When the scriptures speak of the church, as we speak of the family, or the congregation, they speak of it as such a kind of assembling as actually takes place. So Paul said, "In the church I had rather speak five words," etc. (1 Cor. xiv. 19.) God cannot lie, and therefore it is certain that when He speaks of the church or assembly as really existing on earth, He did not mean the "entire company of believers throughout the world, which never did assemble and never will, in the present life. 3. If you really believe, as you profess to believe, that all to whom the Holy Spirit has given life are "really" church-members, you must abhor the very thought of excluding any of them from even one of the full privileges of membership: and this is the more certain because the homily says, "It is wicked to make and perpetuate schism upon the ground of difference of opinion," p. 154. I have heard that your own church, and also the churches of your former students, exclude all "true Christians," but Baptists, from membership; though you and they receive them to the Lord's supper. But this, if true, would imply that you indulge yourself, wilfully, in working "wickedness;" and I must therefore hope, even though it be against hope, that I am misinformed. I know, however, from your own pen, that you are opposed to mixed churches, and therefore fear that, if judged by this homily, you are so "wicked" as to perpetuate schism on the ground of difference of opinion;" and that while you talk in one way you act in another. 66 4. The proof you profess to give that the "Holy Spirit," by dwelling in us, "really unites us to the church," consists of the words "baptized by one Spirit into one body," p. 153, 154. What a time it takes for people who shut their eyes to ascertain that the sun shines! One would suppose you must have known that the Holy Spirit was already dwelling in the disciples who were immersed in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost; that this immersion was the imparting of extraordinary powers to those who had already been renewed by the Spirit and immersed in water (Acts viii. 12-17); and that when Paul said in 1 Cor. xii. 13, "by one Spirit we were all immersed into one body," and "were made to drink into one Spirit," he did not mean that they were made new creatures by drinking the wine of the Lord's Supper, or being immersed in water, but that they all had been made partakers of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. It is hard to suppose that, as you are not such "a great stupid' as you think Mr. Bullock is (see p. 183), you can be ignorant of this. But if you had known it, you would have been guilty of sanctioning a gross untruth about what God has said, in adopting the words of this homily, "when we believe, we are baptized by one Spirit into one body," p. 153. The substitution of what is false for the truth of God, is so great a sin that it is necessary to speak as plainly about the result of doing it wilfully, as John did when he said that no one who "makes a lie enters" the New Jerusalem. (Rev. xxi. 27.) 5. Your adopted homily says that 66 every company of Christians meeting together in any place whatsoever for worship, is the local expression of [that] grand unity," of that "living unity," which consists of THE ASSEMBLY of all "true believers," pp. 153, 154. You are most certainly aware that there never was any such ASSEMBLY, that it is a pure fiction, and that it is " Observer, May 15, '76. an impossibility. As they never did assemble and never can on earth, it is certain that God has never mentioned such an assembly as constituting "the assembly" of His people on earth. The recklessness of such talk on so serious a subject deserves, I think, the sharpest rebuke. Every assembly is of necessity "local." The statement that "every company of Christians," met for worship, is what we call a church" (p. 154), is quite untrue, unless you adopt the views of the Plymouth brethren; for it implies that no formal organization, no regular admission, is necessary to constitute membership. I don't think you believe this yourself, and wonder that you should circulate what seems to me so false a representation, both of scripture and fact. 66 6. Your homily says that to speak of joining the church is incorrect and improper, and that as believers are already church-members, all that they have to do is "to identify themselves" with an "assembly of the Lord's people," p. 153-to AVOW THE FACT" that they are already members of "the church," p. 155. "It will be seen," this homily says, "that the popular term 'joining the church' is not strictly correct. A man cannot be a Christian without having been joined to the Church of God by the baptism of the Spirit." "A true believer in Jesus is already a member of the church." What is asked of him is "a profession of the fact," p. 154. Yet your homily says, that "the baptism of believers by immersion"-the immersion of believers by immersion (what a strange expression !) "is commanded as a preliminary to the public recognition of believers as disciples