Observer, Oct. 1, '75. able to its successful workings than could be found in old priest-ridden places. 2. On p. 328 we read: "Baptism for Remission, the favourite watchword with some of us; that trio of words which is supposed to represent and include all we have to tell the world, is, to say the least, likely to be misconstrued; besides, standing alone, as it is sometimes made to do, it is unscriptural." We are afraid that persons not with us will not understand this passage in the only sense in which it is admissible. "Baptism for Remission" is not a favourite watchword with us as a people; nor is it a watchword at all. Most likely there can be found one here and there, making too frequent use of the doctrine of baptism. But these cases are few. Read our books, periodicals, and tracts; hear our Evangelists and teachers generally, and we deny that there is any ground whatever to justify the supposition that this "trio of words" represent and include "all we have to tell the world." But on the same page we read: “I cannot conceive of a greater injury that could be done to our cause than that the ordinance of baptism should be taken out of its proper place and if the use of the phrase, to which I have alluded, should in any measure tend in this direction, then I think it not so obviously and essentially Scriptural as to forbid our adopting some other form of speech to express the truth on this subject." Now whatever danger there may be of getting wrong in the direction in which our author is looking, there is constant danger of going into error by making too little of baptism, and that, too, in our own ranks. Our young members and the children of members hear so constantly, from religionists around, that which tends to represent baptism as without any purpose and to subvert it, that if we only speak of it in the proportion required among the first Christians, where the like perverting influences had no existence we shall fall short of the requirements of our time, and see our youth, and others also, drifting off to unauthorized sects. Then as to the intimation that the author thinks the phrase Baptism for Remission," is not so obviously and essentially Scriptural as to forbid our adopting some other form of speech to express the truth on this subject. These three words, thus and alone, never occur in Scripture. But the idea is clearly there. Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins" directly associates the removal, remission, or washing away of sins with baptism; and that without naming either faith or repentance. Of course their existence is supposed; and the like holds when we say "Baptism for Remission." Then we have Repentance and Baptism, for the remission of sins, preached on Pentecost. Faith though not named is implied. Faith, repentance and baptism, are precursory, and each is for, or in order to, remission. If we say Faith for Remission we are right. If we say Repentance for Remission we are also right. If we say Baptism for Remission, we are equally right; though if we add only in the one case, or in the other, we pervert the way of the Lord. As to adopting this or that "form of speech." We urge the adoption of the entire Jerusalem vocabulary. Every form of expression in the New Testament is needed, and the whole are requisite to the best and most complete statement of the truth. If feeling impels us to avoid any Scriptural phrase or idea, then, depend upon it, there is something wrong, not in the word, not in the idea, but in us. 66 Observer, Oct. 1, 75. But let it not be thought that we suppose the writer of the paper defective in understanding the place and meaning of baptism, nor that we deem him inclined to suppress the truth. Far otherwise! We are only concerned as to the use some persons may make of his words, having in mind that, of late, we have heard of an instance or so of making light of baptism by such preaching and teaching as may well suit union-evangelistic operations; leaving convicted sinners uninformed as to where, with certainty, they may secure the remission of sins. The Christian Standard, now to hand, opportunely supplies an excellent article on "Baptism into Christ," a reprint of which the reader will find at the close of these notes. 66 3. On union in "Christian Effort" the affirms that, paper so long as we are all permitted to speak out all we feel bound to say, we may associate in Christian work with others." In the same paragraph this work is designated" direct Christian effort." The "others" refers clearly to persons or associations which are held as not entitled to the Christian designation. This conclusion we cannot accept. It appears to us, that "direct Christian effort" can only be consistently engaged in with those whose Christian standing is admitted. Associated Christian work is for Christian people and Christian churches only. Others associate to do part of that work. We forbid them not, but leave them to do all the good they can, while we rejoice in all the good they do. Still we leave them to the Lord both as to their useful labour and their false standing. We cannot unite with them without seeming to endorse their position, nor without helping to perpetuate their false standing. 