because of the danger to which we are exposed of following in their wake?

      2nd. These fashionable churches have gone all astray in the gorgeous buildings they erect at enormous expense, thereby rendering incessant begging necessary, as well as doubtful or rather positively sinful methods of raising funds. But shall we refuse to build chapels because of the danger to which we are exposed in this way?

      3rd. These fashionable churches have synods and assemblies for the government of the body corporate, at which they legislate and decree. But shall we abstain from holding our annual conference lest it degenerate into an ecclesiastical court?

      4th. These fashionable churches write a creed, and, stamping it with their authority make it a bond of union and communion. But shall we abstain from writing religious works and commentaries because of the danger which some think menaces us?

      5th. Many of these fashionable churches manufacture their preachers according to a well-defined plan of heredity or entail, and not because of any natural aptness for ministerial work. But shall we therefore refuse to recognise educational attainments, or withhold from our youth the means of acquiring knowledge?

      To ask these questions is enough.

      Then to what danger would the introduction of the organ expose us? Certainly to none of those specified, because we have already taken the steps which expose us here, and the organ would not increase the danger by one scintilla.

      Its advantages would be many, but space will allow me only to touch on one or two.

      1. It would keep the singing up to the key. Is it not a fact that in almost every case, except where there is a first-class conductor and an efficient choir, the singing will become flat and spiritless ere the end of the song be reached? Many times have I known a good earnest address thrown away because of the unfortunate effect of bad singing apparently.

      2. It will tend to induce the world to come within the sound of the gospel. Most men, saints and sinners alike, are fond of music, and as the organ is admirably adapted to the sacred sort, the chances are greatly in favor of their turning in when its rich tones are heard.

      It is thus only a means to an end just as training a choir is. The latter is not trained in order that God may be praised more acceptably, but solely in order that the world might be attracted within the sound of the gospel.

      3. It will tend to fit and prepare people for the reception of the gospel.

      Don't be startled at this proposition.

      Circumstances often go a long way towards helping the gospel. Hence the preacher often finds that after bereavement or some appalling catastrophe, the people are more open to the reception of the truth. Music has a hallowing-effect; and men and women will not unfrequently feel their rougher edges softened down under its influence.

      4. A distinguishing feature of the worship of heaven is instrumental music.

      Hence we find from Revelation 14th chap. that "the hundred and forty and four thousand" who have been "redeemed from among men and follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth," are spoken of as "harpers harping with their harps."

      Now, this is not a question of the literalness of the harps any more than of the number. To this I don't commit myself here. The only thing I have to do with is that the instruments are used by John in order to carry some idea of the glories of heaven, and the lesson to be drawn therefrom will strike every candid reader.

      But as this is a prolific theme on which I have much to say, I will await a reply to this, and, if the Lord will, return to it again.

      I trust whoever replies will do so in a calm and candid spirit.

      Evidently from this letter and other indications, it is certain that there are some brethren who desire to have the organ introduced into the meetings of the church, and they propose doing so in the first instance by using it at the evening service, as though there was some distinction between using it then and at the morning meeting. We fail to see where the distinction comes in, and in dealing with the matter will refuse to acknowledge the difference. The question is, is it right or expedient to use musical instruments in church worship, whether such worship be in the morning or evening.

      In answering this question we will simply deal with the arguments used by "Timothy," as we have already dealt with the matter in its more general aspect.

      1. We agree with "Timothy" that it is not a doctrinal matter, in the sense that there is direct teaching upon it, but he will not gain much by this admission, seeing that the question may be brought under the head of necessary inference or practice.

      2nd. "Timothy" believes that there are some brethren who object to the use of the organ in churches, but use it in their own homes. With this phase of the question we have nothing to do. The fact that it is so used proves nothing as to its being right or wrong.

      3rd. We agree with our correspondent when he says that the argument "that to introduce the organ would expose us to the danger of following in the ranks of the sectarian churches" is not in itself a valid argument against its introduction. The italics are ours. If a thing is right, we ought to do it irrespective of consequences. This admission saves us a lot of trouble, as it disposes of the items numbered 1 to 5. But we dissent entirely from our brother when he says that this argument "really appears to be the only one against" the use of the organ. We can furnish him with several others if he desires it.

      4th. Again we agree with "Timothy." He says that many of the errors of sectarianism were in existence prior to the introduction of the organ. That is true. Musical instruments were among the later innovations of the apostasy--seven hundred years after the death of the apostles, and only then after a severe struggle. Why were they not used before? Is not the non-use significant? Jewish Christians were familiar with the use of musical instruments in the temple worship, and with their strong Judaic tendencies, is it not strange that we have no record of their use in the early Christian Church? Is it not that there was some objection to their being used, say for instance that it was contrary to the spirit and simplicity of the spiritual worship of the new institution?

      Our correspondent having dealt with the arguments against the organ, goes on to give us some of the arguments in favor of it. These, briefly summed up, amount to saying that the organ would be a help to the singing and attractive to the public. In reply we simply direct the attention of "Timothy" to the following extract from the Apostolic Guide, written by our esteemed Bro. McGarvey:-

      "As to the position that the use of the instrument is no more than a help to the worship, even if it could be maintained as the fact in the case, it would still be left without the sanction of divine authority; for while the authority to perform a certain service carries with it the authority to employ all helps that are necessary to its effective performance, it cannot do more. On this principle, if the use of an instrument were necessary to the effective worship in song, this fact would give the needed authorisation; but it is certainly not necessary to worship as defined by those just referred to, that is, to the language of the heart; and that it is not necessary to effective singing is obvious from the fact that most effective singing has been done in the churches in all ages and all countries without it; and from the other fact, that anyone who can sing with an instrument, can sing without it. In reality, the use of an instrument does not help the singing, for the singing is the same that it would be if the same vocal sounds were made without the instrument. It helps only the music and it does this by adding to the vocal music, music of another kind. The position, then, is from every point of view involved in misconception and fallacy. Nor is this the worst feature of it; for if it be granted that men are at liberty to adopt any unnecessary helps to the worship which they may think desirable, then it follows that the Romanist is justifiable in using candles, images; incense and crucifixes as helps in his worship; and-should the day come that the majority of disciples in any congregation shall desire to introduce all these practices, the men who have admitted the organ on this ground must consent to it or abandon their present position."

      Our correspondent says "A distinguishing feature of the worship of heaven is instrumental music." After making this literal and definite statement, he tells us, "this is not a question of the literalness of the harps any more than of the number. To this I don't commit myself here." When he tells us what he does mean, it will be time enough to reply to it.

      That this question will come "prominently to the front," as "Timothy" predicts it will, is a prediction which we hope will not be fulfilled; but if it is, and we have to pass through the strife and misery that has attended this controversy amongst our brethren in America, then the responsibility of such a result will rest largely upon the heads of those who, like "Timothy," push this question to the front.

--Eds.      

C.P., 1891, p. 211.

      It is an excellent thing to make progress in the right direction; but if the progress should have a retrograde tendency, in the sight of God it must be regarded as an utter failure. Nothing that we call progress, having for its basis "sanctified common sense," and not a "thus saith the Lord," should blunt our sensibilities and loyalty to the God of Heaven.

      That "forward movement" is needed badly is granted; but does not the necessity for this cry come because we have left the Old Paths in many respects? and since our locks have been shorn by the Delilah of progression our strength has departed, and we think our weakness is due to the fact that we do not "keep abreast the age."

      Originally we were content to go by the maxim "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent," and by our actions and teaching said inferences and deductions, however plausible, have no place in the Divine plan, for "no human authority has power to interfere in order to supply any supposed deficiency by making laws for the church, nor can anything more be required of Christians in such cases but only that they so observe these commands and ordinances as will evidently answer the declared and obvious ends of their institution. Much less has any human authority power to impose new commands or ordinances upon the church, which our Lord Jesus Christ has not enjoined. Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the church, or be made a term of communion among Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament."

      Now what are we doing? One of our scribes^* (who is, in this matter, endorsed in the Colonies by Bro. H.M. Black), has proposed a form of "infant dedication," or infant baptism, as is practiced by paedobaptists, minus a few drops of water! The same writer proposed a few years ago that unimmersed people be received into the membership, this he argued would be a forward movement in the way of Christian union.

      The "problem of the age" is absorbing much of the time that should be devoted to preaching Christ and him crucified, for it is becoming so that the Lord's day morning addresses in some instances are devoted to discussing the social question, some actually going so far as to say that the gospel is inadequate to reach the masses in their present social condition.

      "Woman's rights" is another question that is being agitated and is moving forward rapidly, and it seems that it is only a matter of time till they will be filling the pulpit, notwithstanding the Holy Spirit through Paul, 1 Cor. 14:1, Tim. 2:11,12, has prohibited them from speaking in public, and he is so explicit, stringent, absolute, universal, and fortified by appeals both to the laws of revelation and nature, having reiterated it in various forms to prevent the possibility of being misunderstood. We notice further that he makes no distinction between the morning meetings and others in which both sexes are gathered,

so the argument used to justify them in speaking in behalf of missions and at tea meetings where there is a mixed assembly is without foundation.

      Again, the organ question is gradually but certainly gaining ground. In a letter to the Christian Evangelist, of a recent date, Bro. Ewers says: "It is generally first introduced into the Sunday-school, then into the Sunday evening services for the proclamation of the gospel and finally into the church worship on the Lord's day morning. In South Australia most of the principal churches use it in the evening and two or three in the morning. In Victoria four or five use it in the evening but none in the morning, and thus is it coming to pass that these organ leaders are introducing into the worship of the church that which the Lord Jesus Christ has not enjoined Yes, they are helping to introduce an innovation which has torn asunder, ruined and forever divided many assemblies of the saints, which at one time were peaceful and prosperous--Such is the condition in many places in the U.S.A.

      Yes, brethren, we are drifting. Will God say--can he say--Well done, good and faithful servant, if we give our time, ability and influence toward introducing unscriptural practices among the people of God, which have caused so much sorrow and trouble to once united churches, and have forever blighted the fond anticipations of many loyal hearts of what might have been glorious and grand achievements and untold victories won in the name of Christ. But offences contrary to the word of God have come, the work of division is going on, and the faithful must stick close to the word of the living God and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel.

S.      

      ^* W.T. Moore, in Christian Commonwealth.

            iii. AN OBJECT LESSON

D. A. Ewers, C.P., 1896, p. 272.

      There is in America a respectable body of devout Christians known as Dunkards, a sect of German Baptists. These pious brethren are strongly opposed to all "human innovations," and are greatly exercised over the fact that usages unsanctioned by the apostles are gaining a footing with some of their members. At their last convention, held two or three months ago, they solemnly discussed the riding of bicycles, the filling of decayed teeth with god, and the use of pianos in the home. Resolutions were carried forbidding the adoption of such unscriptural practices, and no one can now indulge in them under pain of excommunication. If the object in prohibiting piano-playing at home was to prevent the introduction of instrumental music into the church services, the Dunkards are to be congratulated on the effectual and logical step they have taken. We have always felt that the use of musical instruments at home was "the thin end of the wedge" to their introduction into our chapels. If we teach our young people to praise God to the accompaniment of the instrument in one place, we must not be surprised if they prefer doing so in another. It is certain that the apostles used neither bicycles nor gold filling in their teeth, and if they did not why should we? The Dunkards are earnest and conscientious and their solemn action in conference assembled may well become an object lesson of value to advocates of New Testament religion who are unable to discriminate between the incidentals and the principles of primitive Christianity.

      c. UNION

      This section includes both general comment on union and remarks dealing specifically with the Roman Catholic Church.

            i. GENERAL COMMENT ON UNION

D. A. Ewers, C.P., 1890, pp. 121-122.

      The Spirit of Union.--One of the most interesting features of the religious ferment of the various denominations is the spirit in which they co-operate in good works. The Evangelical Alliances, Y.M.C. Associations, United Prayer Meetings, Ministerial Meetings, and exchange of pulpits, are all signs of an increase of kindly feeling which was not manifested 30 years ago. Of course all these things fall far short of the union and unity which Paul enjoined and for which Christ prayed; yet they are certainly indications of a desire for that union which we hope will be the outcome of the present restlessness under denominational bondage. Three powerful factors in the promotion of this friendly spirit

have been the British and Foreign Bible Society, the Temperance movement, and the International System of Sunday-school Lessons. Leaders of the various Protestant denominations have been able to cooperate on these platforms, without compromise of principle, and this co-operation has led to the mutual recognition of the much that is held in common and the comparative little that keeps the lovers of Christ apart. It is well for all Christians, while they adhere under all circumstances to the plainly declared truths of the word of God, to co-operate with those who profess to be His as far as they can possibly do so without the compromise of principle. By doing this, and at the same time giving credit for all honesty to those who differ from them, a kindly spirit will be cultivated, which will bring the co-operating parties within hearing distance of each other. Until those who differ come thus within hearing distance, it is impossible for them to agree, or even to fairly understand each other. It is almost impossible for a religious controversialist to fairly represent the views of his opponent, for the simple reason that in nine cases out of ten he does not himself understand them; nor will he until he is led in a brotherly spirit to lay aside all prejudice. Loving co-operation as far as possible in the matters upon which they agree will lead to that mutual confidence and esteem which will do much to remove misunderstandings and to pave the way for the union-and unity all Christians so earnestly desire.

D. A. Ewers, C.P., 1891, pp. 257-258.

      The Shearers' Conference and Christian Union.--The Shearers and Pastoralists of New South Wales have agreed upon a basis of union to their mutual satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the colony at large.

      It will be noticed that the settlement was brought about (1) by the clear realisation on both sides of the evils of disunion and (2) by meeting in a friendly way to discuss the points of difference; and so the bitter disputes of long standing were all settled by a few hours friendly conference. We hear much talk of Christian Union, but it appears to us that before this can ever be brought about there must be (1) a much stronger realisation of the terrible evils of sectarianism and (2) a friendly conference in which all parties may frankly discuss the points upon which at present they differ.

D. A. Ewers, A.C., 1898, pp. 347-348.

      While there can be no doubt that Christ prayed for the visible union of his disciples throughout all ages, it would be a mistake to suppose that a mere organic union, such as that of the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, would fill the measure of this petition. The evident desire of the Saviour's heart was the intelligent spiritual unity of all who bear his name. "As thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us." It was not, then, an aggregation of men for which Christ prayed, but a real fellowship of disciples in consequence of their union with his Father and himself. This fellowship cannot be attained, save by spiritual submission to Christ, and just as Christians overcome and expel from their inner life that which hinders communion with God, in that proportion will the barriers to Christian unity and visible union be removed. The union of God's people can best be advanced by the cultivation of spiritual life. The nearer we live to the Lord and the more we develop a spirit of unreserved submission and obedience, the nearer we shall be to all who are likeminded, and it is only the union of such that is desirable.

A.C., 1903, p. 173.