of Christ." You therefore imply that if any "local expression of unity," commonly called a church, recognizes them without this preliminary, it transgresses God's law, rebels against Christ, and subverts Divine order, by tearing up the very foundations of the church as a Divine institution. By your definition of membership, you are adopting a theory as visionary as that of the Plymouth Brethren, of whom you speak in terms which show that you are well aware how bitter are the natural fruits of their system. If all "true believers" are already church-members, the avowal that they are so, cannot make them more so; and you will be clever indeed if you can reconcile the statement that all true believers are already church-members, with the statement that "the immersion of believers is commanded [by God] as a preliminary to the public recognition of believers as disciples of Christ." For if unbaptized believers be already church-members, to recognize them as church-members cannot possibly be wrong; it cannot be wrong to recognize truth to be truth; and again, if God has commanded baptism to be observed as 66 a preliminary to the public recognition of believers," you cannot reconcile this with the recognition of unbaptized believers as disciples, by receiving them to the Lord's Supper. 7. The teaching of this homily seems to me to be distinctly antinomian and licentious. It teaches that disobedience to known duty does not in the least affect a person's hope of heaven. It first omits unreserved obedience, when mentioning what constitutes a "true believer." "Those who are "resting for salvation upon the finished work of Christ," who "cherish a refreshing sense of God's pardoning love," and whose "outward lives are regulated, for the most part, according to the Divine will," are declared to be as Observer, May 15, 76. 66 sure of heaven, though "guilty" of persevering in acts of wilful disobedience, as they would be if not guilty of them. This homily says, "Failure to identify ourselves with the assembly of saints is a contravention of Divine order, a guilty resistance of the Spirit of God," p. 154 ; and yet it declares that a person's absolute "refusal to avow before the world" that he believes himself to be a member of "the Divine family, does not unchristianize him;" nor would his ceasing to refuse to obey God's will," really unite him more closely to the Lord," p. 155. This homily says also that "it is true that salvation does not depend" upon ceasing to "refuse to be identified with the church," as God commands us to be; and that such obedience to God's known will is "not necessary to salvation," p. 156. It says that there are "many eminent Christians" who "refuse [to make] a public profession;" and that if their "disobedience" were allowed to be a justification of such a course, MORALS WOULD BE DESTROYED." Yes, Sir, that is I believe quite true; and I therefore am the more surprised that you should help to destroy all Christian and common morality, by teaching that a positive "refusal" to obey God, does not in the least affect their nearness to Him, and their hope of heaven. Such a doctrine seems to me, when it is viewed in the light of Scripture, to be one of the most deadly which can be uttered. Christ says distinctly that He will refuse to own at last those who refuse to own Him publicly now. (Mat. x. 32, 33; Luke xii. 8, 9.) Yet your homily says that a person is " no less a child" of God because he keeps his supposed "relationship to his Father's family a profound secret," and is guilty of a fixed "refusal to avow before the world the fact of his [supposed] relationship to the Divine family." A further development of this doctrine that disobedience does a believer no great harm, occurs in the remark that the correct meaning of 1 Cor. ix. 27, strips the passage "of all its terror." The words in the common version are, "I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest, that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." The word translated "castaway," is adokimos, rejected. It is translated reprobate, in 2 Cor. xiii. 5, 6, 7; 2 Tim. iii. 8; Titus i. 16; and rejected, Heb. vi. 8. He who refers to these passages will not find that the word is "stripped of all terror" there. But this homily says that "the incorruptible crown" for which, the Apostle says, in 1 Cor. ix. 25, we Christians run, is "not salvation, not eternal life, not heaven," but a crown "to be won for unwavering fidelity and persistent service;" and the conclusion drawn from this statement is that if a person does not "keep under his body and bring it into subjection," this does not endanger his salvation, but only some superior crown of reward for unwavering fidelity. O, sir, my heart sickens to find that you have been betrayed by your "mystical" views on the subject of the church, to give your sanction to teaching which seems to me so mischievous as this. On reading this article, I felt it to be a duty to oppose openly views which seemed to me so fraught with final ruin to the churches of Christ. I have rejoiced in your faithful avowal of the great truths of the Gospel, but on this subject I mourn to see you stating things so indefensible, so contradictory; to see your consistency exposed to question, and your great influence used to sanction doctrines which not only tend to destroy regard for the constitution, the laws, and the ordinances of Christ's visible kingdom, but (to use the words of this homily) to "destroy the whole system of morals" also. Believe me to be your sincere well-wisher, Cutland, April, 1876. 