Observer, Feb. 15, '76.

THE sin which induced the death of all was indisputably Adam's sin. This then must have been the sin that all committed. But there is only one admissible sense in which all could have committed that sin, to wit, representatively. Therefore when it said that "all sinned," I take the meaning to be, that all sinned in Adam as being in him. By Divine appointment, Adam, in committing his first sin, and as to its penalty, death, stood for and represented the whole of his posterity. If this be not the sense in which all sinned, then that sense, it seems to me, is not discoverable. Nor should this solution be objected to on the ground of being strange since we accept other things equally as strange. We all admit that death is the result of one sin of Adam. Now I have no more difficulty in understanding how we could all commit that sin, than in seeing how we can all be justly required to die for it. Indeed, it is much easier to understand how, by representation, we all could and did commit it, than to see how, without representation or participation in some sense, we all can be justly subject to death for it.

Farther, when it is said (1 Cor. xv. 22), “in Adam all die," the language admits of but one interpretation; namely, all die in consequence of the sin which he committed, or all die by him, that is, by his act. Now if death resulted from sin on the sole ground of implication in it, then implication by representation must be admitted. We are certainly not implicated on the ground of actual personal sin. Representation then is the only alternative. But in Heb. vii. 9, 10, we have a parallel case to the preceding, which may serve to shed some light upon it. It is there said of Levi that, before he was born and while he was still "in the loins" of his ancestor Abraham, he "paid tithes" to Melchisedec. Now if Levi, while still in the loins of Abraham, could and did pay tithes; with equal certainty

*M. E. LARD's Commentary on ROMANS, chap. v.

could the whole posterity of Adam, while still in him, sin. And what they could do, they did; and from the deed came death.

Again in v. 14, following, the Apostle speaks of "death reigning from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression." Here now were persons who had sinned, yet not as Adam sinned. Not that their sin differed from his, but the mode of committing it differed. In both cases

I take the sin itself to have been the since same, it was that in virtue of which death reigned. The difference lay in the manner. Adam sinned actually and in his own person; these sinned, not actually and in person, but in Adam as being in him and represented by him. Such I take to be the import of the passage; and if correct, it settles the meaning of the clause in hand.

For farther confirmation of what is here insisted on, I call attention to the verb dielthen. It is aorist; and as such, signifies momentary action in the past. The dia denotes the thoroughness of the action. "Death spread "—the whole thing was done in the past. Moreover, it was done at once. "To all"-the spreading was thorough, not one escaped. But how could all this occur, unless, as already said, in and by Adam? When he sinned all sinned in him. With that sin death entered, entered at once and for all time, and entered for the whole human race. All this seems to be couched in the verb.

But here it is proper to take a distinction. Sin by representation does not imply guilt as and demand the appointment of a penalty, as in actual personal sin does. It may both justify the case in hand, but no more. Hence no one of his posterity will ever, after death, be held responsible for Adam's sin. As to them, his sin will never, after death, be brought into account. No notice will be taken of it. In their case, therefore, death is not the consequence of personal guilt, but of connection with a guilty parent. Accordingly, though we all die for Adam's sin, no one of us will ever be judged for it. For our own sins only will we be judged. Those alone involve the notion of personal responsibility, and hence-imply guilt. For them alone, therefore, we shall have to account.

In regard to the sin of Adam, which induced death, a false mode of reasoning is sometimes employed. It is argued that suffering implies. guilt; and that since we all suffer even death for Adam's sin, therefore we must be guiltily connected with it. But this is not correct. Suffering may always imply the guilt of some one; but it does not neccessarily imply the guilt of the sufferer. If a ship founder, through the criminal intent of the pilot to wreck her, and

all the passengers perish, their suffering does not imply guilt on their part. And so in countless other cases. Death implies connection with a guilty ancestor, but not the guilt of his dying offspring.

True, it is a great hardship to have to suffer death for the sin of another. It would seem hard enough to have to die for our own sin; but to die for the sin of another seems peculiarly hard. This is the universal sentiment of mankind. Still so to suffer is right, however difficult it may be for us to see it. God can rightfully appoint for His children, what is hard; He cannot appoint what is wrong. Hard it certainly is to die for Adam's sin; wrong it certainly cannot be. It was hard for Christ to die for The sins of the world, yet it was right. * *** the many were constituted sinners. The verb katestathesan is here a very significant word; indeed, it is the key that unlocks the meaning of the verse. It signifies to set down, place, make, appoint, ordain, constitute. These are its most common meanings; and from them I select constitute as exactly expressing the sense in which the word is here used.