66 The saving clause, in the sentence quoted, is worth little or nothing. To claim permission to speak out all we feel bound to say, would, as intimated, shut us out from co-operation with nearly all the so-called Christian Sects, even the more advanced of them. It would certainly do so with those of us who feel bound to speak out all we ought to say. But union with unauthorized sects, in direct Christian effort, even with the freedom referred to, is fraught with more danger to us than with good to them. Depend upon it some among us would soon feel bound to speak out" but very little distinctive truth needful to a fair exhibition of the church of Christ; while most of us would at times be strongly tempted to guilty silence, or to toning down apostolic testimony. These union efforts, now more than usually fashionable, seem, in a number of instances, to lower the moral conditions of certain of their adherents. An instance of this is to hand. Recently the Pittsburgh Methodist Conference met in a city in which there are several churches taking no name but that of Christ. One of our brethren of that city writes to the Christian Standard thus:-"On Lord's day the Methodist preachers occupied all our pulpits. In the evening one of them prayed in our pulpit that all the congregation might be baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire. Some of us were moved with pity for the man, others with indignation. I am at a loss to know whether to feel pity towards him, because I do not know whether he did it in ignorance or defiance. Can scarcely excuse him either way. Our people are numerous in these parts, and generally have the faculty of making themselves understood, and a preacher of any other body must be wilfully blind who does not know that we do not believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit as they Observer, Oct. 1, '75. pray for it. The preacher who is ignorant of our teaching on this question is too ignorant to be trusted by his brethren in our circle, for he will certainly bring reproach upon them. If he knew our views, and knowingly offended, the case is worse, and he is too coarse to be allowed to enter anybody's pulpit. A man who will wilfully trample upon the feelings of others must be gross. He who enters, by invitation, the pulpit of another church and thrusts his party dogma upon the people whose hospitality he enjoys has not the spirit that belongs to the true minister. I do not remember that such a bold offence as this was ever committed in my hearing, but nothing is more common than for the Methodist preachers to repeat this thing in their prayers in our union or mixed meetings. Where we meet on common ground, and have equal rights, they will constantly thrust this objectionable thing upon us, ignoring our view and teaching and disregarding our feelings. How would it do for us to retaliate by following such a prayer by another in which we pray God to make all the congregation willing to repent and be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins; that they may submit to be buried with the Lord by baptism? That they, like the Corinthians, might be impressed with the need of going forth, as Ananias, to say to the penitent believers, 'why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.' What a stir it would make! Would they not cry out! Would they not say he is thrusting his sectarianism upon us? Would they not call it unfair, unchristian, coarse, ungentlemanly? Well we think so, too. But is it any worse when the shoe is on the other foot? I do not suppose we ever had a preacher so discourteous, uncivil and disrespectful as to offend them with his peculiar views while occupying, by invitation, their pulpit." The words thus quoted are signed by E. L. Frazier. He seems to write like a man of wide experience, and openly advocates shameful time-serving. Apostolic doctrine in the very terms of Scripture are called our "peculiar views," and he does not suppose that we ever had a preacher so uncivil as not to withhold them when filling sectarian pulpits. Methodist preachers are to occupy our chapels and we are to take part with them in union meetings, and the very thing above all others they believe to be desirable, for the spiritual good of Christians and the salvation of sinners, they are forbidden to pray for on pain of denunciation, in the public prints, as coarse fellows who should be thrust out of decent society, and that, too, by people claiming to restore Primitive Christianity in faith and practice. We do not receive the judgment of E. L. Frazier as to preaching brethren in America. We cannot doubt but that there are many who would speak out all that he cites as constituting the preacher unchristian and ungentlemanly, or who, not feeling at liberty, so to do, would refuse to occupy a sectarian pulpit or to take part in a union meeting. But these union meetings, without exception, wherever we have seen them, are cast in such a mould as to tend to the production of the craven spirit which animates him. Let the church do its own work, and leave others to do whatever good they can. If this course does not suit any liberal brother, who may read these remarks, let him produce New Testament precept or example for combining with unauthorized associations in direct Christian work; or let him relinquish the plea for Apostolic sanction as the ground of his faith and practice. Observer, Oct. 1, '75. 4. Our Annual Meetings. p. 331, presents an uncalled for alternative and may possibly exert injurious influence. It reads: "We had much better sacrifice our pleasant and useful Annual Gatherings than that they should have a tendency to narrow us into a sect, or that they should be utilized for settling differences which never can be healed by resolutions, and which, as a general rule, can only be mended by those who have caused them." Now we are free to affirm that the Annual Meeting, as now constituted, has no tendency whatever in the direction, intimated. Certainly it cannot be said (as the writer put's it) that, “In drawing our line, as we seem to do, in our published list, it has come to be regarded as a line of fellowship." The churches do not so view it. If there are individuals who do so they are few indeed, and quite inexcusable. The constitution of the co-operation is most explicit. It does not limit the number of Christian churches in this