66 WILLIAM NORTON. PREACHING-INCIDENTS. ILLUSTRATION is a valuable means of conveying and enforcing truth. Some preachers are peculiarly happy in this way. The world is full of images and resemblances, which may be used to make truth clear to the understanding, and to impress it more mightily upon the heart. The great Teacher, above all others, delighted in using these resemblances. The apostles, also, upon occasion, used them freely. To be able to seize, and clothe with suitable expression, such correspondences" as afford apt illustration, gives great power to a preacher. Similarly, the narration of incidents, as a means of illustrating and enforcing truth, is, I suppose, quite legitimate. I insist, however, that it shall be held strictly within the limits I have here indicated. The truth to be enforced is everything, the incident, except as a means, is nothing. Men who have unusual power of graphic delineation, who can narrate with such consummate skill that the full stage effect shall be realized, are under constant temptation to transcend the proper bounds. In sermons that abound in incidents, the hearer is too apt to lose sight of the Divine truth, that embodies all real power, and to fix his eye solely upon what is worthless, save as a means of more forcible presentation. The incident becomes everything to him, the Divine truth nothing. The power of the preacher, as a narrator, calls forth his admiration, while God's grace, in the Gospel, is wholly lost sight of, or, at least, thrust very far in the back-ground. Of the multitudes who listened, spell-bound, a fortnight ago, to a distinguished narrator of incidents, I venture to believe that few are conscious, to-day, of any remaining effect other than the memory of an emotional thrill-deep, but very transitory-blended with intense admiration of the speaker's power as an artist in his peculiar line. Men talk of preaching to the heart, and a touching incident well told, so that not only impressible women, but strong men," unused to weep," are made to shed tears, is supposed to be the very thing that is needed. Than this, it would be difficult to make a greater mistake. The woman wept quite as freely over her last novel, and the eyes of the man were not less moist the last time he saw one of the kings of tragedy tread the stage. The effect of the incident, as such, is dramatic simply. And it is a shame that men, in the close of the 19th century, will confound such an influence with that of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And still greater is the shame, if the men who make the mistake are those who have been taught that the seed of the new birth is the word of the living God. All the famous revivalists in the religious parties are men skilled in the use of incidents. If we could eliminate from their results everything which is due to this cause, the success remaining would not, I venture to believe, appear so very remarkable. We have, in a certain sense, imitators of these men among ourselves. Indeed, I should not be at all surprised, if some who denounce these sectarian revivalists owe their own success to the use of similar doubtful methods. Of course, our revivalists have no anxious seat, no kneeling, or standing, for prayers-in the anxious seat sense of prayer--but these do not include all the unevangelical appliances that may be employed to fan the flame of a popular excitement. There is great need of discrimination here, and the intelligent preacher, who is conscientious, will not fail to study this question very thoroughly. I regard everything as worthless which does not tend to originate, or build up, a true religious life. Whatever aids in real enlightenment, whatever deepens, and makes more real, the conscious needs and convictions out of which such a life must logically, and psychologically come, is in the range of means lawfully at the preacher's disposal. The use of incidents as tending to illustrate truth, or deepen its impression, as reflexively rather than directly valuable, I would not discourage. Further than this, I would not use them myself, or justify their use by others. A strong man may weep under an appeal to his domestic sympathies, though he has no faith in Christ, no deep consciousness of real religious need. There are men who can admire fine rhetoric, who can be carried quite away under bursts of passionate oratory, or pour out floods of tears over touching incidents dramatically narrated, that have never yet decided whether Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, or whether there is any real ground for a human soul to trust Him. Men may weep over Gethsemane, even, and yet have little more faith in Jesus than they have in the creations of the poet or the novelist. The imagination plays queer tricks, sometimes, with the understanding and the sensibilities. If Jesus of Nazareth is to save a man, He must become more to him than the hero of a thrilling story. He must be a real person-real to his faith, and, thereby, real to Observer, May 15, '76. his soul. Whatever of fact, or truth, that has power to quicken or impart strength to the religious or higher side of man's nature--this may be employed, nay, must be employed without hesitation, and to the fullest extent of its available advantages.