Observer, Aug. 1, '72. 1430, having now sunk to 1015, or a loss of 415, while taking the increase of population into account, their present strength is only one half what it was ten years ago. The Christian Israelites, a sect which has fallen into no little disrepute, now musters only 283 adherents, as against 395 in 1861, showing a decrease of 112; while the Mormons now number but 97 in the colony, and, as of these only 19 are women, there seems but little ground to suspect any very extensive polygamy as existing among them in Victoria. The length of our article warns us that we must draw our review to a close but in doing so, we would once again advert to the leading facts already brought out, as regards the position of the Church in this colony. It is clearly established, that during the ten years from 1861 to 1871 rapid progress was made, and by the blessing of God the increase of the Church was as marked as it was rapid. While this is the case, it is still apparent that the Church in this colony is numerically weak, and that the number enrolled in its cause bears no legitimate proportion to the population. Seeing that these things are so, it remains for all who profess to have the interest of the cause at heart to take encouragement from the past, and in view of their responsibilities to do their duty in promoting the welfare of Zion, and extending the Lord's cause. If this be done in a humble reliance on our MASTER for guidance and direction, we need have no fear for the result. The cause will continue to progress and flourish in the land, the Lord's name will be glorified in the earth, souls will be saved by our endeavours, and we shall hereafter receive an abundant recompense of reward. Christian Advocate. WORSHIP. IN STRANGE TEMPLES. THE Dundee Free Presbytery is in trouble just now over a minister who has been preaching in an Unitarian chapel. What shall be done with one who so sins had to be determined when this notice was put to press. It would not have been needful to notice the affair here but that it may serve as a lesson for some of our readers. We are, now and then, asked whether it is proper to preach in chapels belonging to parties we deem subversive of the unity and order of the church of Christ. Now we are willing to preach in the synagogues of Jews, Turks or Infidels; only two things must be guarded when we do so. On the very surface it must be made apparent that we do not sanction, by so doing, the worship and doctrine of the place; and we must be at liberty to preach those truths upon which we deem that people most uninformed. This is what the Presbyterian minister did not do, and, therefore, he gave sanction to worship offered under conditions dishonouring to Christ. A few words from Mr. Knight in defence of his preaching, and a paragraph from Dr. Wilson in reply, will put the matter in its right light. Mr. Knight says "I express my very real regret that I should have been the means of giving offence to so many as my brethren assured me that I had. I did not do this act which is called in question as an 'inadvertence.' I did it because I thought it right. It has seemed to some of my brethren in the ministry that my having regarded it in the light of duty is an aggravation of the offence. If it had been heedless it would have been venial; being conscientious is it to be deemed inexcusable? I am asked whether I would have done it had I foreseen the results that have ensued. The question seems to me irrelevant. There are results which no man can foresee, and, therefore, no man could answer such a Observer, Aug. 1, '72. question at once rationally and candidly. I never feel at liberty to weigh possible consequences in the scales of judgment when an act of duty is to be done. At the time, I believed I was right in preaching in Portland Street Church. I think so still; and that I am supported in it by the spirit of Christ and the example of His apostles, as well as by the precedent of the most devout and earnest and charitable of His followers. And, while this proves that I see one of the duties of Christianity in a somewhat different light from my co-presbyters, I am sure they will all allow that every man amongst us can only act according to the little light he has. I respectfully remind this Presbytery that I have broken no Church law. Until the Church legislates to the contrary, I hold myself, and every minister of this Church, perfectly free to declare the truth of God in any place, at any time, to any audience he is privileged to address; while the expediency of the act in particular circumstances must be left to the speciality of the occasion. When a contrary law is framed, restricting liberty and narrowing fellowship, I shall hope to be guided as to the path of duty. Till then, God helping me, I hope never to renounce one iota of the liberty wherewith the Christian Church has been made free." Dr. Wilson replies * * * "It is of the more importance on that ground that we should maturely consider what the question really is that we have here to deal with. And I remark, in the first place, that the question is not, as Mr. Knight has put it, a question as to his preaching in a particular place. That is not the question. I hold, just as strongly as Mr. Knight does, my liberty to preach the gospel anywhere, under only these two limitations: in the first place, the limitation which common sense and Christian wisdom may impose upon me; and in the second place, this other limitation, that I should consider whether by preaching the gospel in a particular place, and on a particular occasion, I will not be compromising the principles of the Church to which I adhere. But what we have to do with to-day is, in my view at least, a thing in itself wrong, standing quite out of the category of these things to which I have referred. I say it is in itself wrong, involving a violation of the highest obligations which can rest upon a Christian minister. I know that Mr. Knight does not so regard it, else he would never have done it. I hope to be able to make it plain in a few sentences that the case so stands. What are the facts laid before us ? What is it that Mr. Knight did? He goes as a friend, a brother of a Socinian minister, into his place of worship, goes side by side with him in the face of the audience, large or small, assembled there; as a friend and brother of this most Socinian minister, he engages in the whole worship carried on in that temple; he preaches, and how ?