      It is with mingled feelings that the thoughtful Christian hears of the attempts at union which are being made in these days by many of the sectarian bodies. He cannot but rejoice at the evidence of the growth of the sentiment in favor of union, but at the same time he cannot help seeing that union will never come in the way in which the sects are seeking to bring it about. The tendency of Christendom today is in the direction of federation. The various Methodist bodies in these States having united, a movement is now on foot for the amalgamation of the Congregational Methodist, and Presbyterian denominations. While we heartily welcome all such efforts in so far as they indicate a dissatisfaction with the divisions among the people of Christ, and a desire to draw the scattered forces of Christianity closer together, still we should be on our guard against commending these movements in such a manner as shall seem to sanction a false method of securing the union for which our hearts are longing. The truth is, federation will never unite the people of God. If all the sects in the world should join hands tomorrow,

without abandoning the human traditions which are the essence of sectarianism, the result would be only a union of sects, and not Christian union. A federation of sects would be a federation of error. If a sect has no Scriptural right to exist, neither has an amalgamation of sects. Such a union would but fortify sectarianism, and provide a gigantic instrument for the suppression of truth.

D. A. Ewers, A.C., 1904, p. 417.

      To a people whose plea for nearly a century has been the union of Christians, the signs of the times must necessarily be of special interest, and the readers of this paper are watching the trend of events with open eyes and ears. There was a time when the plea was unpopular, and treated with either opposition or contempt, but now all this is changed, and the desire for unity is so strong that the question of the Scriptural basis for union: seems to be largely relegated to the background. Union is important, but loyalty to the New Testament is more important, and just now the danger appears to be that principles may be sacrificed for sentiment. So far as we have observed, no special prominence seems to be given, in most of these movements at least, to the New Testament platform of organic union. Questions of finance, trust deeds, status of ministers and other matters of expediency are freely discussed, but not much is heard of the basis laid down by the Holy Spirit in Eph. 4:3-5. Take, for example, the utterances of leading Baptists in W.A., as quoted in our West Australian letter of this issue. In order to forming "one body" with the Congregationalists, these brethren solemnly propose, if we understand them, to have "one Lord, one faith and two baptisms," and in every church "the ordinance might be administered by the immersion of believers or the sprinkling of infants." It would require a stretch of imagination to fancy such a proposition from the pen of the writer to the Ephesians. To Baptists, who honestly believe infant sprinkling to be a tradition of men displacing a commandment of God, the baptism of a babe in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, could not well be otherwise than offensive, and many would regard it as taking the name of God in vain. Yet if the union proposed should be brought about, they must stifle their convictions for the sake of peace. While we rejoice at the prevalence of the desire for union, we realise that it may be purchased at too high a price, and it behoves our preachers and teachers to neglect no favorable opportunity to lay before the religious public the only Scriptural terms on which it can be rightly consummated. The settlement of the problem of union is devoutly to be wished, but it is well to realise that "no question is settled until it is settled right." Union on any other grounds than those of the apostles must inevitably alienate all who are faithful to the teachings of the Holy Spirit, and so prolong division.

            ii. ROMAN CATHOLICS

F. G. Dunn, A.C.S., 1894, p. 49.

      THE PAPACY AND EDUCATION.--The Roman Catholic Church (says the Christian Evangelist) has at length decided to begin her open warfare upon our Public School system. Up to this time she has simply been maneuvering for position. The Fairbault scheme was but her advanced line of skirmishers thrown out to discover the enemy's lines, test their strength and find the best point of attack. With characteristic tact she has chosen New York, where she holds the balance of power between the political parties, as the first battle field.

      This movement is not confined to America, but is part of a general plan of campaign which will be systematically and unfalteringly pushed on wherever the Roman Catholic Church has any semblance of power.

      THE CARDINAL'S DEFEAT.--Contrary to the expectation of many, the Cardinal was unsuccessful in his attempt to gain a place in the Federal Convention. The ground of objection to the Cardinal was not because he was a Roman Catholic, nor because he was a minister of religion, but because as a Cardinal he was the sworn servant of a foreign prince who claims secular as well as spiritual power, and was pledged to uphold his authority. Moreover, Cardinal Moran has shown himself to be a bigoted sectarian, and has so persistently and virulently misrepresented Protestantism as to render himself obnoxious to the public generally. There are said to be 50,000 Roman Catholic electors, and that he gained over 42,000 votes shows how well his people supported him as in duty bound. As there were 49 candidates, the Protestant party had no light task to select ten fairly representative men to recommend to the electors. Their fairness was shown by their inclusion of one Roman Catholic, who was duly elected. Had they not recommended ten, the Protestant votes would have been more widely distributed among the 48, and the block support given the Cardinal by his people would almost certainly have placed him among the

successful candidates. In this case his election would have been represented in other parts of the world, and claimed here, as a triumph of Roman Catholicism.

F. G. Dunn, A.C., 1904, p. 612.

      On Tuesday, October 25th, the second Australasian Catholic Congress was opened at the Cathedral Hall, Melbourne, and continued its meetings until Saturday of the same week. The Congress was under the presidency of Archbishop Carr, and probably for this reason the proceedings throughout were of a more peaceful character than those which distinguished the first Congress held four years ago in Sydney, where the influence of Cardinal Moran was very much in evidence.

      Archbishop Carr is the dignified and courteous prelate, and very rarely falls into the mistakes of his impetuous and fiery superior in office. The inaugural address of the Archbishop is characteristic of the man. The aim of the Congress, he tells us, is for "the glory of God, the good of his church, and the welfare of society; the advance of science; the support of the weak; the direction of the strong; the preservation of the 'unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.' We shall be careful to give offence to no man. While we defend our own beliefs, and give a reason for the faith that is in us, we shall not use the occasion to insult the beliefs of those who differ from us." A very admirable statement, and one worthy of all praise. It is one that will be endorsed by the lay element in the church generally, but will scarcely find an echo in the breasts of those ardent spirits in the church who would fain win back for it the glories of the past. It may be true, as the Archbishop says, that the trowel, and not the sword, is the weapon they now use, but this assurance does not prevent the sceptical Protestant thinking that the sword would be speedily resumed if a fitting opportunity should present itself.

      The dogma of the immaculate conception was the natural result of the worship of the Virgin Mary, which had obtained in the Church of Rome from the fifth century onwards. From the Roman standpoint, says Schaff, this dogma completes the Mariology and Mariolatry which, step by step, proceeded from the perpetual virginity of Mary until it reached the declaration of her freedom from original or hereditary sin. To this corresponds the progress of the worship of Mary, and the multiplication of her festivals. Her worship even overshadows the worship of Christ. It is nothing to the Romish Church that in either the Old or New Testament there is not a single trace of Mariolatry to be found. In the pages of the Gospels, Mary the mother of Jesus takes her place as do other women, save only that she was honored in her motherhood. In the relation of Jesus to Mary there is nothing to indicate that she should be singled out from other women for adoration. The words of Jesus, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" do not indicate that Mary was to fill a place in the Christian pantheon. Like other superstitions in the Romish Church, Mariolatry holds its place because the church has exalted itself above the Word of God.

      D. SELF-AWARENESS AND SELF-CRITICISM

J. J. Haley, A.C.P., 1879-1880, pp. 33-35.

      The "sound" men, with whose vigorous denunciations of "departures" and "innovations" we have become familiar, and whose trenchant philippics against "progressionism" have won for them this honorable title, are, I have begun to fear, the very men who are in the greatest danger of drifting unconsciously into a narrow creedism, a Pharisaic rigidity of routine in church order, abhorrent to their own feelings if they were only apprised of what they are doing. Dogmatism in matters of inference, expediency, or interpretation, is the capital offence of sectarianism, against which we, as a people, have waged an uncompromising warfare for more than fifty years. To exalt individual crotchets or church usages into questions of fundamental importance, and tests of soundness in the faith; to confound our deductions from Scripture with Scripture itself; to thrust our opinions concerning details and methods in church organization upon other people, which at best are but matters of opinion, is to wholly misconceive and to completely misrepresent the great principle involved in the plea for the restoration of primitive Christianity, and is a distinct violation of both the letter and spirit of New Testament teaching. Ecclesiastical history furnishes an unbroken illustration of the tendency in human nature--especially religious human nature--to invest mere usages, traditions, and customs, with all the sanctity and

solemnity of divine institutions, merely because they are established by inheritance from the past. It is just possible in denouncing sectarianism to do it in the spirit of a sectarian. It is possible to advocate union in the spirit of disunion. We may fancy ourselves zealous champions for the restoration of primitive Christianity, when all the while our championship is decidedly more effective in the restoration of primitive Pharisaism We may contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints, while living in the spirit of the faith once delivered to sinners. In waging warfare against human creeds, constant vigilance is necessary lest we should formulate a creed as human as the rest, though it be an unwritten one.

      I do not esteem a brother less in whose opinion the "open platform" system is the sine qua non for the ills of the ecclesiastical world. I lodge no complaint against the brother who believes that the "closed platform" better conserves the interests of the cause and the edification of the church. The "one man system" is doubtless a tremendous evil, and fraught with incalculable mischief, whether the one man be a priest or a deacon. It is, perhaps, the solemn duty of the church to resolve itself into a committee of the whole to defend the Lord's Table against the encroachments of "the pious unimmersed." To maintain the sanctity of the fellowship inviolate by refusing to take money from the world, is, no doubt, a sacred obligation, and should be jealously guarded by those who are determined "to stand by the Bible."

      All of these questions are probably entitled to a certain amount of consideration; they have their importance, certainly, but when you elevate them into the strictness and rigidity of articles of faith; when you dignify them with the authority inhering only in a positive divine enactment, and urge them strenuously as of vital importance upon the churches, as tests of fellowship and standards of soundness, you sectarianize, and therefore strip of its peculiar grandeur the great plea for the restoration of a pure faith, and add another sect and another creed to the host of both, which have scandalized and frittered away the strength of the religious world by divisions about trifles. To expect uniformity of opinion on these and all similar questions is to expect a moral impossibility. Our plea for union is a failure if this is to be its basis. The attempt to enforce a uniform stereotyped system of church usage and polity in all parts of the world without regard to the expansive genius of Christianity in matters of external arrangement, and in forgetfulness of the varying manners and customs of the people, is really too great an absurdity to foist upon divine wisdom. The Scriptures are neither authoritative nor definite on questions of church usage. The charity of the Gospel, and the conservation of Christian liberty are best attained by allowing to others the same freedom of judgment that we claim for ourselves; and though it is exceedingly difficult for dogmatists to make this concession, it should be remembered, as at least a possibility, that those of our brethren who differ from us in these matters are just as honest, as intelligent, and as safe interpreters of the Bible as we are. The central proposition of the faith is the Divinity and Messiahship of the Christ. The fundamental corollary from this is an unqualified subjection to His will, and obedience to His commandments. Never till a man renounces his allegiance to the Lord that bought him, or persists in open rebellion to His authority, can his fellowship be disturbed, or his soundness called in question, whatever his opinions may be on other matters. Let us be careful that we do not divert attention from these great principles, in which the strength of our plea consists, by an undue emphasis of minor considerations. Above all things let it never be forgotten, that of all heresy the want of love is the worst.

J. J. H.      

Circuit, pp. 288-291.

      The Australian Christians have some admirable traits. All bring their Bibles and hymn-books to church. They follow when the Scriptures are read, and turn to the text and other passages as they are announced. All join in the singing. They sing with their spirit and with the understanding. All contribute toward the expenses of the church. The converts are expected to give, and this expectation is not disappointed. In Australia no one would be regarded as being in good standing and full fellowship unless he bore his part of the current expenses. A large number of business men can exhort and preach and pray acceptably. The churches feel that their existence does not depend upon having a preacher; in his absence the work can go on. Congregations listen most intently. They are quick to see a good point and to respond. Some audiences are cold and sluggish. Others inspire a speaker, and call out the best that is in him. If one can speak at all, he can speak well to an Australian audience.

      Wherever I went people said, "I suppose you find things here different from what they are in America." In most things, and in the most essential things, there is no difference. I detected some differences that are verbal only. The preacher is called the "evangelist." The term is more classical than the one we use. I detected some real differences. The Sunday morning service is for the members only. No effort is made to secure the attendance of non-believers. They are not debarred, but they are not expected, and they do not come. The Lord's Supper is the main feature of this service. This usually occupies an hour. There is an unwritten law that the entire service must not exceed an hour and a half in length. The speaker has from twenty to twenty-five minutes for an exhortation. Sometimes the evangelist speaks;

more frequently some one else. At one time any one who wished could speak; now the officers determine who shall occupy the time. The Sunday morning service is very like a mid-week prayer meeting at home.

      Last year there was a net loss of five churches and thirty-six members in Victoria; the year before there was a loss of two hundred and eighteen members. New South Wales had a gain of only one in the year. These losses are explained by saying that some have removed to West Australia, and that several church rolls have been revised. The explanation accounts for a part of the losses, but not for all. I believe the Melbourne elder laid his finger on the weak spot. I am sure that the churches in America would lose immensely if they were to adopt the Australian system. Our churches magnify the Lord's Supper, but they do not lose sight of the unsaved. At every service people are urged to believe on the lord Jesus Christ and to confess him publicly.

      In the Conference one or two speakers were constantly talking against taking money from the unimmersed. Their remarks always called out some applause. One man said that some Sunday-schools had made offerings to the work. He spoke of this as a violation of a principle of the Church of Christ. The President explained that a resolution had been adopted three years ago providing that all such offerings should be used for benevolent; and not for evangelistic purposes.

      I was asked if it was true that the American churches took money from "all and sundries." I told them that in America money for the Lord's work came from the Lord's people. We make our appeal to the churches and we get our money from the churches. I learned that the churches in Australia are not a unit in their opposition to taking money from the unimmersed. Some take any that is offered and make no remark. They call to mind the words "The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord," and if any one wishes to pay to the Lord that which he owes, they do not object. Others can see no difference between taking money for evangelistic and for benevolent purposes. They think this is a distinction without a difference.

      No unimmersed person is invited to the Lord's table. I was asked more than once as to the views and practice of the churches in America. Here again it seems to me that this matter is dwelt upon with undue insistence. The fact is, that people of other communions are not pressing in and claiming the right of sitting down where he knows he is not welcome. Even if their position was scriptural, this is not a practical issue, and all that is said about it is a waste of breath. On the question of instrumental music there is as much diversity as at home. Some use the organ at all the services; some at the evening services only; two or three that I visited do not use it at all. Some speak of the morning service as for worship, the evening service as for preaching the Gospel. I think, speaking broadly, the churches in New South Wales are the most conservative in Australia; those in South Australia the least so, and those in Victoria are between the two.

      There are 12,850 Disciples of Christ in Australasia. Of these 150 are in West Australia; 2,621 in South Australia; 5,150 in Victoria; 2,129 in New South Wales; 300 in Tasmania; 2,500 in New Zealand. This number should be doubled in ten years. To do this, more preachers are needed to give their whole time to the work. At one time any form of paid labor smacked of ecclesiasticism and was supposed to have the mark of the beast. That feeling has largely died out. These churches are learning what other churches had to learn, namely, that they must have an able and educated ministry, and that those who preach the Gospel must live of the Gospel. It is well to have business men capable of preaching on Sunday, but that is a small part of the work. With every pulpit supplied and every pew filled on Sunday morning and evening, we may confidently expect the churches of Australasia to enter upon careers of unexampled prosperity.