The verb is passive and means were constituted. Who now were constituted? The hoi polloi, the many. But the many did not constitute themselves, not by anything they ever thought or did. The act of constitution was another's not theirs. They were constituted-by whom? The passage would seem to teach that it was by the disobedience of the one man. It reads, "For as by the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted!" But this is incorrect. disobedience of the one did not constitute the many, either as subject or agent. It was the means through which or reason why they were constituted by another. Did Adam constitute them? Certainly not; for whoever constituted them sinners is also to constitute them just. This excludes Adam. God then must have constituted the many, since there remains no one else.

The

What now did He constitute them? Hamartoloi, sinners. Now let the reader carefully note that the many were not sinners within and of themselves, or by any acts of theirs; they were constituted sinners. We cannot constitute him a sinner who is one by his own act. If he be a sinner by his own act, he is so independently of all acts of constitution. Nor did God constitute the many sinners through, or because of any acts of their own. He constituted them sinners through the disobedience of Adam. Before that disobedience, they were not constituted; after it, they were. God must then have constituted them sinners through, or by means of Adam's sin, and because of it. This I believe to have been the fact; and if so, it is the precise reason

Observer, Feb. 15, '76.

for saying they were constituted sinners. It is not said of Adam that he was constituted a sinner. Of course not. He was actually and in fact a sinner; and therefore could not be constituted one. But at the instant of constitution, his posterity were not sinners as he was. They had committed no sin, except as through him sinning for them. sinning for them. Therefore they were merely constituted sinners.

But God constituted them sinners. Now in what sense must we take hamartoloi? As denoting actual sinners, says Stuart, Alford and others. Were the word sinners wholly unqualified this would be correct; but as the case stands it is not. The many were constituted sinners. The verb katestathesan itself qualifies the word. When I say the pen with which I write was made, has the phrase was made no qualifying effect? It not only implies that the pen did not make itself; but it also excludes the idea of its being unmade or eternal. So when Paul says, "the many were constituted sinners," his language implies that they did not become sinners by their own acts. In so becoming, they took no part. On the contrary, they were merely constituted sinners. The truth is, the very object of choosing the verb used was to negative the idea of their being actual sinners; and it effectually does it. The many were constituted sinners through Adam's sin and because of it. But this was not done because of personal guilt, or with a view to it. The sole reason was Adam's sin; and the sole end death. (To be continued.)

QUERY.

WOULD it be contrary to the spirit of New Testament teaching for the bread provided for the Lord's Table to be cut into small pieces, so that each might take a piece P. without breaking it from the loaf?

WE see no necessity for each person to break a piece from the bread already broken into two or more pieces by the Elder. It would answer every purpose for him to break it into many small pieces, that each might partake without the inconvenience of breaking for himself. But to place the bread upon the table already cut into pieces would, in part at least, mar the symbolism. By the bread we show forth the unbroken body of the Lord. We break it because we cannot all partake of it otherwise, and not to exhibit the breaking of His body. "This is My body given for you," not broken for you is the reading. Then the Apostle points to the ONE bread as also representing the oneness of the Church; which, of course, is not at all seen where the bread does not We say 66 first appear as one bread. one bread," because there is no reason why it should be exactly what we call a loaf-so that the oneness is there, it is indifferent whether the one bread be in shape a loaf, bun, cake, or piece. Ed.

Observer, Feb. 15, '76.

"THE HOUSE OF GOD."

Editor of E. 0.-DEAR SIR,-I desire to ask attention to the phrase "House of God" as applied to buildings used for public worship, deeming such usage exceedingly misleading and injurious. I was somewhat surprised, on reading your items of news from Disciples in America, to find the term thus objectionally applied. But perhaps the point may have escaped attention in years gone by. If so, I would commend it to American brethren, and suggest that they complete their work and turn all the Canaanites out of the land, not even allowing the Gibeonites of a Royal city to betray them. The only people that I have known as thorough in their use of this phrase are the Plymouth Brethren, so called. You will not find them calling a building the "House of God." I once named the subject to a Baptist minister, who said, "Well, we know it is not really the House of God, but still we think well to call it so, as God is worshipped therein."