-under the restraints which courtesy and friendship impose, without speaking one word in opposition to the known principles held by that congregation. He preaches truths which Mr. Martineau and he hold in common; there are many such-thousands of such truths. Mr. Knight pleads very high authority and example in vindication of this course of conduct; he pleads the authority of our Lord Himself, who preached in Jewish synagogues; he pleads the authority of the apostles, who did the same thing. How did they preach? The fruit of the first sermon preached in a Jewish synagogue by Jesus Christ was a disturbance at Nazareth, and a violent intention and determination on the part of the people to cast Him down from a rock and put Him to death. That evidenced the style of our Lord's preaching in a Jewish synagogue. And is it not known that the apostle Paul, for example, going through the cities of Asia Minor, preached first of all in the synagogues-preached to his own countrymen, conceiving, and rightly conceiving, it to be his duty to carry the glorious gospel first of all to the Jews. But again with what effect? They were very angry; they made riotous mobs; they resented what he said simply because he was bearing testimony to what they disbelieved. Suppose (the supposition indeed can hardly be made, but it is conceivable) the apostle Paul was at Ephesus, and had gone into a synagogue there, as Mr. Knight went into Portland Street Chapel, walking side by side with the Chief Rabbi, that he had taken part in the liturgic services of the church, and then risen up to speak without saying one word that might strike against the blind prejudices of his Jewish audience! This is what Mr. Knight did. I ask Mr. Knight is it conceivable that going on such a principle as that the Christian Church should ever have had a beginning? Mr. Knight says that there are other and better ways of removing error from men's minds than directly assailing them and exciting their passions. For my part I would rather walk according to the light which Christ and His aposties throw upon my path than in the light of this modern philosophy. I do not hesitate to say that Mr. Knight, in acting as he did on that occasion, was acting just contrary-directly contrary to all the examples that we have afforded to us in the Bible. I cannot but say, Moderator, Shame, shame to the Christian minister in exercising the functions of his office in the face of an audience which he knew Observer, Aug. 1, '72. to cherish a deadly error, who denied the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ-to preach in the face of that audience without having a word to say for the Divine glory of the Lord, without making an attempt by a sentence to remove from their minds that fatal error, and to open their understandings to the apprehension of the Divine truth. Mr. Knight says that his conduct was legitimate, that there is no law of the Free Church against the course of conduct he has pursued. In a very limited sense that may be true. I do not know that there is in our books of discipline-it is inconceivable almost that there should be in our books of discipline-a provision to this effect, that none of our ministers shall preach in an Unitarian Church, shall hold personal fellowship as ministers with Unitarians, or preach in their chapels, without bearing testimony to the Divinity of our Lord." Here we leave the case, hoping to get a lesson in faithfulness therefrom. D. K. WHAT SORT OF PEOPLE? THE apostle Peter, in his second epistle, after announcing the fact, that in the last days scoffers shall come, walking according to their own fleshly desires; after describing the destruction of the old world by a flood of water; and after declaring also, that the physical heavens and earth which are now shall be destroyed by fire, according to the Word of God, propounds this solemn and alarming question: "What manner of persons ought you to be in all holy behaviour and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the heavenly bodies shall be scorched up and melted with fervent heat?"—Alford. This fearful language was addressed primarily to Christians, and therefore it is of special importance to Christians now; in an age too, in which it is as difficult, if not more difficult to live a holy life, than in that day when Christians counted not their lives dear, but attested their faith by the blood of martyrdom. The fashion of this world, the blandishments of "refined society," extravagant living, the enticements of wealth and the sordidness of avarice, are making fearful ravages upon the domain of the church. In the language of Peter, what sort of persons ought we to be? Certainly that while in the world, not of the world. A chosen race, a royal priesthood, a peculiar people, known and read of all men as the holy ones or saints of God; unlike the world in thought, in speech, in manners, in morality, in labours of love. The speech of Christians should be seasoned with salt, and their words should appear like apples of gold in pictures of silver. Their language should be simple and pure and chaste. Whatever is more than yea, yea, or nay, nay, comes of evil. No filthy communications should proceed out of the mouths of God's elect. All low insinuations, vapid and trivial talk, all words of double meaning, all filthy songs and anecdotes, and storytelling, and all the badinage of a corrupt world, should be banished from the Christian heart. Christians should speak always in the dialect of heaven, because their citizenship is in heaven. Ther is great power in a pure speech. There is great weakness in unchaste and ill-assorted language. In dealing with their fellowmen, candid, above suspicion, frank and fervent in spirit, serving the Lord." value of their stock of merchandize. Christians should be purely honest, Observer, Aug. 1, '72. the ignorance of their patrons, nor deceive them by fair speeches. They' should resort to no "tricks of the trade" by which to make money, nor blind the eyes of justice with a gift. They should have no special patrons, but in equity treat all men alike. Let them do this in view of death and the judgement day, when every secret thought shall be revealed. If Christians are not the salt of the earth, with what shall it be salted? Christians should scrupulously avoid all excesses in living, and be regular and temperate in all their habits. Feasting and revelling in fashionable society is an order of things that in no possible way tends to godliness and purity of heart and sweetness of