A. C., 1903, pp. 581-584.

      Although the advocates of the theory of evolution have taken many extreme positions, and enunciated many half-truths as established results of science, they have at least thrown a flood of light upon the activities of living beings by unfolding the theory of natural selection. Briefly stated, it is this: Organisms multiply, while food supplies only increase. There is not food enough for all the young who are brought into the world. Hence arises a struggle for existence; in which those who by power or wit, cannot get a sufficient portion of the food supply are pushed to the wall. The fittest survive; the unfit perish. And since conditions are constantly changing, one of two things must happen to any given species--it must change to suit its changed environment, or fall before new foes who are better adapted to the new surroundings. If the climate grows colder, the animals must learn to endure the cold and flourish in it and be clad for it. If the lake dries up, the frogs must become toads and learn to live on land. Because of these changing conditions the mandate of nature to every living thing is, "Adapt or perish!"

      When we pass to the domain of the spiritual, as interpreted by men, we find a veiled counterpart of the same struggle. Religious movements arise, seemingly sailing against the steady human stream of

self-seeking; but the force of circumstances finds the weak points in them, and sooner or later they go down. Some are creatures of a few decades; some survive as many centuries; but in all cases their power of endurance through adversity depends upon their fitness, or their faculty of adapting themselves to new circumstances as they arise.

      This fact confronts the churches of Christ in Australasia to-day. We are not masters of the religious situation, but we are restless with an inner strength, and the unsettled nature of our position calls upon us to inquire whither we are tending. We are a unique religious movement, seeking to work a radical change in Christ's body throughout this wide southern empire. The inevitable law of human activities requires us to fit the circumstances, or die and leave our work undone. So we must ask, What kind of religious movement do the times require in Australasia? are we fitted to meet the demand of the times? and if not, what adaptation can we hope to make?

      The religious struggle of all Europe has been to fine itself from the evils of the papacy. This marvellous power, in the midst of all its pagan superstitions, yet grasped one majestic truth, which Protestantism has but feebly named, and never truly known. It is catholicity.

      It cannot be denied that with all the good and free and progressive things that have come from Protestantism, there has come also the hydra-headed monster of sectarianism, which for two centuries threatened the very life of true religion.

      Sectarianism is spiritually dead, as many of its most intelligent representatives confess. It can never regenerate the world. This is the cry of Christendom and heathendom. The task can be accomplished only by a united church, presenting in its life and work the essential principles of a common faith in our one Lord Jesus Christ. The need of the times, then, is for a movement that shall decently inter the lifeless corpse, and restore the unity of the apostolic church.

      So far as we can see, the desired results must be gradual and cumulative--an agitation and a sifting of the baptismal differences, until common ground is reached; and the disregarding and annulment of the ecclesiastical and denominational lines of cleavage, until they are totally abandoned. These results must be brought about in one of two ways--by the leavening of all bodies with the catholic conception of the church, until they spontaneously surrender their peculiarities and realise the catholic ideal by uniting in some such manner as the Methodists have done; or by the absorption of members and congregations into some professedly catholic movement, until the sectarian residue collapses. The only movement that puts forward a really democratic and catholic platform as a basis of union is that with which we stand identified, pleading for union on the Scriptures as they are, and for liberty as the only possible atmosphere of union. The question then is narrowed down to this: Are we as a religious movement to absorb the rest of Christendom? or is a spontaneous movement to arise in some other quarter, which Christendom will follow to a broad and catholic union? Must we lead, or must we follow?

      There are great difficulties in the way of absorption, at least so far as Australasia is concerned. We are looked upon as a sect, and that one of the narrowest. The lack of a well-trained and scholarly ministry, the exclusiveness of the communion-table and the contribution box, our frequent aversion to instrumental music, the plainness of our chapels and the hardness of our pews, our marked avoidance of the style of evangelism that Christendom in general accepts, and the general Ishmaelite air with which we move, have all tended to mark us off, and to set a quiet smile going around any liberal denominational circle at the mention of our name. We are not now raising the question of the justice or injustice of our reputation: we are merely noting what it is. We certainly have not the ear of the public with sufficient favor to fulfil our mission.

      As a result of the prejudice with which we are regarded, no one thinks seriously of considering us as offering a possible avenue for Christian union. At present, there is practically no movement before the public eye that promises to achieve the catholic idea. The notion is in the air, and might be expected to crystallise among the Methodists, the Congregationalists, the Presbyterians, or in some other quarter; but the time or the manner of it cannot be predicted. It is the possibility of it that concerns us and threatens to accuse us before God's throne for misuse of our opportunities. If our unfitness for the high privilege makes it necessary for the denominational world to give birth to its own restoration movement, to work out its own salvation from the denominational slough, then we will be left behind, a narrow dwindling, moribund sect, a mere wart upon the fair face of the restored church. We are confronted then with the grim inexorable alternative that all things in this world must face--either adapt ourselves to the times, and show to Australasia the possibility of a really broad and catholic movement, or die. If we do not our mission, we deserve to die.

      "Brethren, what shall we do?" We have striven faintly to show you what should be our ideal. We believe with all our heart that the plea of the disciples of Christ, put into faithful, humble practice by the

Christian world, will restore a catholic church. But we must get the ear of the denominations, and we must show them the practicability of the plea, or they will have none of it. What then must we do?

      First, we must distinguish between what is universally necessary as a principle of Christian union, and what is a mere matter of congregational expediency. The details of church worship, the application of the mutual principle, the order of observing the Lord's Supper, the use or disuse of instrumental music, the extent of application of our commendable principle of self-support--these are matters for each congregation to decide in its own councils. These things ought not to be paraded before the public; they ought not to be made to appear as essentials of a catholic movement; and above all they ought not to be made shibboleths of orthodoxy amongst us. In the fierce discussion of them, and the rigid stand we often take for or against, we put our splendid plea under a cloud, and as champions of a restored and catholic church we appear more ridiculous than the warriors of Lilliput, or Don Quixote charging the windmills.

      Second, we must recognise and suppress the sectarian instinct amongst us. It may startle some to be told that we have it, but we undoubtedly have. It takes two extreme forms, which after all are very near together, for both obscure the catholic idea of the church. The one is to suppose that we are practically right and all other religious bodies are wrong; the other is to admit that we are simply a denomination among denominations. So long as this spirit is prominent in us, who can show that we are not at heart as sectarian as any of the denominations? We must remove the beam before we attend to the mote.

      Another thing which the times demand of us is full and free discussion of religious topics. In this point we have a vantage-ground which it will be easy for us to utilise. We have taken a pledge which calls for a continuous breaking of idols with the sword of the Spirit. It means that devout and consecrated intellect is to be freely used in all religious activity. One indictment against the sectarian world of to-day is that it is slavishly traditional. It has tacitly agreed that there shall be no discussion of disputed theological questions; and particularly of baptism--the skeleton must be kept in the closet. To change the figure, sectarianism sits on the safety-valve of the denominational engine; and the restoration movement is the naturally consequent explosion. Let there be discussion, by all means; but let it be without dogmatism, let men and motives be respected, let arguments alone be the things assailed. We have the key to the position, and the keener the conflict, the more signal will be the victory for the plea.

      Finally, we should throw away once for all that timid conservatism that keeps us from free interchange of helpfulness with the sincere followers of our Lord who yet wear names other than those approved of God. In all co-operation of God's people we should be foremost. If we aim to establish the catholic spirit, we should live it at once, and consistently. We should be as willing to attend the services of other religious bodies as we would have them be to attend ours. Under the care of the legitimate overseers, our journals, our platforms, our pulpits, and our communion-tables should be free to the discreet and sincere of all the divided portions of the church. The only safe ground on which we could close our pulpits to a pious and wise paedobaptist preacher would be the assumption that he was more liable to error than we; and what a world of conceit is there in that assumption! Our principles can suffer nothing from comparison; or if they can, they ought to be discarded. If we would prove all things, we must consider all things; and unless we do open the avenues of our religious life, we are doomed to that fate which comes to all things that cannot or will not fit their surroundings.

      A choice of destinies is before us. The one way will lead us into broader and ever broader ways of truth; into a deeper charity, as our self-knowledge and humility grow deeper; into a growing influence in the religious world, and a grateful spot in the memory of the restored and catholic church for which we labor. The way is beset with the thorns of renunciation of many a cherished tradition and habit, and offers many a fall to our self-love; but at its end is the reward of an achieved ideal. The other way leads to a hard and exclusive and stunted life--to an encrustation of tradition, and the development of a rancorous controversialism. There is no life in it, no faith, no hope, no love, no fellowship with the living and breathing Spirit which will animate the restored and united church--only the cold and fruitless self-satisfaction of a shrivelled up logic. Which will we choose? Let us hope and believe and pray with all our hearts that the spirit of the world-loving Christ will abide in us forever, and lead us into all the ways of truth--that we will accomplish our glorious destiny, enter the open door of opportunity, be the forefront of the mighty multitude which will greet the Saviour at his appearing--"a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing," but reunited in the all-powerful love of our one Redeemer.

A. C., 1903, pp. 598-599.

      The importance of the theme should assure for Bro. Grinstead's essay a most careful reading. We all agree in the hope and prayer that the "unity of the apostolic church" will soon be restored. With many

others, I have read the clever and piquantly written Conference Essay with great interest, and yet (in stock phraseology) "with mingled feelings." In any comments which I make, I trust it will not be imagined by any that I wish to impugn either the merits of the composition or the motive which prompted it, or reflect on the vision beautiful of a church united and restored. It is because the paper was avowedly written in order to arouse discussion that I hasten to oblige and thus far help it to fulfil its mission.

      1. There is an uncomfortable impression created that the writer believes that, if the disciples of Christ in these southern lands just go on as they are going, they will one day awaken to find they are dead! It is not too much to say that his chief message to us is: Adapt or die. While it is true that our numerical increase and progress hardly support this opinion, it is probably equally true that wiser methods could have been advantageously adopted. Later, I shall notice a few of the suggested adaptations; meanwhile on the general idea let me say:-

      (a) Before pledging ourselves to the evolutionary theory in the realm of religion (and it is only a theory in the natural world), we would ask, How far is it to be allowed to have sway? For instance, some of us think that we cannot even accept adaptation in a great many things which others would altogether reject as not having the necessary fitness to survive. We would like to know the destination before starting on the voyage.

      (b) Adapt or die! As to whether the adaptations he suggests are in harmony with Scriptural principles, the essayist pauses not once to enquire. Herein is the vice of the whole production. Even if they were not wrong in themselves, I feel sure some of the suggestions would be found impracticable, but the first question is, Are they right? So far as the essay is concerned, we ask in vain, "By what authority?" Its most remarkable feature is that Scriptural quotation or allusion is practically non-existent. Surely if it came to the alternative of unscriptural adaptation or death, it would be better to earn the epitaph, "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord." It is conceivable that to die would be the more creditable alternative for us to adopt. Yet, whether suggested adaptations are Scriptural or not, is not once raised.

      (c) It is by no means the whole truth, or even a very great part of it, that the church should adapt itself to the times; it is more of the truth that the church's work is to adapt the times to itself and its teaching. A reperusal of the methods of the Master, his forerunner and his apostles (as recorded in Matt. 23, Luke 3, 2 Cor. 10:a 5, etc.). assures me that for this the church has the best of precedent. This conception the pioneers of the movement in Australia held to strongly. Were they wrong? Certainly not more so than he would be who held that the adaptation was to consist in the church's fixing up its doctrines and practices to suit the times. I like this word of the great Neander: "We must follow not the spirit of the age, but the Spirit of God." Yet, I repeat, not once does the essay appeal to the teaching of the Spirit of God to prove the rightness of the adaptations it suggests as necessary.

      2. "The restored church," Bro. Grinstead says, "must recognise the liberty and supremacy of the congregation." With proper definition of terms and limitation of application, this no doubt is true. But in the second paragraph under the heading "3 Obstacles to its Attainment" (a paragraph concerned with the want of uniformity in baptism) the writer implies an extraordinary definition of "liberty. "

      Listen: It is manifestly within the right of each congregation to follow its own policy as regards the terms of admission to fellowship. "This I have much pleasure in emphatically denying. If its claim is to be a congregation of Christians owning the Lordship of Christ, it must not, as I fear the S.A. Conference Essay for 1903 does, ignore the fact that the Head of the body has caused something to be written about this matter, and that (as we have good authority for saying) "whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God." But Bro. Grinstead felt that the words italicised above were saying too much, so added (what was meant to be a transition and explanation, but what is really miles away from the former statement) "at least the congregations WILL follow their own policy." Probably, but they have not a shadow of rightful liberty so to do. Again, we have this: "if all the congregations who accept sprinkling as baptism were to surrender their liberty and return to the apostolic practice of immersion, the difficulty would he equally solved." The essential principle of our movement is illustrated in this, that if "the apostolic practice" was immersion, then no man, or congregation of men, or sum total of congregations, ever had an atom of true liberty to practice sprinkling at all! It is not a matter of surrendering liberty, but of being content with the word and will of God. Until this contentment comes, farewell to the idea of a union worth having. In fact the result of such a union would be to confirm some in their disobedience--which I fear may also be the effect of the essay we are now reviewing. The New Testament settles what are "the terms of admission to fellowship," and congregational liberty and independence must not go so far as to ignore these.

      3. Under cross-heading "5. How are we to do it?" we are told to "suppress the sectarian instinct amongst us"--which is good advice. One form this instinct is alleged to take is implied and illustrated in the following words: "It is very difficult . . . for us to keep the catholic conception of the church before our minds, and regard the paedobaptist as a brother in Christ is precisely the same sense as one who is simply a disciple." I believe the term "paedobaptist" as here used includes one unimmersed, i. e., unbaptised. Well, yes, we find it difficult; in fact, try as we will, we cannot succeed--so long as the standard of appeal is not our feelings, our charity, or our liberality, but the Word of God. To say that the

speaker or writer of Acts 2:38 or Gal. 3:26, 27, would have found it difficult to look upon an unbaptised person as "a brother in Christ in precisely the same sense as one who" was "simply a disciple," is to put it very mildly indeed. More than that, I should say that some of our prominent brethren in Australia find it more than difficult; they simply cannot do it, consistently. We may, as an illustration, quote a leading article on "Faithfulness to the Plea," which appeared in the Christian of August 27th, 1903, in which the writer says:-

      "The evangelism to which the plea commits us must put baptism in the place it occupied in the preaching of the apostles. They tacitly assumed that there was no Christian life short of baptism, because it was by submission to it that the rebel made his surrender to Christ known to the church, and to all the world.

      Moreover, since it was the great surrender of the soul, or, as Aylsworth aptly puts it in his masterly work, 'the rush of the prodigal into the Father's outstretched arms,' it was never delayed, for the penitent's first demand would be, 'What doth hinder me to be baptised?'"

      Now, if that extract presents the truth (and would Bro. Grinstead deny it?), what becomes of the talk of sectarian instinct manifested in the non-recognition of a paedobaptist? I have no hesitation in saying that a person who agreed to that leader extract--agreed, that is, with a reasonable idea of the meaning of the language--could not look upon the unimmersed (i. e., unbaptised) as brethren in Christ in exactly the same sense as those disciples only. I would much like the essayist's opinion of this. If, after giving us that opinion, he would kindly quote even one solitary passage of Scripture in which it is stated or necessarily implied that an unimmersed person was in the days of apostolic Christianity looked upon as a "brother in Christ," I shall retract all my criticism of his paper. Do not forget the text.

