learned deists there cannot be found one, versed in the Greek language, who would hazard his reputation by denying its correctness." APOSTOLIC PREACHING. ONE of the main objections urged against the preaching of the disciples So far our eminent brother. In of Christ is," They are water preachaddition to his unanswered, and (con-ers." Will those of our friends who sidering his opponents, we may ven- make such an objection, consider and ture to say) unanswerable solution of receive the following apology? the difficulty, and exposure of the First. No person can preach and too-common perversion of this text, teach the nations as Christ commandI will merely add, that the Church ofed the apostles to teach them, without England is with him here. Dean preaching baptism (Mat. xxviii. 19.) Tucker says 66 :- Our translation of Now did the apostles baptize the nathis passage is a little ambiguous; tions, without teaching them the docand many people have unhappily trine of baptism? If so, it was the concluded from it, that faith is the baptism of ignorance, and not baptism gift of God—a gift, I mean, in some into the name of the Father, of the peculiar sense - such a gift as is not Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Bapvouchsafed to mankind in general, tism, as it stands in the commission like the gift of reason or any other of the Lord, is an elementary item of common blessing; but is appropriated Christian doctrine; and, until he is only to the select few, who are thereby taught the meaning of that item, no enabled to lay hold on Christ, while one can become a disciple of Christ. all the rest of their brethren are ne- Pædobaptists may make disciples cessarily lost for want of it. Now without such teaching, but the Aposthis is a very great mistake, for the tles did not. Scriptures contain no such assertion; and the words of the text in particular say nothing about any kind of faith as a gift of God, but refer wholly to another matter. The assertion of the Apostle is plainly this:-That salvation by grace is the gift of God; that it is not of ourselves, or to be derived from any works of ours, lest any man should boast. This is the substance of the doctrine, and the original Greek can signify nothing else. But as to faith, that is mentioned only as the means, or an instrument of obtaining the salvation here declared." And Bishop Tomline says, "The Apostle here intended to declare, that salvation by grace, through faith, is not derived from man, but is the free gift of God, through faith in Christ." J. DAVIES. There is nothing more appreciated than character-religious, moral, and political; but most of all religious character. This being right, the others cannot be greatly astray. Second. It is impossible to preach the gospel as Christ commanded the apostles, without preaching baptism in order to salvation (Mark xvi. 1516.) "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved" is a part of the gospel to be preached and obeyed in order to salvation. He who preaches the gospel without preaching baptism for salvation, preaches without a promise; and he who believes the gospel, without believing in baptism for salvation, believes without a promise. The gospel, apart from personal application, is no gospel; and the gospel in its application is, "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." We cannot, therefore, preach the gospel without preaching baptism; and we cannot believe the gospel without believing in baptism. Third. We have no authority for preaching repentance, as did the apostles, without preaching baptism for the remission of sins (Acts ii. 38.) Repentance in the abstract is not the Seventh. We cannot tell a believing penitent sinner what to do in order to the washing away of his sins, as did Christ and Ananias, without preaching baptism (Acts xvii. 16.) Saul, though the subject of three mi vision of Ananias, and the restoration of his sight-was nevertheless to obey the command of Christ by Ananias, which was, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." repentance preached by the apostles. It is association that gives to it its importance. Baptism in the name of Christ, for the remission of sins, is one of its interesting associations. Faith and repentance united are perfected in baptism, as Abraham's faith was per-racles the vision of Christ, the fected in the offering up of his son Isaac. Fourth. We cannot preach Christ as Philip preached him to the Samaritans and to the eunuch, without preaching baptism (Acts viii.) To preach Jesus Christ to sinners, leaving out baptism, is to preach Him indefinitely, and to leave the sinner in doubt; but when Christ is preached in connection with baptism, we place the sinner in a condition to be baptized, and to go on his way rejoicing. When we so preach Christ, and speak of the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus, then the people are prepared to believe and to be baptized, "both men and women." Fifth. We cannot tell the people words whereby they can be saved, as Peter did the Gentiles, without preaching baptism (Acts x.) The vision of an angel, and the baptism of the Spirit, did not release Peter from the necessity of commanding the Gentiles to be baptized in the name of the Lord, nor secure to them salvation without obedience to his words. Now if neither angels nor tongues prevented Peter from preaching baptism in his first discourse to the Gentiles, why should we be blamed for preaching baptism to those who neither see angels, nor speak with tongues? Sixth. We cannot speak the word of the Lord as Paul spoke it to Lydia and the gaoler, without preaching baptism (Acts xvi.) Baptism was a part of the word of the Lord which they believed and obeyed; and so important was it in the salvation of the gaoler and his family, that it was attended to the same hour of the night." How unlike the preachers of this age, whose discourses present no similar doctrine to the people! 