country to those upon its list; it declares that its declining to place a church thereon leaves any church at full liberty, both as to fellowship and labour, in reference to the omitted church, and that its action only relates to the special evangelistic operations this co-operation is intended to promote. When the progress of evangelization is obstructed by contention between two churches, or parties claiming to be churches, the Annual Meeting has passed resolutions recommending them to endeavour themselves to settle the difference, and failing that to select for themselves disinterested brethren whose decision shall be final. In this there is no tendency to the formation of a sect, in any sense of the word. 66 5. The communion question, on page 333 is described as the most difficult and the greatest hindrance." Though the writer declines to give judgment on the question, and withholds the expression of " any conclusion at which he may have arrived" (which we think he should not have withheld), he does not leave us in doubt as to his understanding of our duty, as churches of Christ, toward the unbaptized; we are not to furnish to them the means to commune with the church in the Breaking of the Bread. At least, so we understand him. Not that this conclusion is stated, on the page now under notice, as clearly as we could desire. There he says, "If it were a question of the adoption of this practice [furnishing to unbaptized persons the bread and wine] by the churches represented at this meeting, I would have no difficulty in urging, that we would have no hesitation in deciding that it is our safety to abide by Apostolic tradition." The only point upon which our brother hesitates is, whether we should refuse to acknowledge associations that do allow the unbaptized to commune. He says we must weigh well the grounds of our decision and the consequences to which it leads. Now we do not like the word "safety" as employed in the foregoing. It is more than our safety to abide by Apostolic tradition ; it is absolute duty so to do. If in this thing our abiding by Apostolic tradition is not of the nature of duty in nothing else can it be proved to be so, and the fundamental plea of our reformation dissolves like the baseless fabric of a vision. Nor can we admit that, in deciding cases of this kind, we must look well at the consequences. Consequences should be left to God. We have nothing to do with them but to suffer them. Most of the elements of the Apostacy come from looking to consequences. One of old put forth his hand to stay the falling ark. Observer, Oct. 1, '75. He was looking to consequences, but the Lord punished him by death. We have to obey the Law of God and leave results to Him. If we bandage our eyes with the fear of greatly reduced numbers then we become much less likely to discern the path marked out by the Lord. We feel impelled to say this much, not because we fear that the writer of the paper is going wrong, but owing to a tendency, here and there, to draw from doubtful expressions more than their author intends. Turning to another page we find a clear intimation of our duty in regard to the Lord's table, and an out-spoken testimony against those who depart from that duty. Page 327 reads: "The remarkable success of our cause, in the great American Republic, has brought with it responsibilities and trials, and, in some instances the brethren have been tempted above what they were able to bear. The consequence is that we have to mourn over a measure of departure from the primitive times, for example, in the introduction of a species of open communion be sure the same temptation is before us, and it will be our wisdom to take timely warning. Let us guard against the insiduous influence of time-serving policy; it may promise us many favours, but it will pay us with counterfeit coin." With these words we shall conclude for the present, because we can scarcely close with anything better. Other matters growing out of the Meeting in Glasgow claim notice and, should time and circumstances favour, we may turn to them in our next. ED. BAPTISM INTO CHRIST. AS IT is common with some to depreciate, from various motives, the institution of baptism, it may be useful to present a few thoughts upon the position assigned to it in Scripture. It is not left to men to fix either the absolute or the relative value of the different parts of the remedial economy. Certain it is, that nothing can be trivial which appertains to so grave a matter as the redemption of mankind; nor is it to be supposed that anything redundant or superfluous has been connected with a system of salvation devised by infinite wisdom and love. It is by reverently considering the emphasis placed by the Holy Spirit Himself upon any particular part of this system, that we may alone learn to estimate, in some measure, its importance. It is usually admitted that the frequency with which a significant word occurs in the New Testament, indicates the importance of the thing it represents. This being so, then certainly for this reason, if for no other, baptism should claim the most earnest attention. For, though, in primitive times, there was no controversy on the subject of baptism which could occasion a frequent recurrence of the term, we find it literally employed no less than eighty-two times; while to these may be added at least twenty metaphorical references, making, in all, about one hundred distinct notices of the institution of baptism. It cannot be supposed for a moment that a matter so often brought into view in the original promulgation of the Gospel, may now be safely passed by in silence, or treated with indifference. It is worthy of note, moreover, that baptism is one of the very first things presented to us in the record of Christ's mission. In what Mark |