      4. In a note the essayist tells us that it is a mistake to imagine that "he means to advocate the receiving of the unimmersed to fellowship." It is not quite clear what he means by "fellowship" (probably, membership), but certainly the essay pleads for "open communion," as it is generally termed, as witness: Under the care of the legitimate overseers, our journals, our platforms, our pulpits, and our communion tables should be free to the discreet and sincere of all the divided portions of the church--the preceding and succeeding sentences making it clear that the unimmersed are included. Of course if these are brethren in Christ in exactly the same sense as those who are disciples only, then there is no room for argument here. On this part of the paper, I would remark:--

      (a) Bro. Grinstead seems to style our present attitude as a "timid conservatism." We have had our position of comparative isolation called by many names ere now. "Conservatism" is the mildest expression of a group which contains "pelican-like-in-the-wilderness," "old-fogey," "bigoted," "narrow-minded," etc.,--but "TIMID conservatism!" Conservatism, if you like, but timid, when for years we have had to endure the taunts, obloquy and misrepresentations of those who show their charity by denying any to us; timid, when, as if it were not enough that we like Jesus have to endure the contradiction of sinners against ourselves, we also have to brave the assaults of our own Conference essays occasionally! Leave out the adjective. It requires more bravery to withstand these assaults than to "adapt ourselves to the times."

      (b) We do not plead that because we have taken these positions they are therefore right. But we do say this: We occupied this ground in the conviction that it could be Scripturally maintained; if we are to give it up, it must be at the bidding and guidance of the Scriptures. As is patent, the essayist makes no attempt to justify the principle of "open communion" from Scripture, though one text showing an example of it is New Testament times would silence our criticisms.

      (c) Some things we KNOW--things so generally conceded as hardly to be within the realm of discussion:

      i. In apostolic days the members of the church were all baptised.

      ii. This baptism was immersion.

      iii. Such sat down to the table of the Lord. No one can say that in apostolic days or with apostolic approval any other than baptised believers so sat down. Day by day the testimony on this point grows. In "The Early Eucharist (A.D. 30-180)," an expansion of the essay awarded Hulsean Prize for 1900, published by the Cambridge University Press, 1902, the writer, W.B. Frankland, says: "Baptism was and is the introduction to the eucharist, which is the ever-flowing fountain from which the spiritual life, begun at baptism, is replenished and augmented." In his "Apostolic Christianity," H. H. Henson says: "Baptism being thus the basis of Christian equality, is also the basis of Christian fellowship, the principle of church unity." Writers in Hasting's Bible Dictionary support this view. In his History of Infant Baptism Dr. Wall truly said: "Among all the absurdities that ever were held, none ever maintained that any person should partake of the communion before he was baptised." Such a claim is very modern.

      When we advocate and practice the admission of immersed believers in Christ to the privileges of the church,--to the table as one of these,--we are on sure ground, we can plead the authority of the Word of God, we can do it in the name of the Lord. But I ask; when there is not a hint in all the New Testament that any but baptised believers partook of the supper, can we, or dare we, in the name of the Lord proclaim that others may come? Can we do anything in the name of the Lord for which we cannot quote one approving word of the Lord? If we cannot do it in his name, shall we presume to do it in our own? Have we the right, even in essays written to arouse discussion, to say anything that would tend to confirm any in their disobedience to the Word of the Lord?

      In closing I wish to reiterate, it may be to weariness, that for the positions taken in the paper Scriptural support should have been adduced. If these statements of Bro. Grinstead's cannot be (I will not say put into Bible language, but) supported by Scriptural authority, then we do not wish to adopt them. Surely loyalty to the Word is more essential even than that we should be in the van of a catholic movement towards unit. Our plea is for Christian union, but also for loyalty to the Word of God. What shall we give up for Christian union? Not things that we have no right to give up. As to whether we have the right to adapt in the things mentioned in the essay, the writer never once tries to answer in the light of that Word we love. The question is not primarily one of our leading or following a movement to "a broad and catholic union," of our being or not being a "moribund sect," of warts on the fair or plain face of a restored church, of "an encrustation of tradition" or a "development of a rancorous controversialism," or "the cold and fruitless self-satisfaction of a shrivelled-up logic," or indeed of any other equally fit or well-sounding phrase which may be used to adorn an advocate's plea--but it is primarily this:

      Are the Scriptures to be our standard of appeal, our guide, or not? I answer Yes; because (i) these only are authoritative, and are our only revelation of the will of God; (2) if these are not a standard, nothing is; if these tell us not, we cannot know.

A. R. MAIN.      

2. OTHER DOCTRINAL ISSUES

      Other doctrinal issues include comment on Church ministries, on the role of the evangelist, on mutual edification, on theology and on discipline.

      a. CHURCH MINISTRIES

D. A. Ewers, A.C., 1905, p. 2.

      Frequently we hear people talking about young men entering the ministry, by which they mean, devoting their whole time to the work of preaching and being supported financially by their brethren while they are doing so. The term so used is about as foreign to the New Testament idea of ministry as it is possible for a term to be.

      The ministry of the church of Jesus is two-fold--temporary and permanent. The temporary or extraordinary ministry consisted of apostles and prophets. These were the inspired teachers of the early church, and their gifts were necessary to supply the complete revelation of God, on the part of the apostles, and to teach the church pending the completion of the revelation, on the part of the prophets. When the New Testament was written their work became unnecessary, and so no successors were appointed. Through their writings the apostles are still teaching the churches.

      The permanent ministry of the church consists of evangelists, elders, and deacons. Let us consider each of these briefly.

      1. Evangelists--The qualifications of an evangelist are not formally mentioned like those of an elder or deacon, but from 2 Tim. 2:1-3; 4:1-5 we can learn, I think, that they are ability, faithfulness, piety, and tact. The work of the evangelist appears to be to preach, baptise converts, organise churches, teach, set in order things wanting in the churches which he may visit and labor with, and to take a certain amount of oversight until elders are appointed to relieve him of this duty.

      It is permitted that an evangelist should be supported while engaged in his work (1 Cor. 9:14); but merchandise should never be made of the gospel, and so much given for so much gold whether the money is needed by the evangelist or not. I take it that if a man devotes himself at the request of his brethren entirely to the work of an evangelist, his brethren should support him, and in such a way that he is relieved from all anxiety about material things. At the same time, he must not expect his brethren to make all the sacrifices, but must be prepared to make some himself, and not haggle with churches as to the amount of support he is to receive. Or again, a man may devote his time in part to the work of an evangelist, and so be unable to earn sufficient to support himself and his family; then his brethren should make up to him that which he needs. But it is a splendid thing when a brother can do the work in part or entirely and, like Paul, on some occasions, not be chargeable to any. Let these ideas take possession of us, and there will be wanting the slightest trace of paying for preaching, and in churches and evangelists there will be more of the spirit of Paul, who exclaimed, "Woe is me if I preach not the gospel."

      2. Elders or Bishops--These are the pastors or shepherds of the flock, and in every local congregation such should be found (Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:5); their work is an absolute necessity. The qualifications for this office are laid down in 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-11. The bishop is to be a man of experience, of good reputation, is to be married and able to govern his household well, must have a good character, have habits of watchfulness, and be capable of teaching.

      The duties devolving upon those who occupy this position are to teach, look after church discipline, seek the spiritual development of all the members under their care, and in general to be the spiritual shepherds or overseers of the church; but they are not to act as lords over God's heritage (1 Pet. 5:1-3). Great responsibility attaches to this office, but the work is glorious. No higher ambition can be in any brother's breast than to fill the office of a bishop or elder.

      If the necessity existed, I could see nothing wrong for one or more of the elders to devote their whole time to the work and to be financially supported while they do so.

      3. Deacons--The term deacon means servant. The qualifications for this position are laid down in 1 Tim. 3:8-13. He should be a married man, of honest report, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom (Acts 6:3). The duties seem to be with regard to the temporal affairs of the church--to look after the finances, see that the saints in need are supplied, and serve tables in general. This work is important, and the one who performs it faithfully is doing great service to the cause of Christ.

      Now, we may enter the ministry of the church either by becoming an evangelist, an elder, or a deacon; but he should allow his brethren to select him, and not push himself into a position that he may be ambitious to fill, and yet for which he may lack some essential qualifications. The fact that one has been selected to fill either of the offices in the church does not give him an exclusive right to perform the duties of such office. It is an evangelist's duty to baptise, but not his exclusive duty; others are as qualified as he to do that work. It is an elder's duty to visit the wayward and weak members, but others may do so as well as he.

      To those who are ministers of the church, whether evangelists, elders, or deacons, let me say, Give diligence to fulfil your ministry to the glory of God and the extension of the cause of Jesus Christ.

F. G. Dunn, A.C.S., 1892, pp. 242-243.

      There are some truths we do not care to face, because the contemplation of them brings us into contact with facts, the reverse of agreeable. One of these is the failure of the Church of Christ to reproduce in its organisation, the New Testament idea of church government. Unpleasant truths, however, must be faced, and by meeting them fairly and courageously we adopt the best method of getting rid of the element of fear. It is, of course, an unpleasant thing for us to admit that we have come to regard the idea of an eldership in connection with our churches as inoperative. That we have practically impeached divine wisdom in giving to the church a mode of government which we say we are unable to carry out, or if we attempt to carry out, invariably results in failure. And what is, perhaps, worse than this, that we seem to have settled down to the conviction, that there is no help for this condition of things.

J. J. Haley, A.C.W., 1881, pp. 76-77.

      Perhaps the most important feature of this Conference to the churches was the report of the committee on Church Discipline. The peculiarity of the paper was the proposed change in the government of the churches. The committee were led, as the result of their investigations, to attribute the unsatisfactory state of discipline, not so much to inefficiency in practical administration, as to the ultra-congregationalism that has hitherto prevailed in the government of the body. It is recommended, and strongly urged on Scriptural grounds, that all the congregations in a city or centre of population within a convenient radius should be consolidated into one organisation under a united eldership or independent episcopacy. This proposition does not of course involve the breaking up of the various local assemblies, and their fusion into one massive congregation to meet in one place; it only involves the governmental confederation of the various local assemblies under one central eldership, allowing them as at present to meet in as many separate places as convenient, and to conduct their own local internal affairs. This is the doctrine of one church in a city or centre of population. Thus instead of the churches in Melbourne, Carlton, Fitzroy, Collingwood, Hotham, Richmond, Prahran, Brighton, St. Kilda, and Footscray, it would be the Church of God in Melbourne, meeting in these various localities. We heartily second the recommendation of the committee for the following reasons:-

      It would tend in a very marked degree to secure the unity and to consolidate the interests of the church.

      The committee's recommendation, if carried into effect, would secure a harmony of discipline, which otherwise will never be secured. According to the principle of congregational independency, if one local assembly has a right to exclude a member, another has an equal right to receive him into its fellowship if it think proper to do so. The former church cannot consistently make complaint either, for the latter has acted on the same principle of independent and irresponsible authority in his reception that it did in his exclusion. But the whole principle is pernicious, and keeps the churches in a perpetual ferment of strife. It frequently happens under the present regime that a member excluded from one congregation makes application to another, and gaining its sympathy, is received into fellowship. This has occurred repeatedly, and never fails to excite alienation and bitterness between churches. It happens still more frequently where congregations are numerous that cantankerous men, who become dissatisfied because their importance is not sufficiently recognised to flatter their vanity, apply for their letter of dismissal, and forthwith afflict some other assembly with their disturbing presence and crooked ways. All this would be rendered impossible by the adoption of the Scriptural organisation. In that case the action of one congregation would be the action of the whole church in the community through its representative eldership. The whole body would be responsible for every act of discipline, and there would be but one door of restoration to fellowship--repentance, and acknowledgment of error. Besides, local prejudices and party feeling, that often lead under the congregational system to unjust exclusions, would be prevented by a general eldership which would not be swayed by such influences.

      Co-operative effort would be much facilitated. The uprooting of local jealousies, and the establishment of the cause on a wider and more unselfish basis, would lead to a general desire for cooperation in every good work.

      b. THE ROLE OF THE EVANGELIST

A.C.W., 1882, pp. 167-168.

      The first annual conference of the associated Churches of Christ in Victoria under the new constitution was held in the chapel, Langridge-street, Collingwood, on Friday, 7th April, commencing at 11 a.m.

      There was a fair attendance of representatives and members, not so many perhaps as at some of the similar meetings in years past, but upon the whole we think that the churches conveniently near were well represented, more especially as we noticed that churches who have hitherto kept aloof from these meetings were represented. Bro. Haley, the president for the past year, was in the chair, and opened the meeting in the customary manner. The preliminaries, such as reading minutes and reports, were got through with despatch, and without much discussion.

      An effort was made to secure from each church a list of its conference the desirability of each church submitting the names of its teaching members, so that by the assistance of a committee composed of representatives from each church in any given district or natural circuit, plans for the distribution of the talent within its reach might be made, and by this means a better distribution and a more satisfactory utilisation of the talent in the churches would be effected, whilst at the same time the pressure of the work which at the present falls almost wholly upon a few would be more equally distributed among those capable of sharing it.

C.P., 1896, p. 95.

      Bro. Jos. Pittman terminates his engagement with the church at Newmarket next Sunday, March 22nd, which has extended over nearly two and a half years. Any church desiring his help had better communicate with him without delay, as the harvest is plenteous and the laborers are few. He is not likely to be out of harness.

C.P., 1896, p. 267.

      WANTED.--The services of an energetic preacher for Lord's day evenings and able to assist "part of the week" are requested by the Church of Christ at Hawthorn. Applications as to remuneration and all particulars from the secretary, J. Edwards, Avenue road, Camberwell.

C.P., 1896, p. 383.

      We publish by request a list of names and addresses of evangelists. There are several others who are partly supported, but so far as we know this is a complete list of all whose time is wholly devoted to the ministry of the Word. We shall be pleased to add the names of any who may have been overlooked.

D. A. Ewers, C.P., 1896, p. 176.

      Unworthy Preachers:--Among no religious people is it more easy for an unworthy preacher to obtain a footing than among the Disciples. If a person seeks admission into the Presbyterian or Methodist ministry, his antecedents are closely scrutinized, and unless satisfactory he is summarily rejected. Even among the Congregationalists and Baptists it is no easy thing for a preacher from another body to obtain ministerial recognition. The application is dealt with, in the latter body at least, by the Union Committee. "The Union," says the Baptist, "undertakes to investigate the antecedents of every

minister who seeks an introduction to our churches, and either to publish officially that he is worthy of confidence, or to be significantly silent on the matter. It is unnecessary to point out the value to the churches of being thus protected from immoral imposters and others deemed by competent men unfit to minister among us." So far as we are aware, we are the only body which takes no step to protect our churches from unworthy men. Some years ago the imposter Hammond was readily accepted as a preacher, and for years hoodwinked the people. This would probably have been impossible had his credentials been searchingly examined by a competent committee. This has not been the only case of the kind in the colonies. In the instance mentioned the exposure was effected through the Victorian Missionary Committee. We would suggest that before engaging, as a preacher, a recent addition from another body, the advice of the Missionary Committee of the colony should be sought by the church interested. Worthy men who desire admission to our platforms will gladly allow their cases to be investigated, as the endorsement of the committee would give the brethren generally confidence in them.