temper. Where popular dissipation takes the place of prayer and meditation and the daily reading of God's Word, the heart will become a garden of weeds, and not a paradise of the fruits of the Spirit, the rich fruitage of righteousness. Those who call themselves Christians, are not the children of God, who frequent the dancing hall and the theatre, who dissolve into the ungodly mass at shows and horse races, and who lose their Christian identity and individuality in fashionable saloons and places of canal festivity. The royal priesthood of God wear the robes of righteousness, and do not trick themselves up to the height of disgraceful fashion, nor make themselves the gazing stock of lustful eyes. Should Christians be avaricious, and covetous, and greedy, and tightfisted, like the sordid world around them? Should they oppress the hireling in his wages, and be exacting of the poor, and be unjust and unmerciful? Is the Christian to think of nothing but money; to work like a mule all the days of his life, and enjoy no more of this life than a mule? Is he to pinch and push and plunder through every field of speculation, thus denying himself of all rational enjoyment? To live like a Turk and dig roots like an Indian, and eat like a dog, is that it? Or contrawise, to be noble, generous, expansive of benevolence, loving and sympathetic, affectionate and tender hearted, a light and a joy in society, a saint in the church, a philanthropist in the world, everywhere loved and trusted and admired? The Christian is taught to be more than a moral man. It costs very little sacrifice to be a moral man. The term is indefinite and equivocal. Even Christian morality" is indefinite. The simple word Christian is exhaustive of all that is lovely in this life. To think as Christ thought; to talk as He talked; to sacrifice as He sacrificed; to love as He loved; to forgive as He forgave; to honour God and truth as He did; to entirely forget self and give his life for the world—that donstitutes the Christian, the child of God that shall enter heaven. J. F. R. THE SCIENTIFIC OBJECTION TO THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER. The THAT the Scriptures teach the efficacy of prayer, as a real power in the procuring of blessing from God, is so clearly apparent that no citation of passages, or examples from their pages, is necessary to establish it. almost universal belief of mankind as evinced by their systems of religious worship, confirms the same fact. The poetry of the race from that of Homer down to the present time bears witness to this truth, and affords numerous examples of its prevalence and influence. This doctrine of the power of prayer thus enforced by all the teachings of the written word, illustrated by many examples, confirmed by the history Observer, Aug. 1, '72. of many centuries, and imbedded alike in the religious convictions and literature of the race, has in these last days been attacked on scientific grounds. We have thought that it might not be found unprofitable to devote a little space to a consideration of this objection. It is stated in the following terms by one of the scientists of our own age and country. "All nature shows that the whole universe, God Himself included, is governed by unalterable and immutable laws-that causes and effects reign supreme, and allow not the least chance for prayer to effect the least change in effects, because it cannot change their causes. And to suppose that entreaties can change the mind, the will, the eternal purpose of the Almighty is utter folly, is downright blasphemy." This is but a specimen of the way in which a considerable number of men, who profess to be leaders in the scientific thought of the age, speak of prayer. Nor is this all. Such modes of thinking invade almost insensibly, the masses of society, many of whom are only too apt to take it for granted, that what is thus announced must be wondrously learned, and unquestionably couclusive. Let us examine it. The first thing we have to say is to call attention to the manifest contradiction which it embodies. It speaks of God Himself as "governed by immutable laws," and yet it denominates Him "the Almighty." How a being subject to control external to himself can be Almighty; how one who is under a dominion from without which he cannot resist, can be invested with Omnipotent power, is more than a mystery; it is an unthinkable absurdity, and such an utterance convicts those who make it of speaking nonsense. But we have to say farther, that, even this objection were it absolutely insolvable, on merely theoretical grounds, admitting of no reply, and diminished by no considerations of mental philosphy, it could avail nothing against the positive evidence to which we have already referred. When facts and theory come into collision, if they cannot be reconciled the facts remain, and the theory vanishes. Now facts exist in untold abundance, which prove that prayer has a most important and benefical causal connection with the reception of blessings from the hand of God. Against these numerous and well-attested facts, a thousand theories, no matter how nicely elaborated, are as the flimsiest gossamar stretched to stop the progress of the invading army. The facts, with majestic tread, march straight forward; the baseless theory sinks unnoticed, to the ground. Facts can be resisted, their evidence silenced and overcome only by counter facts, and ten thousand theories, piled in their way, avail nothing to stay their advance. We have in all human history, and in constantly recurring experience, multiplied thousands of facts all proving the efficacy of prayer. These facts cannot be contradicted by any theories of causation which we, or anybody else, may see fit to entertain. We must fit our theories to the facts, they will never consent to be modified to meet our theories. This method of arguing, which plumes itself so much on being scientific, is, of all things in literature, the most unscientific, since it claims to set aside well attested and uncontradicted and unimpeached evidence to make room for its own surmisings. It is like a distinguished savan of France who, when told by his brethren, of the academy, that facts were against his system, cried out" So much the worse for the facts." So these mere theorizers, confronted by the testimony of the ages, and by the experience of daily life and by the inwrought conviction of the race, as well as by the declarations and examples of revealed truth, all alike dealing |