-Christian. "ASHAMED OF JESUS." "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous aud sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”—Jesus. PERHAPS in this so-called Christian country there are but comparatively few people ready to admit themselves ashamed of Jesus. If we ask most people whether they believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that He came into the world to save sinners, we shall find very few who withhold consent, or who do not admit that eternal salvation comes through the sacrifice made by Him. If we attend the worshiping assemblies and hear the hymn, "I'm not ashamed to own my Lord," we might readily conceive there could be but few present who would not be ready to pay attention to the words of the Saviour and to render all obedience to His commands. But let leading individuals present be asked whether they carry into practice the instructions He gave, but a very short time before He left His disciples, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be be saved," the probability is that, in many cases, the replies will lead us to infer that they consider attention to the ordinance of baptism quite secondary, and even among " Baptists," we shall be directed to some passage in the New Testament which, in their opinion, makes faith more indispensable than obedience. Indeed I have been surprised at the ready manner in which some apparently well-informed persons repeat as Scripture, "He that believeth shall be saved;" who, when asked where those words are to be found, appear quite astonished at not being able to find them. One preacher was sure he had delivered an address taking these words as his text. At this time large audiences are collected together at the residence of a gentleman in this neighbourhood, through the instrumentality of several Evangelists. One of these gentlemen, when reading the conversion of the eunuch, omitted the part referring to baptism, not neglecting to call the attention of his hearers to the fact, that "He went on his way rejoicing." Again, how very frequently discourses are delivered from John iii., but how very rarely is allusion made to the water! It is that the preachers do not comprehend the language! They refer to being "born of the Spirit," but Observer, May 15, '76. are generally silent as to the water. I hope they are not ashamed of the words of Jesus, who declares that His words are spirit and life. If such be the case, and I imagine but few would doubt it, how important that we are well acquainted with His words and capable of " rightly dividing the word of truth." There is another declaration of the Saviour that appears to me to be much overlooked (see John xii. 47, 48). "The word that I have spoken the same shall judge him at the last day.' If we are to be judged by the words of Jesus, how important that we are not only acquainted with them, but also prepared to render obedience to His commands and precepts, ever recollecting the awful sentence recorded 2 Thes. i. 7, 8. 1 think we may ask two questions with reference to this passage-What it is to know God? What is it to obey the Gospel? I cannot imagine the knowledge alluded to is that possessed by the generality of people in this land. I am led to believe it must be the knowledge of Him as the Creator, Protector, and Sustainer of all things, and especially of His character, of His love towards the human family, in not withholding His own Son, but allowing Him to die for us an ignominious death. The result of such knowledge will be love towards them, prompting to ready obedience to that Gospel, by the receiving and keeping in memory of which we are saved. Let us examine ourselves, and prove ourselves, by the words by which we must eventually be judged. Grately. W. S. S. TO THE VICAR OF ST. BARNABAS, "Rev." W. T. Hobson.