I find in the Bible no building so called, except the temple. Not even the synagogues of the Jews were owned by God as His abode. The spiritual nature of the present dispensation forbids the application of this phrase to material buildings. On the contrary, the "House of God" is the "Church of God," and the Church of God is living stones, taken out from the world-a "building fitly framed together, growing unto an holy temple, an habitation of God through the Spirit." There is, then, at the present time, no building of stone or wood recognised by God as His house,

Then the effects of this misapplication are very injurious. This is seen in the fact of its direct tendency to foster ritualism and priestcraft. Grant that the building is the "House of God," and it follows that there also should be found the altar, the sacrifice, and the sacrificing priest. Of course, all who misapply the term do not run the legitimate length. But only grant to the Ritualist that the building is the House of God, and at once he has a "Most Holy Place" for the officiating priest, which the people, or laity, may not enter, and all else follow in due

TO THE VICAR OF ST. BARNABAS, DOUGLAS.

"Rev." W. T. Hobson.-SIR,-I have a written paper, bearing your signature, which was handed from you to one of the members of the Church in Fort Street (not the Nonconformist Church in that street, named after a saint, but that in the upper room). You there say

"I would put it thus-If Mr. King were asked by a person dying of, say, rheumatic fever, to baptize himhaving entertained his notions that none can enter into the kingdom of God without being baptized-that only he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,' and that baptism can be only by immersion. What would Mr. King say or do to the dying man? It is a case that very often occurs, that a man or a woman desires baptism on the death bed. I, myself, baptized a Jewess on her death bed as she was in the last stage of consumption. It would occur far more often if Mr. King's notions about the absolute necessity of baptism, and about infant baptism being unscriptural, were generally accepted. In that case as often as a person was really or professedly converted on his death bed or what he feared was such, so often would baptism be asked for. But in no such case could it be administered by immersion, i. e., administered at all according to Mr. King.

"Jan. 28, 1876.

W. T. HOBSON."

available. Still, sir, I wish to concede, whatever is due, and therefore admit, that, however well understood and provided for, there would remain some cases in which immersion could not be had, which would be met were sprinkling admissible.

You attribute to me the notion, "that only he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." I do not hold, nor have I ever taught what you thus set forth as my "notion." I have clearly and broadly taught otherwise. So, then, the very soul of your question is taken out of it before I attempt to directly answer it.

There remain, however, the following conclusions, which I do affirm-(1) "That unless a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (2) That the water in the text refers to baptism. (3) That baptism is immersion. Now, sir, whatever consequents are involved in thus holding I am prepared to accept and defend.

ever

"The kingdom" comes before us in the New Testament in a present and in a future dispensation thereof. Into the present John, when on Patmos, had already entered (Rev. i. 9), while entrance into the " lasting kingdom comes not till the end of this dispensation, and is conditioned upon adding to our faith "virtue" and other graces of the Spirit named in 2 Peter i. 5-11.

It is not concerning the future and everlasting kingdom that the Saviour said, "Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter;" but in reference to that which now is. All, then, that logically comes of my teaching is that the believer, dying unbaptized, because baptism was not possible, cannot enter the kingdom now existing upon earth, nor into the church which is an institution thereof. Into the "everlasting kingdom" thousands will enter who were never born of water, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and John the baptizer included. In that kingdom, as in any other, distinctive positions will exist, some lowly, some exalted, some rulers and others bringing their glory and honour to the place of the more highly honoured. The man who now dies without entering the church, but with heart turned in love to God and Christ, may have the place in the endless glory which the love of God graciously provides for such, and yet never, even then, take position with the church, which is the bride of the Lamb.

But, sir, I am, in return, to seek some information from you. As you undertook to write out my belief on this point I must also write yours. You greatly misrepresented mine, I will take care to set forth your's correctly. You then profess that

1. "Unless a man [any one 'tis,'] be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."

2. "Born of water" refers to baptism.