D. A. Ewers, C.P., 1897, pp. 60-61.

      Some of our brethren are troubled about the matter. Should a brother who is engaged and supported to labor with a church be regarded as one of its officers? To our mind the question is very simple. If he is engaged with the distinct understanding that he is to confine his efforts entirely to evangelistic work, then his office is to preach the Gospel. Webster defines an officer as "A person commissioned or authorised to perform any public duty." The person who is commissioned or authorised by a church to perform the public work of preaching is undoubtedly an officer of the church for that purpose. If he is engaged with the understanding that he is to do pastoral as well as evangelistic work, he is a pastor as well as an evangelist. Whether he is called an officer or not makes no difference to the fact of the case. In most instances our preachers are required to be also pastors. Indeed, in some cases they are the only pastors of the churches with which they labor, but it requires no argument with well-informed people to demonstrate that this is an unscriptural state of affairs. In the New Testament each fully organised church has a plurality of pastors or bishops. In a few of the Australian churches the preacher, being engaged to labor in word and doctrine, is formally appointed and recognised as one of the overseers of the church. He takes this position not because he is a preacher or evangelist, but because he is a pastor. This appears to us reasonable and in harmony with scriptural teaching. Among our American brethren the term evangelist is applied more especially to preachers who travel about preaching the Gospel, while those who labor with a church in one place are generally known as ministers or pastors. This is a more correct use of language than generally obtains among us here. When a man has the qualifications and does the work there is no valid reason why he should not be associated with others in the pastorate of the church. But to expect a brother to do official work, to engage and support him for that purpose, and at the same time to refuse to recognise him as an officer is in harmony with neither scripture nor common sense.

C.P., 1897, p. 125.

      The treasurer's report and balance sheet were also adopted, after having been discussed by Bren. Rofe, Walden, Black, Gilmour, Forscutt, Hutchison, Colbourne and Verco. The discussion degenerated into a rather lively talk about the salary and work of evangelists generally, Bren. Black and Hutchison contending that in some cases they were too highly remunerated, and should be content with one-half. The Conference clearly had no sympathy whatever with this view, and it was also pointed out that the Conference had nothing to do with the salaries of any preachers except those engaged by it.

C.P., 1897, p. 27.

      All the Sydney churches adopt the plan system for speaking on Sunday morning. Representatives from the eight churches meet half-yearly and draw up a plan of speakers for the six months for each church. These are all printed and distributed among the speakers.

A.C., 1913, pp. 133-134.

      In these days, when the hunt for the money bug is one of the chief pursuits of humanity, the man who throws up the sponge in order to help his fellows is something of a curiosity. The bug referred to is such a universally hunted vermin that civilisation sets quite-a store of respect and veneration on the successful business man. Therefore, does civilisation open its mouth wide and wonder extensively when one favorably situated forsakes the chase for cash in favor of preaching righteousness to his fellow men. In these days it is obviously unusual, and when the Mail man heard of such a case in Adelaide he promptly took pencil and paper and hied off to interview the evangelist.

      The evangelist in question is Mr. William C. Brooker, whose name has been well known in Adelaide business circles for the past few years as the proprietor of a large furnishing establishment in the heart of Rundle-st. Mr. Brooker has been many things in his time. He is now 40 years old, but in appearance he has the youthful vigor of a man of 25. At one time he swung the sledge hammer in a blacksmith's shop, and right through life he has been connected with the church. At the same time, too, by ability, he has built up a big business which in time to come, and as the city grows, will surely develop into one of the large commercial concerns of the State. Mr. Brooker knows this, but notwithstanding it he has decided to relinquish everything and answer the call.

      "I am going into a serious business now," he remarked when questioned by the reporter. "My idea is that it is always best to do the best you can and the most you can. I do not believe in wasted energy."

      "But how is it," asked the Mail man, "that you came to this decision? How, for instance, did the call come, and how did you recognise it when you heard it?"

      "Well," he replied, "this is how it came about. Some years ago my little boy, in the days when the horse cars used to prowl about this city, was invited by the conductor to jump up and have a ride. Boylike, he did so, and was getting on the moving car when he slipped and fell beneath the wheels. They had to drag the car back twenty yards before they could release him from beneath the under carriage. He was fearfully injured, both his thighs were broken, and for nine weeks his life hung in the balance."

      "You called in a doctor, of course."

      "Yes; and he did splendid work. But I was also a believer in prayer. I do not think it worth while in believing in anything without working at it, so I prayed earnestly that his life might be spared. Yet the doctor could give me no hope about the lad. Feeling the seriousness of the situation, and realising that the fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much, I told the Lord that if he would spare my child I would give myself up to his service, if the way were made clear to me. That was really the turning point in my life. The boy did not die, and to-day, to show how healthy he is, I have only to mention that he came out at the top of his class in last year's examinations."

      "The boy having been spared, you listened for the call?"

      "Yes. After that I worked on for a number of years at the Australasian Implement and House Furnishing Company, in charge of the furnishing department. I did not seem, during that time, to have had any particular direction or call in the sense of feeling that I ought to go straight out and preach the gospel to the world, although for years I had been preaching at one particular church, the Church of Christ at Queenstown. I continued to go on with it, thinking perhaps that was the thing required of me. Then the opportunity came to secure this location in Rundle-st. and establish a business of my own. I got the lease of these premises, and was not at all disappointed with the move so far as the commercial aspect of it was concerned. We have a really good business and have established a very good connection. I even took the trouble to go so far as to register a name for it."

      "What was your idea in that?"

      "Well, my object was to spend years in building the business up and reaping the benefit later on. I registered the name 'Artcraft.' That will show that I did not go into this business to come out of it again quickly."

      "Three years is certainly not long to remain, considering your first ideas."

      "No; but I did a lot in that time to build the place up."

      "Up to that time, of course, no still small voice had whispered the call?"

      "It was just then that it came. Dr. Scoville, the American missioner, arrived last August, and I had the advertising arrangements in my hands as well as the duty of assisting in many other ways to help to make the mission a success. At the conclusion of the meeting, or, rather, just before the close of it, Dr. Scoville had a conversation with me with reference to joining his party and going to America. At first I thought this was the American way of paying a compliment for services rendered, and told him so. He soon dispelled all those thoughts from my mind, and placed a definite proposition before me to join the company. This I could not just then see my way clear to do, although I felt very favorably towards it."

      "Now, harking back to my insistent question, did you discern in the missioner's request the call you were waiting for?"

      "Yes. I realised that it was really the call come at last to take up active service in the work of the church. Dr. Scoville had written to me several times since asking me to come to him, and I decided to place the matter before the officers of the church with which I am connected. They placed the matter before the church, and I was given a unanimous invitation to accept the work at Queenstown, a church just outside Port Adelaide. Their remark was this, which was, to my mind, rather a clever one. 'We do not,' they said, 'feel like asking you to give up your well-established business to be a preacher, because it is in a most profitable situation; but if you are willing to give it up and preach the gospel in America, well, we think you ought to be prepared to give it up and preach the gospel here; therefore, we give you the invitation.'"

      "What did you say to that?"

      "I asked for a month to seriously consider their proposition, and also requested them to look at it from their point of view for a month, so that our minds could be fully made up. At the termination of that period I told them I was willing to accept."

      "Do you have to be ordained?"

      "No; we are ordained by feeling in our hearts that we are ready for the work. There is no education test, although we believe, of course, that education is of great assistance in the propagation of the gospel, a thorough knowledge of which is essential."

      "What are your ideas about religion?"

      "I want to apply the practical things of life and to show that Christianity is practical, and that the business man, the worker, and every one else can find something in it to help him in every department of life he cares to enter; that is, so long as his work is honorable. My Wednesday night addresses at Queenstown are all based on practical Christianity. Theory is all right, but you want something that is practical, and I know of nothing more practical than the teaching of Jesus Christ. It is because I have a sincere desire to help my fellows, and see in Christ and his teaching that which will help them to overcome their temptations and the sins which do so easily beset them in their daily walk of life, that I have done this thing."

      "You are not sorry about it?"

      "Not at all."

      "Putting it bluntly, has anybody told you you are a fool?"

      "Oh, heaps of them have done that. Lots of people have come to me and said it is folly to throw away a good commercial concern in the heart of the city, with a good long lease, to become a preacher. Realising all they told me about the hardness of paths in this world, I saw that it needed a hide like a rhinoceros and the constitution of a horse to overcome some of the difficulties of living, and therefore I am mighty glad to do something for somebody else. I do not believe in namby-pamby religion."

      "Therefore, I suppose, you not only despise but are able to discern the religion which masquerades under a cloak?"

      "Yes. Many men have come to me and said, 'Hullo, Brooker, I see you are taking on the church. Now, if there is anything I can do for you in the way of buying something from your establishment, of course you can count on me to do it.'"

      "What did you reply to them?"

      "I said, 'Get out of this shop. If my goods are not worth purchasing for honest values, I would rather not be in business at all.'"

      Mr. Brooker is a member of the Evangelists' Committee, which is the Executive of the Church of Christ Conference, and he is also a past president of the latter. His father and grandfather before him were elders of the church, and he himself, although free from the long whiskers and venerable appearance which generally mark those august men, holds a similar position.

      "What about religion in the business world?" he was asked.

      "I would say," he replied, "that my experience in the business world is that the man who takes Christ into his office and into his daily commercial transactions, is not only going to succeed so far as this life is concerned, but he is going to get more out of it than the fellow who doesn't. Many of the business men of this city are to be found at the prayer meeting. That is the meeting the least attended, and it should be the most. For eight years I have been the head of a large department in this city, pioneered a business concern, and did all the preaching for one church. They told me I would 'snuff out,' as the

saying goes, through burning the candle both ends, and my reply was that if that was so, I would certainly lose my faith. I have not lost either so far. I am not sanctimonious or the owner of a long, cadaverous face. I cannot stand the religion which makes a man melancholy. My religion makes me glad. You cannot do good to others without making yourself happy also. I have made a practice of doubting my doubts and believing my beliefs."

      "When will you join the church?"

      "I have twelve months from the time I have accepted the invitation last summer to take up the business actively. I will dispose of it or lease it."

      "What if you can't get a buyer?"

      "There is no fear of that, and in any case I would never worry about it. I consider it a sin to worry, and the man who worries, if he is a Christian, is not showing as much confidence as he should in his Redeemer, consequently the future is a blank, that is so far as ordinary things in this life are concerned. There is no blank, however, about the eternal future. If it was his will to lead me out of this business it will be his will to lead some one else into it; that is, I have no fear about the disposition of it at all."

      "What about the poor wage parsons are supposed to get?"

      "We believe that the laborer is worthy of his hire. I do not know of a single instance where we have had any trouble on this score. It may seem remarkable from the outsider's point of view, but we only take up one collection a week, and that at the prayer meeting on Sunday morning, believing that the church ought to be self-supporting."

      Really, it confirms one's faith to meet one like Mr. Brooker.

      c. MUTUAL EDIFICATION

A.C.P., 1879-1880, p. 204.

      In contending for the faith once delivered to the saints we plead for "mutual teaching and exhortation," the general ministry of the body, in contradistinction from what is known as the "one man system" But it must be acknowledged (I fear) that there are very few places in which this is carried out successfully, so as to edify the church. "Teaching and admonishing one another," is an apostolic precept; and also, "Ye may all prophecy one by one." And many hastily infer from such passages that every male member has a right to address the church in teaching or exhortation as he may think fit, and whenever he pleases, or can find, or make opportunity.

      The result of this is often very injurious to the church, producing great confusion in the teaching, and great annoyance to the better instructed members, who merely submit to it as an infliction that must be endured. And if strangers are present with the object of observing "the order," they will frequently go away with the impression that it is disorder rather than order, and will pronounce the "one man system" to be greatly preferable. For the same reasons some of our churches seem in danger of the temptation to return to it again.

J. J. Haley, A.C.W., 1882, p. 40.

      Bro. G. Greenwell remarked some two or three years ago, in an essay read before the British Annual Meeting of Churches of Christ, that the practice of mutual edification had failed among the Churches of Great Britain. Of the correctness or incorrectness of this statement we know absolutely nothing. The principle we know has not failed in Australia. That the highest possibilities of the system have been developed here we dare not affirm, but we do not believe that failure can be predicated of the experiment in this country. Of one thing we are certain: the abuse of the principle of mutual edification is the surest and quickest method of precipitating upon the churches the evils of a one man ministry. The principle of mutual teaching when efficiently executed is one of the best ever devised, but when in the hands of incompetence it is made a bungle of, on the principle that a perverted truth is worse than a lie, it becomes the most wretchedly imperfect system ever conceived; and this abuse tends to create a reaction against the whole principle, and to bring about the very thing that its earnest advocates the most deeply deplore.

F. G. Dunn, A.C.S., 1889, pp. 38-39.

      It was given as a decided opinion last week that mutual edification was not a factor in the progress of primitive Christianity in Melbourne, the metropolis of Australia. It was shown from existing facts elsewhere, that self-edifying churches were generally failures as respects numerical progress, and from this broad induction of facts, the conclusion was drawn that the mutual system, so called, was a hindrance rather than a help to success in winning souls.

      The reason of the more rapid advancement of the ancient gospel in Melbourne than in other Australian cities or in Great Britain, is not far to seek by those who have a knowledge of the circumstances. Melbourne is a great new city, in a new world, with the characteristics of energy, push and freedom that belong to such conditions in this modern period of progress and civilization. It is an intellectual city; a centre of culture and a seething mental activity, nowhere to be surpassed. Melbourne is the Boston and the Edinburgh of the South hemisphere. Men who come under these conditions, even from the stifling conservative atmosphere of "the mother country," catch the contagion of freedom and begin to think for themselves. If a man has anything to say, the people will give him a hearing, and if what he says commends itself to their judgment, they are free to accept it. This intellectual liberty and hospitality has given us access to the people, and many of them who were sick of the senseless ologies and doxies of the old world have been captivated by the rationality and scriptural consistency of our plea.

      Under these favourable conditions, which do not obtain elsewhere to the same extent in Australia, Melbourne has had more preaching, and more efficient preaching, than any other colonial city. Here is the great field where all our American preachers, with only one or two exceptions, laboured while sojourning in these Southern lands; and beyond a doubt this is not the smallest secret of our success in Melbourne. There is something in the snap and vim and quaint directness of American preaching that takes wonderfully with colonial Englishmen; and hence where our American preachers have been in Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand, marked and often phenomenal success has attended their labours. Take out what American and American educated preachers have done in the Australasian colonies and you have next to nothing left.

      If the preachers named in this article were appealed to for a candid expression of opinion as to the effect of mutual edification on the success of their work, they would testify with remarkable unanimity that the condition of things produced by it, and its influence over the outside public, was the greatest hindrance to the more extended and permanent success of their work. If this is not their experience, it is certainly mine. Outsiders despise it, and hence never attend our churches in the morning, and intelligent members endure it under protest and often leave the church because they are tired of being bored and disgusted by ignorance and incompetence.

ONE, pp. 83-83.