-SIR,-In addressing two or three short letters to you, through the pages of the E. O., it did not occur to me that they would reappear in the Mona's Herald, nor did I know that a copy of the first letter was forwarded for that purpose. Of course, I do not regret the republication, because they help your neighbours to know you a little better than otherwise they might. I expected, in closing my last, to have done with you, but, your having inserted in the Herald your letter addressed to Mr. Green, but aimed at me, I deem it well to refer to the attempt, in your preliminary remarks, to back out from your absurd intimation that baptize in Scripture never means to immerse, and never does so, properly, at all. You write-" Mr. King quite mistakes and misrepresents my meaning where I say that to baptize does not mean to immerse, as if I had given my correspondent to understand that baptism could not, nor should not, be by immersion. Baptism may, I hold, be performed by dipping or immersing in water-by affusion of or sprinkling with water-aud just because I hold all this I deny that if to baptize means to immerse." But, sir, Mr. King knows nothing about your meaning. He does, however, know the meaning of the words you wrote, and you did not use words expressive of your meaning the fault is not his. True, any one, in hasty writing, may fail to express the intended thought, and, generally, it would suffice to correct the writing by giving its intended signification. This would be readily accepted in the present case had not your saying and unsaying and denying what you had said, when writing as "Manx Churchman," destroyed con fidence. Let us look at the matter. You wrote of us as acting under the "mistaken notion that baptism means to immerse;" and you add, "which it never does in Scripture, and never does properly at all." The meaning of this is, clearly, that neither in the Bible nor in Greek literature does baptizo ever mean to dip or immerse. But in my reply I pointed out-what you for the moment seem to have forgotten-that you, as a servant of the State, are required to believe that immersion is baptism and also to immerse, and not to sprinkle or pour except in cases where immersion cannot be well endured, and that you are to do this avowedly in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit; and that, therefore, you take the bread of the church for teaching what you do not believe, and doing as baptism what your words intimate is not baptism at all. From this there is no escape. So you deny that you meant what alone the words properly imply, and yet make no attempt to tell us what you really did mean. You must excuse me, sir, for saying that I believe you intended to say what your words well enough express-that baptizo never signifies to dip, and that dipping is not, properly, baptism. I conclude thus, not merely from the words used, but from the circumstances under which you wrote them. I understand that you had borrowed, and had in your possession some weeks, that grossly absurd pamphlet, by the "Rev." James Gall," Dipping not Baptism;" that upon returning it you intimated that you had not before seen baptism so clearly explained, and that you had written for some copies for distribution. Now, sir, this pamphlet, which you so highly commend and desire to circulate, is mainly peculiar in that it expresses the very sentiment your words are understood to express, but which your inconsistent conduct compels you to deny. Mr. Gall writes-"I might plead that John's baptism could not be dipping, because the word baptize never means to dip either in Jewish or classic authors" (p. 15). This, sir, is what you intended your words to convey. You even adopt that blunder of the sentence which represents "baptize" (an English word manufactured for church purposes) as occurring in Greek authors. At any rate, sir, your inconsistency is complete. Mr. Gall declares that "Dipping is not baptism," and in that declaration consists his leading and peculiar feature. You commend the book as a clearer explanation than you have before met with, and write to obtain copies for distribution, and you write words which express the same leading sentiment. Now you deny the meaning of your own words. But then you either hold with Gall or you do not. If you do, then your denial is false. If you do not, then you are providing to circulate a book which declares that dipping is not baptism, while your prayer book says it is, and compels you to dip and declare it baptism. Why, sir, the whole thing is of a piece with your burials business. You take hire for saying what you do not believe, and for doing what you hold to be "more honoured in the breach than in the observance. In conclusion. "Manx Churchman," Vicar of St. Barnabas, should be, and assumes to be, a scholarly person; but no scholar, being at the same time an honest man, could ever think of commending and circulating the miserable stuff with which Mr. Gall's pamphlet abounds. Look at this: "Bapto means to dip; baptizo never does. Bapto means to put an object under water and immediately take it out again; baptizo means to put an object under water and to let it remain there." (p. 20.) That a vicar should be the victim of this nonsense, commending and circulating it to the denial of the standards and requirements of his own church, can only be accounted for by the fact that the clergy are put into office with little or no reference to fitness as certain vested interests determine. The Lexicons and classic usage have only to be glanced at, and Mr. Gall's absurdity is seen at once. Take an instance or so: 1. Polybius, History, b. iii. "They passed through with difficulty the foot soldiers immersed as far as to their breasts." 