3. Therefore, anyone dying unbaptized cannot enter that kingdom.

When, sir, I say that you profess this, I mean that the prayer book of your church declares it, and that you are required to repeat it when administering baptism.

As an offset against your believing Jewess I put the following case: "Two infants were born of one mother in the same hour. In a few days one died, unbaptized. The next day the other died, having been, in the meantime, as you would say, baptized. They were both buried in one grave. But there was

Observer, Feb. 15, '76.

this additional fact. The clergyman would not read the burial service over both, and the unbaptized babe was kept at a distance from the grave while the service was read over the other, and only after that was it allowed to rest with its baptized brother."

Now, sir, will you please tell us what became of that unbaptized babe? You teach that the birth of water is baptism; that unless thus born of water, or baptized, no one can enter the kingdom of God-not even a babe. Well, then, please say what became of that babe, and what becomes of millions of such, dying without any sort or profession of baptism? And will you also say, in the case of your Jewess, what would have become of her, had a sudden spasm of the heart taken her out of life, ere even the water of sprinkling could be had?

I shall be happy to make public any becoming reply you may please to send, not exceeding in length

this letter.

Wishing you every real blessing in time and in eternity. DAVID KING.

Intelligence of Churches, etc.

MEETING OF DISCIPLES IN CALIFORNIA. The State Meeting was held in a grove three miles from Woodland. A more beautiful spot I never beheld, shaded as it was by magnificent oaks. I found scores of friends at work, building tents of plank, enclosing a square of about two hundred feet to a side. In the centre of this square, leaving a space of fifty feet all around, were the arbour and preachers' stand, closely covered with a species of the bulrush family, capable of seating two thousand persons. The entire space of the square formed by the tents was carpeted with sweet-scented straw. It was a sight never to be forgotten when, on the last Sunday of the meeting, I preached to an audience of six thousand persons. The meeting began on Friday, and continued day and night for eleven days. At no time during the meeting were there less than three thousand persons present. Auger wells of pure cold water were on every corner, while a free table was provided, at which the thousands were bountifully fed-over fifteen thousand pounds of meat, ten thousand loaves of bread, three tons of potatoes, four barrels of sugar, a proportionate quantity of coffee, tea, and vegetables. The day before the meeting commenced, trains, regular and special, brought hundreds, while every avenue leading to the ground was crowded with vehicles of every kind bearing the people to the meeting. To meet this large expenditure, the various congregations of the State sent up contributions; besides, a collection is taken up each Lord's day. I saw the treasurer bearing away, in a well-filled two-gallon tin bucket, the contribution of one Lord's day. A number of gold pieces was seen glittering in the pile of silver coin. At seven o'clock a.m. all assemble for prayer, exhortation, and singing. Here, in God's own temple, at almost early dawn, are assembled scores of families. It is at this time we hear from the veterans of the cross; their breathings of heart-felt devotion go out to God for His kind

Observer, Feb. 15, '76.

care through the past night; their earnest exhortations melt our hearts to tenderness, and suffuse our eyes with tears; while the rich, full-toned, inspiring songs fill us with joy unspeakable, and cause us to think of the music of the skies. At 8-30 breakfast is announced, and the assembled hundreds gather around the bountifully supplied tables. At 9-30 the Convention assembles. Here is a regular order of business-reports from the churches, reports from preachers of their work, and other matters of interest are presented. The wants of destitute localities are made known, the triumphs of the Gospel are told, and we are made acquainted with the spiritual condition of every locality in the State. At 11 o'clock, preaching; then a short recess before preaching again. At 3 p.m., dinner. At 4-30, Convention. At 7-30, preaching. Now is presented the grandest sight I ever beheld. Large window sashes, filled with glass, constructed so as to form huge lanterns, are placed under the arbour, and these throw a flood of light upon the vast audience; a soul-stirring sermon is preached; and when the song of invitation commences, the notes rolling from more than a thousand mouths, there come sinners to confess their faith in the Christ; the warm embrace; the cordial hand-shaking; the tears, smiles, prayers-the scene is indescribable, and I leave it to the imagination of the reader. For some time after the audience is dismissed, many linger to sing; singing is also heard in many of the tents; and, anon, the ear catches the words of prayer rising above the notes of song. At 10-30 the stentorian voice of Bro. MeCorkle is heard, penetrating every nook and corner of the encampment. "All must now retire and go to sleep." In a few minutes the stillness of the grave is over the camp-ground. But the hour of parting comes. Words of encouragement are given; prayers for God's preserving care are offered; the song,

My Christian friends in bonds of love,

is sung; sobs of grief are heard; tears flow; the parting hand is given; farewell is uttered, and the State Meeting is at an end. The immediate result, as to conversions, was the adding of some seventy persons to the Church. What eternity may unfold, God only knows. B. H. SMITH.