      7. They were strenuous advocates of equality of rights and "liberty of ministry" among the brethren. The papal distinction of clergy and laity they utterly repudiated. The right of each one, as a member of the royal priesthood, to service in the spiritual temple, was accepted as an axiom. "Liberty in ministry," limited only by "ability to edify," was a charter right of the pioneers. In the earlier times the question as to who was to decide whether a brother did or did not possess "ability to edify," was an unsettled quantity, and often resulted, virtually, in aspirants to honour and public usefulness voting on their own qualifications, and invariably in their own favour. The result of this was that no infrequently, incompetent self-sufficiency was on the platform, while modest worth and real ability sat silent, with fellow-sufferers, on the benches. Still, the evil of the unlimited freedom was not without some compensations. Everybody believed it to be his constitutional right to teach and preach if he chose, and although the system produced but few that could do great things, it tended to produce many who could do small things; for when these brethren were scattered abroad, instead of losing their identity by joining some denominational body, they set up the Lord's Table, and in their humble way became teachers and preachers of the apostolic faith, and their labors eventuated in churches. Some of these communities, though short-lived, sowed seeds of truth which are bearing abundant fruit to-day. Take the case of the Burra (S.A.) church, established in 1850 by Philip Santo, one of the ablest and most honored of the pioneers. During its short life, it was the means of leading George Pearce into the Church of Christ. George Pearce established the churches of Point Sturt and Milang (S.A.), which for 43 years have been centres of spiritual light and life, and are growing powers at this day.

      d. THEOLOGY

O. A. Carr, A.C.P., 1868-1869, pp. 119-120; 170-172; 188-189; 209-211.

      Theology literally defined is a treatise or discourse about God, called by the schools divinity. And every established theology consists of a combination of theories or doctrines presenting the thought of uninspired men about what God has taught by his spirit.

      It requires no very profound thought to perceive that the very simplest combination of theories is at least one step removed from what is stated in the Bible.

      Now, all admit that Christ and his apostles taught Christianity. We do not claim that the words of Christ and his apostles taken together do not form a theory; but we do claim that their words, and the words of the various forms of theology, widely differ, which shows a difference of thought, and, consequently, a difference of doctrine. These points of difference I deem it necessary to expose. For no one can conform to the teaching of any of the various parties around us without materially differing from every other party.

      Men do not live naturally by a knowledge of natural philosophy, but by nature itself; neither do men live spiritually by a knowledge of theology, but by Christianity. Man's salvation, and I rejoice that it is so, depends upon no theories of Christianity, extant or extinct, but upon Christianity itself.

      To further establish the validity of my plea, viz., that theology and Christianity do not go together, and that the one is not dependent on the other, allow me to repeat that I use the word theology in its strictly human sense, which is its common acceptation, to denote man's notions about what God has revealed, not to include the precepts, examples, and necessary implications found in the Holy Scriptures. The Bible does teach one doctrine, and the Bible itself is the divine theology.

      But that theology which I am convinced is incompatible with the Word of God, is the result of appending to the Word of God sundry qualifying epithets to make it contain what man thinks about that word.

      In the previous numbers it has been my endeavor to point out the difference between the Theology of the Schools and the Christianity taught in the New Testament--that theology is beyond the reach of the masses and inexplicable even by the Doctors of Divinity themselves, but that Christianity is adapted to the comprehension and enjoyment of all; that theology causes strife and division, Christianity union and love; that theology is a display of human infirmity, Christianity a vindication of the wisdom and love of the Almighty Father for his prodigal children.

A.C., 1905, p. 624.

      In the nature of things, inscrutable mysteries cannot be, theologically or otherwise, correctly formulated. It is a mistake, however, to suppose that the attitude of Christ towards the Scribes and Pharisees indicates that he had no care for correct formulation. Indeed, his charge against them was that they did not correctly formulate, either in life or teaching, the religion they professed to teach. It is just as great a mistake to make Christ the author of a system which cannot be correctly formulated as it is to make him responsible for one which is intellectually tyrannical.

      Let it be understood just here that we do not hold any brief for the defence of a theology found in creeds or confessions of faith. But this fact does not prevent us holding that the New Testament gives us a theology which we cannot afford to despise or neglect. If Theology means "the science which treats of God and his relation to man," then we have here the highest and most legitimate object of study that can engage the attention of man.

      e. DISCIPLINE

D. A. Ewers, C.P., 1896, p. 116.

      An Unpleasant Matter.--At the Victorian Conference an unpleasant matter affecting the character of a brother connected with the Conference again cropped up. We make no apology for referring to it here as it has repeatedly been before Conference. Two years ago a committee appointed at the annual meeting published that "after a searching examination" they unanimously found that the rumours "were not sustained by the evidence brought before the committee." This was, we believe the third time that the case was examined with the same result. The brother referred to is now a member of our largest church, the officers of which are well qualified to deal with the matter, and we would suggest, in the interests of the cause as a whole, that if any fresh evidence be forthcoming it should be brought before them and dealt with. While the brother is a member of this church in good standing, it appears to us unwise and absurd to discuss his character in Conference. The scriptural and obviously right way is for the church of which he is a member to investigate the subject, provided any charge is laid, and until this is done, no other course, in our judgment, can be taken and the subject should be dropped.

A.C., 1903, p. 145.

      Disciples refers to the carrying out of the laws of Christ with regard to offences. The object in view was (twofold (1) the good of the offender (2) the well-being of the church. Alexander Campbell said: "It is good to cut off an offender; it is better to cure him when he falls; it is best to prevent him falling." There were two classes of offences for which a brother would be placed under discipline in the apostolic days--offences against individuals, and offences against the community.

      So far as sins against the individual were concerned, the teaching of Christ, was clear and plain. In Matt. 18:15-17, Jesus instructed that the one sinned against was to seek out his erring brother and speak to him about it when they were alone; if that failed, one or two witnesses were to be taken on a second visit; if that failed the church was to be notified; if the church failed to bring him to repentance he was to be treated as a heathen and publican, which means that God's people were not to have any fellowship with him. No church had a right to separate from a brother for an offence of this nature, until the preliminary steps had been taken.

      Offences against the community were such as we have referred to in 1 Cor. 5; 1 Cor. 6; 9-10; Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:6; Heb. 10:25. These were adultery, fornication, idolatry, theft, sodomy, covetousness, drunkenness, reviling extortion, schism, prolonged and wilful absence from the meetings of God's people, and disorderly conduct of any kind. When a man sinned in any of these directions he was given space for repentance, and every effort was made to induce him to forsake his sin (Gal. 6:1; 1 Thess. 5:14; Rev. 2:21); but if that failed the church had no choice in the matter, she had to withdraw herself from him (2 Thess. 3:6).

      As one of the objects of discipline was the good of the offender, if it had the desired effect, and he was brought to the point of renouncing his sin, the church was to restore him with joy (2 Cor. 2:1-11).

      She had no more option in this than she had in the separation.

      We cannot find the slightest trace in the apostolic church of the all too common modern substitute for Scriptural discipline, viz., revision of roll, and supplementary lists of members. In this, as in every other matter, the good old apostolic way is better.

3. THE DARWINIAN REVOLUTION

      This section will deal with challenges to the faith presented by evolution, "higher criticism," the "New Theology" of R.J. Campbell, Unitarianism and Secularism.

      a. EVOLUTION

D. A. Ewers, C.P., 1896, p. 288.

      It is often publicly asserted that science and revelation are utterly irreconcilable, and that the record of creation in Genesis may be regarded as an ancient tradition now exploded. This is the language of open infidelity, but even among Christians there are timid souls who feel uneasy in the face of the bold assertion of unbelievers that science has demonstrated the falsity of the Biblical record. Of course there can be no real conflict between the two divinely written volumes of revelation and nature, although there may be seeming contradictions owing to our imperfect understanding of either or both.

F. G. Dunn, A.C., 1903, p. 452.

      The idea of a special creation is distinctly Biblical, but such questions as the age of the earth or the antiquity of man are not questions to which the Bible is committed in any sense whatever. It is quite true that ignorant and prejudiced minds have done what they could to male the-Bible responsible for a definite chronology, but competent scholarship would be the last to dream of doing such a thing. We defy any man to prove that the Bible is committed to any theory regarding the age of the earth, the antiquity of man, or the time when civilisation dawned upon mankind.

      So far as the age of the earth is concerned, the Bible is absolutely silent. It knows and affirms that the earth had a beginning--a fact that science was a long time in finding out--but when that beginning was it does not tell us. For how many ages it was waste and void we know not. Nor does the Bible tell us for how long a period man has dwelt upon the earth. It must be admitted, however, that for a long time we were under the impression that it did. We got this impression by something put into the Bible that did not belong to it. Archbishop Ussher manufactured a chronology which found its way as a heading to the pages of the Bible, and which was accepted, although the diligent and intelligent student of the Bible might easily have seen that there were certain facts in it which did not justify the calculations of the archbishop.

      In all such questions it should be borne in mind that the record we have in Genesis does not profess to describe the facts of universal history. Whatever of universal history we find in Genesis is incidental, and brought in for the purpose of preserving the unity of thought in the development of a great religious purpose. The geological guess-work, for it is little better, that deals with the antiquity of man should, therefore, be treated without bias.

F. G. Dunn, A.C., 1905, p. 582.

      It is a somewhat remarkable fact that three of the great dailies of the Commonwealth press have, almost simultaneously, been exercised in their minds regarding the relation of science to religion. Two of these deal specially with the change that is coming over the face of science in view of recent discoveries. Formerly, it was the boast of science that it did not allow the element of faith to enter into its dealings with nature, but insisted on having a solid basis of facts for its teachings to rest upon. Thus, the Argus says: "It was assumed that experimental science, working on the lines of the inductive method so lucidly expounded by John Stuart Mill, could reach certainty, and that the laws of nature, formulated in accordance with the results of such scientific enquiry, were indefensible and absolute in their control of phenomena. Faith, on the other hand, was merely a euphemism for ignorance, if not an elaborate form of self-deception . . . Hence it was held that, as the range of knowledge increased, that of faith must in proportion diminish." Experience, however, has demonstrated that neither of these propositions is sustained by the facts as we know them. As the Argus says, during the last dozen years a great change has been witnessed in the attitude of men of science in regard to the certainty of things. This change is referred to by Professor Poynting in his presidential address before the mathematical section of the British Association, in which he gave a severe blow to the prevalent conceptions of the laws of nature. "No long time ago," he said, "they were commonly described as the fixed laws of nature, and were supposed to be sufficient in themselves to govern the universe. Now we can only assign to them the humble rank of mere descriptions, often tentative, often erroneous, of similarities which we believe we have observed." It is unfortunate, however, that while the highest and latest science is thus speaking, the echo of a decadent science is that which seems to be paramount in the cheap rationalistic literature so prevalent at the present time. The people who read and devour this literature as gospel are, unfortunately for them, ignorant of the fact that many of the idols they worship have been shattered beyond the hope of recovery.

F. G. Dunn, A.C., 1914, pp. 209-210.

      There is a great deal of truth in Pope's well-known saying that "the proper study of mankind is man." It is a study, however, that will lose much of its value if man is regarded simply as the highest type of animal and his kinship with deity is denied. His twofold nature must be recognised, if any fair statement is to be made concerning him. This two-fold nature is a fact which is ignored by some who profess to be able to tell us all about man and his origin, and who thereby prove their unfitness for the task they have undertaken. Man is a compound being, and those who undertake to give us his history must do justice to his spiritual as well as to his physical nature.

      Man's place in the universe is such that it is worth while going back to the earliest times to learn all we can concerning him. In pushing back the record it will be well to keep the mind open for the reception of such facts as may be revealed to us in the course of such study. This advice is good, alike for the scientist as for the religionist. The former has no monopoly of the open mind, and is frequently just as much creed-bound as the most bigoted of the latter. It not infrequently happens that Christian men and women who reject certain theories advanced by scientists are charged with doing so because of their loyalty to the Bible, when really it is not a question of loyalty to the Bible, but a rejection which is the outcome of the exercise of common sense. The exercise of common sense has a great deal to do, for example, with reaching conclusions regarding the origin of man and the length of his residence upon this earth of ours. The exercise of this useful quality is not, in our humble opinion, found with those who talk about his simian ancestry, and who speak of an antiquity that stretches into something like a million of years. There is too much evidence of jumping at conclusions on insufficient data, owing to a desire to buttress up a theory which requires the filling of many gaps before it can pass out of the region of speculation.

      Geologists may be allowed to fight this matter out for themselves, but it is clear that scientists who cling to the extreme antiquity of man are behind the times, and allow preconceived ideas to bias their judgment. Professor G.F. Wright, when referring to one of the exploded discoveries, said, "Geological time is not that enormous quantity which it was supposed to be twenty-five years ago. During that period there has been a revolution of opinion respecting geological time which is as yet scarcely appreciated by anthropologists and theologians . . . Geological time is not one hundredth part so long as it was supposed to be fifty years ago. The popular writers who glibly talk of the old geologic ratios are behind the times, and are ignorant of the new light that, like a flood, has been shed upon the whole question during the last few years.

F. G. Dunn, A.C., 1914, p. 449.

      We may imagine that Archbishop Clarke when he ventured a few days ago to express an opinion on the theory of Evolution, did not dream that his remarks, adverse to that theory, would have provoked the controversy they have done. All last week the Melbourne Argus has published quite a number of letters each day for and against the theory, the outstanding feature of which has been the dogmatism of those on the side of Evolution. There is nothing the average Evolutionist is more partial to than that of charging the theologian with a fault of which he himself is a conspicuous example. It may be said of a truth that there is no lesson in dogmatism he has not learned. "In proof of this he is always pleased to tell you that he has recently taken the census, and that all intelligent, progressive, "up-to-date" people have accepted not the theory, but 'the doctrine' of Evolution. According to his ideas, any one who has read Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, Tyndall, Haeckel, etc., and has accepted their theories, is up-to-date, but if he has read them and failed to fall at their feet and cry, 'Great is Diana!' then he is a back number, and most terrible of all, not 'up-to-date.'" Now, as a matter of fact, there are some intelligent people, and even scientists, who maintain that Evolution is still a theory and not a demonstrated fact.

      There are some very sensible people who believe that development and not evolution is the word that best expresses the idea of the march of events. And the word development has the merit of being in agreement with both Genesis and Science. For the creation story gives us a simple statement of the development of life in an ascending scale--from the simple to the more complex, but with creative power behind it. Evolution also means progressive stages, but gives to an initial form of life a power residing within itself to produce all subsequent forms. An illustration of what is meant by this is given elsewhere in an extract from Fairhurst's "Organic Evolution." Evolution properly understood means, a parental tie between successive orders of being--the derivation of one from the other in unbroken descent, so as to exclude what are called "special creations." Careful definition of terms is essential to a clear understanding of any subject, and if the majority of those who claim to be Evolutionists were called upon to do so, they would be less dogmatic than what they are.

      It is much easier to believe in the development of life from lower to higher forms, with the aid of special creative acts--much less of a miracle--than to believe that from an infinitesimal speck--and the power resident within it, sprang, by a process of evolution, all succeeding forms of life.

      It is to be regretted that believers in Evolution endeavor to browbeat their opponents into submission. Thus, a writer in the Argus writes:--"To any unbiased mind the evolution of man from a single cell through various forms of animal life is simply overwhelming." Quite the opposite of this is true, and it is because the evidence is not "overwhelming" that independent minds do not join in the stampede, but. wait for more light, and for facts instead of assumptions.

      b. "HIGHER CRITICISM"

D. A. Ewers, C.P., 1894, p. 204.

      Higher Criticism:--Whether, as Joseph Cook says, "The higher criticism is lower religion," or whether, as its advocates contend, it is the development of truth from the mists of tradition, is a question upon which much may be said, and upon which much is being said. In cogitating over the subject certain reflections present themselves to our minds:

      1st. The term "higher criticism" is an unknown quantity. No one can say exactly what it stands for. It may mean a little or a great deal. There are many who can readily accept the conclusions of some higher critics while they as strongly condemn those of others.