2. Plutarch, Life of Theseus. "O bladder, thou mayest be immersed, but it is not possible for thee to sink." 3. Plutarch, Life of Alexander. "The soldiers all along the way, dipping with cups and horns and goblets from great wine-jars and mixing-bowls, were drinking to one another." 4. Hippocrates, on Epidemics. "And she breathed, as if breathing after having been immersed." These instances out of many suffice to refute the groundless assertion that baptizo always means "to put an object under water and let it remain there." Neither bapto nor baptizo mean water at all. Baptizo, the word used to designate the ordinance, means to dip or immerse. In the four instances just cited the words "immersed" and "dipping" are represented in the original by baptizo. Did the soldiers who were immersed to the breasts in wading through the river sink and remain there? Did the bladder which could be immersed, but could not stay under water, remain under? What sort of breathing is that which drowned persons indulge in after remaining at the bottom? Did the soldiers dip their drinking cups in the wine-jars to let them remain at the bottom? Thirsty soldiers are not likely to act out the nonsense that Mr. Gall sends out and that Mr. Hobson is delighted with. But here I leave you, sir, immersed in your own folly, trusting there may be no need to favour you with further notice.-Yours, etc., DAVID KING. Intelligence of Churches, etc. BULWELL.-The new Meeting House was opened on Lord's-day, April 16th. In the morning the church attended to the doctrine of the Apostles, the fellowship, the breaking of the bread and the prayers; Observer, May 15, '76 when one immersed received the right hand of fellowship. David King, of Birmingham, addressed the morning assembly, and preached in the afternoon and evening. There were large congregations. In the evening the school room also had to be thrown open. The morning and afternoon discourses were upon the Jewish sacrifices and their adjuncts, as showing forth, in type, the perfection of Christ, the purpose of His death, and the design of His ordinances. These discourses were very suggestive-that of the evening was upon "The Poverty of Christ.' On Monday, we had a tea meeting, at which a very large number of brethren and friends attended. The evening meeting was addressed by R. Mumby, W. Chapman, and D. King, W. Dawson presiding. On Tuesday evening, Mr. King discoursed on "The Death of Christ," the large audience being much edified. On April 23, B. Ellis, of Chelsea, addressed the church assembly in the morning, and proclaimed the good news. Afternoon and evening the congregations, large and attentive, were powerfully influenced for good. He also preached on Monday and Tuesday evenings. On both occasions, notwithstanding the unfavourable weather, we had a numerous company, not likely soon to forget what they heard. On the first Tuesday, the Sunday school children enjoyed a good tea, which was also partaken of by a considerable number of friends in addition to the teachers. W. J. D. The writer of the above says nothing of the chapel itself. It is a good, substantial brick and stone building, lofty and well seated, with two school rooms at back, the lower one opens so as to form part of the chapel when needed for larger congregat ons. The cost of the ground and building is somewhere about £1,250, mostly raised by the members taking shares, in addition to their donations. The shares are of any amount the holders individually might have to advance, bearing interest, but giving no right of ownership or control. ED. On SOUTHERN DIVISION.-The Annual Conference of Churches was held in College Street Chapel, Chelsea, Monday, April 17, when a fair number of delegates and other members assembled. After prayer and praise, A. Richardson was called to the chair, and J. Bannister to the post of secretary. The report showed that the work done had fallen short of what had been hoped for, in consequence chiefly of difficulties between two churches in the division, which prevented the co-operation of several of the churches. A good work, however, had been done, and the committee hoped for much more in the future. application the church at Leyton was received into co-operation. The balance-sheet showed, up to the time of audit, a deficiency of £1 13s. 5d. The schedules showed a gross increase in numbers of 150; this, however, does not by any means present the net increase, as many removals and transfers are not taken into the account. Resolutions, embracing the following items, were adopted :-"That the Southern Division engage an Evangelist for twelve months from the next annual meeting, relying on the promises of the churches, and that, should there be a deficit, application be made to the General Committee to supply the deficiency." "That power be given to the committee as to engaging an Evangelist." "That a committee be appointed to enquire into the subject of the establishment of a building fund, and to submit |