CHICAGO, ILL-I have just closed a great work in BUCHANAN MICHIGAN, after three weeks' continuous preaching, thrice each day, with 226 accessions, 212 by confession of Christ and immersion. This is the greatest meeting in its immediate result, for the time spent, all my life. I held a meeting in Lebanon, Ohio, a few years ago, which continued eight weeks, with 252 additions, but not so large a proportion by confession and baptism, as several were reclaimed. This last meeting at Buchanan surpasses any of my former meetings in another respect. I had never taken more than twenty-five confessions at one invitation before this. On New Year's Day there were thirty-six, and twenty-eight of these made confession at one call. "Praise the Lord." To the Editor E. O., in Christian love, thy fellow worker. KNOWLE SHAW.

DETROIT, MICHN.-Please send E. O. for 1876. I may say that I rejoice to find the good cause progressing with you, and still more that you are cleaving firmly to the Old Paths, and not led away by the

popular schemes that are turning so many into the ways of the world in this country. I am thankful to say that the church meeting in Plum Street, in this city, is content to take the Bible alone for its guide, and to reject the ways of "retrogression," which are misleading so many around us. Though I have been nearly thirty years in this country, I still have a strong yearning after the welfare of the brethren in the old land. P. C. GRAY.

STATISTICS OF THE DISCIPLES IN PENNSYLVANIA. -The returns are for the year 1875, and showchurches ninety, preachers seventy; churches with weekly preaching twenty-six, and with fortnightly thirty-three, and without regular preaching nineteen; total membership 8,149; baptisms 972; whole number of additions 1,201. An increase of nearly fifteen per cent. during the year. In the Sunday schools there are 5,722 children and 626 teachers. School libraries contain 7,932 books. A number of churches in the States have failed to report, and, consequently, the numbers given fall short of the actual facts.

BAPTISM AT TWENTY-MILE CREEK, BEYOND JORDAN, CANADA.-We had gathered at the close of the day to attend again to the ordinance of baptism. The afternoon was stormy. All nature seemed to wear a gloom. Tired and fatigued we stood at the water's brink. A goodly number were in attendance. In our address we referred not only to the necessity of attending to this one injunction, but also to every thing that God has commanded. We then passed into the cold stream, leading a widowed sister, and burying her beneath the silent wave, that she might arise to walk in newness of life. Not a word was spoken; all was hushed in sweet and quiet rest. The next one that came into the water was a young lady, the wife of a sailor who had just arrived from Michigan, and as she was raised from the emblematic grave, our friends burst forth in sweet strains, singing:

We are coming, we are coming,
Blessed Jesus at thy call.

As we were leaving the water some of the children were heard to say, "When we get older we will be baptized too." A father said to two of his children who were among those that made the remark, "You have been baptized!" The children immediately responded by saying, "We have only been sprinkled and that is not baptism." May God enable them to carry out their resolutions by coming early in life to the Saviour, and then by leading a holy life, they'll safely anchor in the blissful port, over the river beyond the tide. W. K. BURR.

AMERICAN BAPTISTS.-The organ of the Publication Society has given particulars not yet published in but prepared for, the American Baptist Year Book. It seems they have 925 Baptist Associations, of which over one-third have neglected to send Statistics for the Year Book. The Baptisms reported are 87,874. If we suppose an equal proportion to the churches which have not reported the total for exceeds 100,000. The total membership, counting the churches not reporting the same as last year, 1,815,300; being an apparent increase of 54,129. But certain others called Anti-mission Associations are not counted. With these added, the increase would be 95,583. This of course only shows a part of the year's immersions in