      2nd. Whatever it means, in some degree it is exerting an influence among all religious bodies, and is not to be summarily dealt with.

      3rd. Among its advocates and opponents are to be found some of the most sincere and intelligent believers in Christ, and whatever we may think of its tendency, we cannot deny the piety of those who accept its reasoning.

      4th. The nature of the evidence presented is such that the great majority of Christians are not in a position to fairly investigate its claims; it requires a specialist, to fairly weigh the pros and cons, and so far we see men equally learned, intelligent, pious, and apparently in every respect equally qualified to judge, deducing conflicting inferences and adopting opposite conclusions.

      5th. It behoves us neither to form a rash judgment on subjects embraced in the higher criticism, nor to hastily condemn those, who, while loyal to Christ, doubt the inspiration of Solomon's Song, question the date of the Pentateuch, or believe that the book of Isaiah was written by two different men.

      6th. Truth will never suffer by calm investigation, though it may by injudicious and hasty defence, and we need not fear but that the word of God will emerge triumphantly from the fires of criticism.

      7th. In the meantime, while specialists are discussing their hobbies, we can with all confidence proceed with the proclamation of the ancient gospel of Christ, which even the highest critics believes to be the power of God unto salvation. There is not the slightest need for Christians to become alarmed. We can afford to wait the issues with patience, seeing that these questions do not affect the Messiahship of Jesus, his life, death and resurrection, and our hope of salvation through him.

D. A. Ewers, A.C., 1898, pp. 169-170.

      The higher critics have proved to their own satisfaction that the book of Genesis as we have it was not written by Moses but is the production of various writers whose accounts were "edited" and placed in their present form at a comparatively modern date. One of these writers, they say, was of the seventh century, B.C. After all this has been nicely settled, Professor Sayce announces, in his preface to his new book on "The Early History of the Hebrews," the discovery of a tablet containing an account of the flood, which dates back to the Abrahamic age, and appears to be a copy of an earlier record. The peculiarity of this account is that the text agrees with our bible account, which our higher critics have so conclusively proved (?) is a late combination of the so-called "Elohiat" and "Yahvert" records! After all it appears safer to stick to the old book as it is, than to "Polychrome," or any other, editions of higher critics. No sooner have these gentlemen laboriously built up an ingenious theory disproving some long received teaching of scripture, than an Archaeologist comes along with a spade and turns up some ancient stone or tablet, which completely upsets their conclusions.

F. G. Dunn, A.C., 1903, pp. 484-485.

      Not the least interesting question brought to the surface by recent discoveries in Babylon and Assyria is that involved in the finding of certain tablets containing pre-Mosaic records of creation and the deluge. Naturally, the discovery of these has given rise to various conjectures as to the question of origin;

and not only the question of origin, but the relation of the Mosaic documents to the traditions of Babylon in regard to these two great events.

      When we are asked to believe that the Mosaic record of creation was obtained from such Babylonish tablets as those which have recently come to light, we refuse to do so; not because we are bigoted and conservative but because the circumstances of the case do not require that we should.

      It is a matter of profound surprise to us how soon some professed friends of the Bible surrender themselves to the sway of rationalistic criticism. At its bidding Moses becomes a myth, and a Babylonish brick assumes the attributes of infallibility. While we are quite willing to regard a brick recovered from the libraries of ancient Babylon as a very wonderful and interesting thing, we do not see in it anything that should cause us to surrender our reason. If it is assumed that Moses got his ideas from the tablets of Babylon, how was it that he managed to bring out of the chaos of rubbish the sublime story of Genesis?

      The story of creation as told in Genesis is eminently sane, and is regarded by many distinguished authorities as a valuable scientific primer. It was possible for a man of science, sufficiently distinguished to be the President of the British Association, to state less than ten years ago that it would not be easy even now to construct a statement of the development of the world in popular terms so concise and so accurate as the first chapter of Genesis. If Moses was able to construct such a cosmogony out of Babylonian rubbish he must have obtained this ability from other than human sources, and thus anticipated modern science by thousands of years. And if he could do this, it must be evident to the meanest comprehension that he could have told the whole story quite independently of Babylonian myths.

      There is, however, another way of accounting for the Mosaic and Babylonian records. It is very simple and eminently reasonable. It supposes an early revelation, received in its purity into the Mosaic annals, but corrupted and depraved in its Babylonish home. In the nature of things, no man witnessed the great drama of creation, therefore no one could speak from self-knowledge. In the days of primeval man, and later on, the science of geology was unknown. Indeed, geology is only a thing of comparatively modern days. If then, in the far back ages an approximation so closely to the truth as in Genesis was achieved, the inevitable and necessary conclusion is that it was achieved by means of a revelation from God himself. This is quite in keeping with what Genesis has to say for itself. It is quite in accordance with the fact that Abram appears as a monotheist in the midst of abounding polytheism. He was the representative of the foundation thought of theism found in Genesis, while his contemporaries were the representatives of that thought corrupted and degraded by the polytheism of Babylon. There is, therefore, not the slightest need to look elsewhere for an explanation of the facts as we find them.

      In reference to the deluge tablets, and the relation of the deluge narrative in Genesis to them, much need not be said. Here we are in the realm of history. No event of such importance in the history of the world could be expected to be confined to the pages of one book or to the annals of one people. Consequently, the existence of kindred narratives in Babylon and elsewhere is strong independent corroborative evidence of the fact that "a great convulsion in the nature of a flood did actually take place." Here again the assumption is permissible that the narrative of Genesis being the simpler, and free altogether from a grotesque polytheism, is the earlier and purer, and the Babylonian a corruption thereof, round which many idolatrous conceits had gathered. It is a well-known fact that the further you go back in the history of a thing, the simpler and purer you find it. It takes time for myths to grow and flourish, and when you find them they are certain evidence of a later date. Only prejudiced and ill-balanced minds would make an exception in favor of the Babylonian narratives.

D. A. Ewers, A.C., 1903, p. 573.

      Some earnest Christians are troubled about this question. If the conclusions of some higher critics are right then certainly the old Book is wrong, but there is no need for anxiety. The fact is these critics are at war among themselves and their arguments are often mutually destructive. We can afford to wait with patience while the war goes on, and in the meantime the gospel is still the power of God into salvation to every one that believes it. Harm is sometimes done by the efforts of incompetent men to answer the arguments of destructive criticism. It is a question one may leave experts to settle. Few ministers of the gospel have the time, training and information at their disposal requisite for an adequate examination of the whole subject. But we can console ourselves with the reflection that qualified investigators are satisfied of the truth of revelation. We can confidently leave the defence of the Bible in their hands. Many of the conclusions of higher critics are already abandoned, while others are yet on the dissecting table. It is not easy for the ordinary Christian or even the ordinary preacher to grasp the force of the arguments advanced for or against the "Two Isaiahs" theory or the composite character of the authorship of the Pentateuch; but the facts of sin and suffering and the purifying and consoling powers of the gospel are within our grasp. We can appeal with assurance to the consciousness of sin on the part of our fellow-men and direct them to the Saviour. The power of Christianity to meet the wants of humanity

is an argument the force of which no amount of higher criticism can ever weaken. By-and-bye, when the smoke of the present conflict has passed away, the old truth will be found victorious.

F. G. Dunn, A.C., 1907, p. 172.

      The value of the Old Testament as an historical book is becoming more and more evident as the work of exploration and discovery develops in those lands which have a Biblical association. It may be true that the main intent of the sacred writers was not to give an historical sketch of the times of which they wrote, but to say this is something quite different to asserting that it is a matter of indifference as to whether the historical allusions found in the Bible are correct or otherwise. From the character of the Book itself we are entitled to ask that the history which forms the framework of the spiritual structure which it presents to us, shall be substantially-correct: We cannot agree with those writers who would try to persuade us that the religious value of the Bible is not impaired, if the historical setting in which it is found is proved to be unreliable. The pearls of divine revelation would scarcely have a suitable environment in a framework of spurious metal. Fortunately we are not called upon to contemplate any such unhappy combination. Any doubts that we may have entertained about the matter, owing to our ignorance of the early history of the world, have been dissipated by recently acquired knowledge. Doubtless there was a time when the events which figure prominently in the records contained in the Books of Genesis and Exodus were the happy hunting ground of the unfriendly historical critic. They are no longer so. In this matter archaeology has come to our aid, and we are no longer at the mercy of that school of criticism which seemed to go upon the assumption that an unsupported Biblical statement was necessarily incorrect. It is not only in the domain of historical criticism that archaeology has helped us to ascertain the value of much of the literary criticism which has been foisted upon modern times. archaeology has demonstrated the fact that literary criticism is very far from being infallible. The supremacy of literary criticism is no longer admitted. That it has a useful function to perform is not questioned. What is denied, however, is that it is entitled to say the last word upon any question under discussion.

F. G. Dunn, A.C., 1914, pp. 345-346.

      Right at the outset it seems desirable that we should have some sort of definition of what we understand by the word miracle. For upon our conception of the meaning of the word will depend very largely our idea of what a miracle really is. For a long time we have allowed the definition of an unbeliever in the person of David Hume to sway our thoughts. A miracle, he said, implies a violation of the order of the laws of nature. This is a definition we cannot accept, because it assumes that we are acquainted with all the laws of nature when, as a matter of fact, we are only standing upon the threshold of nature and learning its alphabet.

      Moreover, the statement that a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, even if true, does not make a miracle impossible; for the simple reason that in our every day life we are constantly violating some law of nature. When we pick up a stone from the ground we violate the law of gravitation. We do so by the introduction of a superior force, or for the time being, a higher law. As a definition of what a miracle is, we regard this explanation as being very far in advance of that given by Hume. What is a miracle to an ignorant savage, is no miracle to civilised and educated men. And what is a miracle to the latter, is only commonplace to heavenly intelligence. Hume's further objection, that miracles are incredible because they are not in accordance with our human experience, is not one that carries with it any weight. It is equivalent to saying that we will not believe anything we do not know or understand. "The folly of disbelieving what we cannot understand or explain," says Professor Lias, "has been shown to us by various instances. Hume is very much embarrassed by the well-known story of the Indian prince who rejected with scorn the idea that a fluid like water could become solid by the simple withdrawal of heat." And one can understand how the simple African of the forest would reject with scorn the story of the wonderful things done by wireless telegraphy.

      Since Hume's time, scepticism has changed its front somewhat. It does not urge now that miracles are impossible, but is content to say with Matthew Arnold, "Miracles do not happen." Commenting on this, Professor Orr says: "If miracles do not happen it is plain enough what becomes of the Bible and its history. The Bible is the history of a supernatural revelation, or it is nothing. It is the story of a supernatural economy, in which the power of God, transcending nature for the accomplishment of his great ends, is continually manifested. The gospel itself, centering in Jesus Christ, is a supernatural

interposition of God in human history for the ends of redemption. Purge out everything of the nature of miracle, and the bottom is taken from its whole message. Its credit is destroyed." Destructive criticism of the Wellhausen type has attempted to explain the Bible with the supernatural element left out, but its failure to do so has been most signal and complete.

      The miracles of the Gospels have a sanity and sobriety about them that we do not find to be the case in other religions. "They have," says Principal Fairbairn, "a sort of natural character, and are neither violent nor abnormal; like Jesus himself, they are, though supernatural, not contra-natural. For what are the miraculous acts ascribed to him? He heals the blind, the halt, the lame, the sick of the palsy; He brings comfort to the widow who has lost a son, to the Gentile nobleman who mourns a child; He creates joy in the heart of the woman who had sought counsel of many physicians and only grew the worse for all their attempts at healing. He goes through life like a kind of embodied benevolence, creating health and happiness. He incorporates the energies that work against physical evil and for social good. In a sense, His miracles are but transcripts of His character, the symbols of His mind and mission. Without them our picture of His personality would be incomplete."

      And so the miracles we find recorded in the Gospels never seem out of place. They fit in so well with the general scheme of revelation and redemption that to take them out would leave great gaping wounds impossible to heal. The Christ of redemption demands the miraculous. It may be said, and sometimes it is, that the miraculous in the Gospels instead of helping us out of our difficulties only increases them. Their evidential value is disputed, because of the added responsibility of proving their credibility. Nevertheless, they have an evidential value of the greatest importance. This is illustrated in the case of the man sick of the palsy who was brought to Jesus for healing. Looking at the man, the Saviour saw that his greatest need had to do with spiritual healing, and so we hear the words "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee." Easy words to say, but difficult to prove, was the sneer of the scribes and Pharisees. Their line of reasoning, which is easy to follow, was put to confusion when they heard the words, "But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power upon earth to forgive sins (he said unto the sick of the palsy), I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house."

      The Jesus that could not heal physical disease, could scarcely be justified in claiming power to heal the maladies of sin. What kind of reading would it make if the story of the cleansing of the lepers read after this fashion. That in response to their appeal Jesus had said: "I am sorry for your awful condition, but cannot help you. I can only cleanse the soul, not the body." Well, it is clear to us that we would have to look for another Jesus. And so, as we look at the matter, we find there is nothing incongruous in the miracles of Jesus.

      They are connected with a Divine scheme and are subordinated to its ends. "There is a sparingness and reserve, a dignity, ethical purpose, and reasonableness in the miracles of Scripture--a congruity with the teacher and his message--which puts them in a totally different rank from isolated prodigies. They occur generally at great crises in the history of the kingdom of God."

      Jesus Christ himself is the best evidence for the credibility of the miraculous in the Gospels. He himself is the greatest miracle in history. He was something more than man. As Carnegie Simpson says in his "Fact of Christ," "Jesus is not one of the groups of the world's great. Talk about Alexander the Great and Napoleon the Great if you will. Jesus was--as has been said from even the secular-point of view--incomparably greater than any of these; yet who would speak of Jesus the Great? Jesus is apart: He is the Only. He is simply Jesus. Nothing could add to that."

      c. R. J. CAMPBELL

F. G. Dunn, A.C., 1907, p. 52.

      The information furnished us by a recent cablegram that Mr. R.J. Campbell of the City Temple, London, had, in his recent sermons on the New Theology, declared that the story of the fall of man in the opening chapters of Genesis is untrue, will not surprise anyone who is acquainted with the theological views of this brilliant, but somewhat erratic preacher. Having adopted the views of German critics himself, he now seems to be doing his best to persuade others to follow his example. No statement coming from anyone belonging to this school has in it the nature of a surprise. Its advocates have long

ago exhausted any possibilities in this direction. The only surprise is that so much attention has been given to the utterances of one who is only a mild echo of the extreme radical school, and who has never been regarded as a theologian of any weight.

      It is not here a question as to whether the story of the fall is the statement of a tremendous fact in the form of an allegory--that is a view held by many whose orthodoxy is unquestioned--the statement of it would cause no surprise. It is a question as to whether there was really any fall at all.

F. G. Dunn, A.C., 1907, pp. 272-273.

      In the recent English religious journals considerable attention is given to the New Theology, of which Mr. R.J. Campbell, of City Temple fame, is the exponent. Additional interest has been given to the matter by the publication of a volume entitled "The New Theology," in which Mr. Campbell sets forth his views more comprehensively, and in which ha attempts to clothe his ideas with a philosophic garb. The reading public is therefore now in a position to pronounce a fair judgment upon Mr. Campbell's theology and have a better understanding of what his position really is as a religious teacher.

      Probably, by this time, Mr. Campbell understands fully the meaning of the wise man when he said, "O that mine enemy might write a book," For both the secular and the religious press join in adverse criticism of its contents. As a free man, Mr. Campbell is at liberty to hold such religious views as he pleases, and if the holding of them involved loss of position and salary, we should admire him for his honesty and independence; but we have no words strong enough to express our condemnation of the man who clings to position and salary when the views he holds have changed and he no longer expresses those of the organisation with which he is supposed to be identified.

      I have the greatest respect for all men who speak the truth that is in them--at all hazards. But they must not speak and try to avoid the hazards. Mr. Campbell cannot be allowed to run with the hare of Belief and hunt with the hounds of Scepticism." It is therefore right to say that though Mr. Campbell may speak from a Christian pulpit, his proper place is on the same platform as that occupied by Mr. Blatchford of the notorious Clarion.

D. A. Ewers, A.C., 1907, p. 285.

      If Mr. Campbell by his "New Theology," which seems a fresh way of spelling "Old Infidelity," has lost some of his friends and admirers, he has gained others. The most energetic and uncompromising antagonist of Christianity in England, and probably in the world, is Mr. Blatchford, of Clarion fame, who is commending the recently published book, says: "Mr. Campbell is a Christian minister, and I am an infidel editor; and the difference between his religion and mine is too small to argue about." For once Mr. Blatchford expresses the views of many Christians when he says that the difference between the "New Theology" and infidelity "is too small to argue about." Theosophists also press forward to express their appreciation of Mr. Campbell's teaching. The Indian Daily Telegraph claims that the "New Theology" is simply Theosophy. "This Indian newspaper," says the A.C. World, "shows how Mr. Campbell by denying the virgin birth joins hands with Theosophic inquirers, and with them sees in this 'myth' the materialisation of a great spiritual event--the virgin birth of the universe.'" Mr. Campbell may well say, "Save me from my friends." He must feel embarrassed, though he has no right to be surprised, at the anti-Christian hosts so enthusiastically rallying around, but he should soon feel at home among them.

      d. UNITARIANISM

      The quotation dealing with the Rev. Charles Strong can best be appreciated when set against the background sketched in G.R. Badger, The Reverend Charles Strong and the Australian Church (Melbourne, Abacada, 1971).

J. J. Haley, A.C.W., 1883, p. 33.

      The chronic troubles of the Melbourne Presbytery over the Rev. Charles Strong and the Scot's Church have culminated in a charge of heresy against that gentleman. He is charged by his accusers of denying the divinity of Christ, the efficacy of the atonement, the fact of the resurrection, and the personality of the Holy Spirit, and of being a disturber of the peace and unity of the church. He was openly declared by some of his brother ministers to be a Unitarian, a Hegelian, and what Dr. Cunningham denominates a "Pantheistic Idealist." The evidence in support of these grave charges is Mr. Strong's alleged complicity in the Higinbotham lecture on "Science and Religion," delivered in the Scots' Church; the compilation of a small hymn-book in which the name of Christ does not occur, and which is distinctively and palpably Unitarian in sentiment; the publication of a catechism of the same character which leaves out everything peculiarly Christian, and only inculcates the duties of a "bloodless moralism;" his exposition of Emerson to the young ladies of his charge; and his admiration of Lessing, whom Prof. A.B. Bruce calls "the father of eighteenth century Rationalism." McFarlane, who was tried for heresy in Scotland, declared in one of the "Scotch Sermons" that modern criticism had left three things undisturbed which can never perish, viz., "God, Duty, and Immortality." Mr. Strong seems to be of the same opinion, and presents these matters in such a way as to strongly remind one of Theodore Parker, Lessing, and Mr. Voysey. Under these most serious charges, and notwithstanding the frequent entreaties of his brethren to speak out and relieve their minds of suspicion, and his own reputation of odium, Mr. Strong remains obstinately dumb. This we cannot but regard as guilty silence. We can understand a minister being charged with a trivial offence, or heresy in regard to doctrines of but little importance, thinking it beneath his dignity to condescend to give the accusation a denial. But when he is charged with denying the historic foundations, the fundamental redeeming facts, of the gospel, and of affirming that the incarnation, the atonement, and the resurrection of Christ are ideas only, the supposed history of which are not reality but mere rhetorical drapery; under such fearfully damaging charges as these, it seems to us that nothing could possibly induce or justify silence but the consciousness of guilt. If the counts in this charge have any foundation in fact, Mr. Strong ought to be ashamed to call himself a Christian minister. If they are not true--and we hope they are not--he ought to come out like a man and say so, and set the whole matter at rest.

      As the practical outcome of these troubles the Scots' Church will lose their minister, and the Presbyterian Church of Victoria will lose the Scots' Church; and, what is worse, religion in general will suffer from these unseemly contentions. It seems that the old prejudices existing between the Established Church of Scotland and the Free Church formerly amalgamated in Victoria, have had much to do in embittering the present controversy, if indeed these old sectional jealousies are not at the bottom of the present rupture. The Scots' Church congregation has held two meetings, characterised by great bitterness of feeling towards the brethren of the Presbytery, to consider the question of separation from the Presbyterian Church of Victoria. At the last of these meetings the following motion was put and carried--

      "That this congregation now resolves to take steps to separate from the Presbyterian Church of Victoria, and to revert to the position it occupied previous to the Act of Union, on the basis of adherence to the Standards of the Church of Scotland."

      This resolution was carried amidst great applause, about 300 or 400 voting in its favour, and only 18 against it. The prosecution of Mr. Strong has thus had the effect of alienating this large and influential congregation from the Presbyterian Church of Victoria and will probably have the further effect of throwing back the whole church of the colony into the original state of disunity before the amalgamation of the Established and Free Churches. We are sorry in the interest of union that such a result should accrue. If, however, Mr. Strong teaches the doctrines laid to his charge--and we cannot understand so much smoke where there is no fire--the Presbytery of Melbourne in maintaining and defending the fundamental supernatural facts of Christianity, has been fighting the battle of all

Christendom, and therefore deserves the sympathy of all christian men. We are not ignorant of the fact that Scotch Presbyterianism is obstinate, narrow, and prejudiced, and sometimes in cases like this, these unlovely qualities are aggravated by ministerial jealousies, but we are inclined to the opinion that the arraignment of the Rev. Charles Strong is a battle for the vital principles of the faith, and not a petty persecution instigated by envy and bigotry. His congregation inform us that they believe in the "eternal verities" of religion, but this may mean anything or nothing. It was a favorite expression of Theodore Parker's, and meant when used by him what he was in the habit of calling "the absolute religion," and this was simply the Unitarian naturalism or moralism of God and duty. Nothing was said about the Deity of Christ, the Inspiration of the Scriptures, or the Personality of God and the Holy Spirit, although these were the points at issue. This is suspicious.

D. A. Ewers, C.P., 1891, p. 200.

      Unitarian Stagnation.--The non-progress of Unitarianism is very significant. In every country it is practically at a standstill. Of the few Unitarian Churches in Australasia scarcely one is flourishing and some are hardly alive. In Melbourne as the result of nearly half a century's labor there is but one weak church and we are not aware if there is a second in the whole province of Victoria. In America things are but little better. There are said to be actually fewer churches of this denomination in the New England States than there were a quarter of a century ago, while the Evangelical churches have advanced by leaps and bounds. From Great Britain we hear the same story. Unitarianism flourishes no better in the mother country than in the colonies. Yet the Unitarians have wealth and culture at their disposal; their ministers are, many of them, men of superior attainments and their membership includes many persons of influential social position. But the fact remains that as a religious people they are nowhere.

      The Reason Why--The Commonwealth commenting upon the fact stated above says:--This question (Why Unitarianism does not progress) has been earnestly debated in connection with the recent Triennial Unitarian Conference. Rev. Stopford Brooke indirectly admitted the fact in his protest against viewing Christianity as a system of ethics, rather than as spiritual religion. He recommended more loving service to man, and stronger faith in spiritual truths. The question was more boldly faced in Mr. Chatfield Clarke's paper. His explanation why Unitarian churches were not progressing--evidently a foregone conclusion--was that they insisted on their peculiar views at the expense of religious life. Mr. Rathbone, M.P., confirmed Mr. Clarke's position. Abstract principles would never inspire men like personal devotion to Christ, and accordingly the Rev. R.A. Armstrong, who deprecated the discussion in public, denounced the rich men amongst Unitarians, who kept their riches to themselves. Those who differ from Unitarians will find much to confirm their views in this discussion. Plainly Unitarianism cannot inspire the devotion to Christ on which Christian progress depends, because it lacks the one essential on which this devotion turns--the recognition of Christ as a Divine person and a real Saviour. The truth of the words, "Without me ye can do nothing," had not, as Mr. Rathbone said, been sufficiently realised by Unitarians, and they never can be by those who regard Christ as merely a man. It is only when he is regarded as a Divine Saviour that devotion to Christ can be more than an idea, or a culture; only as, through his death, the burden of sin rolls off, are we uplifted into "newness of life," and made "new creatures in Jesus Christ." Beginning at the beginning, the first step sure, whether as individuals or churches, we can "go on unto perfection," but not otherwise. "Being made free from sin, and become servants to God, we have our fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." You cannot make great strides without taking the first steps, you cannot reach the top of Mont Blanc without planting your feet firmly on the lowest ridge. The entire history of Unitarianism proves that without Christ--in the evangelical sense--churches, no less than individual Christians, can do nothing. This negative attitude of Unitarianism towards Christ and his salvation--however it may be minimised--also explains why Sir R. Wilson failed to carry his motion at the annual meeting of the British and Foreign Unitarian Association for applying Unitarian Christianity to social and political questions. The simple fact is that Unitarianism is not a gospel, but an academic religious belief, and therefore, despite Mr. Armstrong's protest, has really nothing "to do with the moralisation of politics." The Unitarian Association is, as Professor Carpenter said, a propagandist theological society, and he would keep it such. It is in the Evangelistical Gospel that the only hope lies for the social as well as for the spiritual salvation for the working man, and for the regeneration of political and national life.

      e. SECULARISM

      Too extensive for quotation in this section is the record of the debate between Isaac Selby (a Freethought Lecturer who was later converted and became a member of Churches of Christ) and M.W. Green. When published, the exchange was entitled Secularism v. Christianity (Adelaide, Carey Page and Co. 1886).

J. J. Haley, A.C.W., 1884, pp. 2-3.

      The secularists of Melbourne are mad at Dr. Moorhouse. They have passed an indignation resolution against him for denouncing secularism as the equivalent of brutism. Said resolution, which we are told was passed "by a thousand citizens at the Hall of Science," is as follows, printed and circulated through the city in a handbill:

      "That this meeting begs to assure Dr. Moorhouse that the Secularists are perfectly aware of what they are doing, and view with indignation his unjust attack upon them. It calls upon him to show, in public debate wherein 'they are lower than the beasts, and render themselves certain of damnation,' and if he will not do so, it must look upon him as a coward and a slanderer."

      This secularistic bull was fulminated against the Bishop at the close of Mr. Joseph Syme's reply to his "barbarous attack on Secularists." Doubtless these gentlemen think they know what they are doing, but we are just as certain they do not. If materialism is true, what stuff enters into the composition of a secularist that does not enter into the composition of a beast? If we are all the descendants of apes and monkeys and nothing has been superadded to man but a different arrangement of molecules, and the adage is still accepted that a stream cannot rise above its fountain, when did man get rid of his beastliness? If there is nothing in the universe but matter and we were beasts in our ancestors, we are beasts still. When Robert Owen enunciated his twelve laws for the improvement of human nature, Alexander Campbell showed that these boasted "laws" of atheistic socialism applied to a goat as well as to a man. A secularist is a beast according to his own showing, and he is lower than a beast in fact, because a beast lives up to the highest instincts of his nature, and a secularist does not. This challenge of Mr. Joseph Syme to the Bishop reminds one of an impertinent and "cheeky" rat terrier yelping at the heels of a mastiff. The mastiff, of course, could swallow him down at a mouthful but does not care for the food and therefore walks on without so much as a backward glance at his noisy assailant. Secularists are a handful of antireligious fanatics, and consequently bigots whom the world, as in the past, will continue to regard as a nuisance, and morally non compos mentis.

D. A. Ewers, C.P., 1889, p. 113.

      Joseph Symes again.--He who defies God is not likely to quietly submit to the ordinances of men. Mr. Symes is the most prominent of Victorian atheists, and may be considered a fair specimen of advanced secularism. In his open defiance of the legally constituted authorities, we see the legitimate outcome of "freethought." The "Hall of Science" in which he formerly proclaimed his "Gospel of dirt," is now occupied by the Y.M.C.A., and the secularists have no house of meeting. It might be expected that the first step would be the erection of a hall, but this means money, and secularists are not distinguished for liberality; and so, at the close of half a century's efforts, we have an organisation of homeless wanderers. Under these circumstances, Mr. Symes decided to erect a tent on a piece of ground in Fitzroy. His Association was warned that this would not be permitted, as it was a violation of the provisions of the Public Health Statutes, but Mr. Symes dared the authorities, erected his tent, and on the Sunday lectured about "The devil's account of the fall of man," making, of course, a good charge for admission to hear what was really his own account. The result has been the imposition of a fine of fifty pounds, to be recovered by distress, or, in default, three months' imprisonment. It is to be hoped that this wholesome lesson will have a salutary influence upon the lecturer and his law-breaking coadjutors.

D. A. Ewers, C.P., 1889, p. 199.

      Joseph Symes at Collingwood.--The freethinkers of Victoria, after a precarious struggle for existence during the last thirty or forty years, have just made a powerful and concentrated effort to attain a prominent position in the eyes of the public by returning a member to Parliament. With this end in view they selected Collingwood as a stronghold of infidelity, and put forward Mr. Symes as their candidate. We are continually being informed of the progress freethought (with a capital F) is making, and how faith in God (with a small g) is dying out. Mr. Symes is not lacking in self-confidence, and his friends spoke with assurance of the anticipated result. Well, we have it before us now, and we learn that out of 6964 votes polled, only 523 were recorded for the apostle of infidelity. The electors, by a majority of more than 13 to 1, emphatically repudiated his leadership, and all his bombastic eloquence and claptrap oratory has ended in a weak little fizzle.

F. G. Dunn, A.C.S., 1896, 187-188.

      It is interesting to note, says The Southern Cross, that the London Hall of Science, which was the centre of Mr. Bradlaugh's activity, and the home of the secularist propaganda in England, has been opened as a Shelter and Home for Women by the Salvation Army. The Hall was first offered to Rev. Hugh Price Hughes as a branch of his West London Mission and refused by him. The Hall in West London, it may be added, where Mr. Bradlaugh was accustomed to deliver atheistic lectures--Cleveland Hall--has long been in the hands of the West London Mission. The two centres of secularistic propagandas in London are thus, to-day, turned to Christian uses.

[NOF 401-441]