66 : Christ and Paul, Luke and Ananias, stand before us in the Sacred Record, commanding us to go and do likewise for the gospel is "the power of God to the salvation of every one who believes it." Shall we not do as commanded? Shall we suffer ourselves to be frightened out of the path which right, duty, and our own senses teach us to be the true one, by the sectarian cry of "Water, water ?" Certainly not. We would say to all our brethren, What think you of these things? If you cannot preach the gospel, repentance, or Christ-if you cannot tell the words of salvation, nor direct the sinner what to do for the washing away his sins, as did Christ, the Apostles, and Evangelists, without preaching baptism, what course will you pursue? Will you preach as Heaven commands, or will you preach "another gospel?" Before you determine upon this question, ponder the awful sentence," If we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel, let him be accursed." PREACHER. MISAPPLICATIONS OF WHEN passages of Scripture are wrested from their proper textual meaning, and applied to purposes at variance with their original design, they may properly be designated as misapplications of the word of God. All who fear God, and reverence his word, will agree that such a practice is fraught with mischievous results to man, and therefore ought to be studiously avoided by the disciple of Jesus. We are frequently and earnestly cautioned against the danger of perverting the Scriptures to our own destruction, or that of others. We shall notice, on this occasion, two passages which appear to us to be frequently misapplied. 1. "To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isa. viii. 20.) more This passage is frequently applied to persons who, it is known, read the Bible as regularly, and even regularly, than those by whom they are condemned as "having no light in them," and who, it cannot be denied, are in part enlightened in a knowledge of the person, office, and character of the Son of God, as well as of the nature and morality of his religion. May we not indulge a hope that there are many, in the present day, who, like Cornelius, are devout persons, "who fear God, give much alms to the people, and pray to God always," but who, nevertheless, do not follow the Lord fully? Can it be true of such, and would it be a proper application regarding them, to say that they have no light in them?" We think not. No class of teachers were more obnoxious to the Great Lawgiver of Israel than those denominated "necromancers," having familiar spirits, known also by the appellations of witches, wizards, &c. ; such as mutter things in the dark from their own imaginations. The command given to the Israelites was, that all such should be stoned to death (Lev. xx. 27, Deu. xviii. 10-12.) Now it was to this description of teachers, who rejected the Bible altogether, that the Prophet Isaiah applied the passage in question. "When they say unto you, seek unto them that have familiar spirits, to necromancers, and unto wizards that peep and mutter should not a people seek unto their God? Should they seek for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony let them seek if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is not light in them" (19-20.) Can this passage be applied indiscriminately to personsin the present age? We think not. 2. "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one" (Job xiv. 4.) From this passage, and several of a similar character, (Job xxv. 4, xv. 14-16) the following sophistical deductions have been recently put forth : "This view of sin in the flesh is enlightening in the things concerning Jesus. The apostle says that he made him sin for us who knew no sin; and this he explains in another place by saying, that he sent his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, in the offering of his body once. Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus, if it had not existed there. His body was as unclean as the bodies of those for whom he died; for he was born of a woman, and 'not one' can bring a clean body out of a de filed body; for that which is born of the flesh is flesh. According to this physical law, the seed of the woman was born into the world. The nature of Mary was as unclean as that of other women, and therefore could give birth only to a body like her own. Sin is a synonyme for human nature."-Elpis Israel, page 114. It is true that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among men ;" and that the apostles, with some other of their brethren, beheld his glory, as the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." It is true, also, that Mary was his mother; but it is equally true that God was his father, and not Joseph, as some suppose. Yes! the Redeemer of the world condescended to become bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, that he might present a sin-offering on our behalf. Divine as well as human, his was a glorified existence prior to entering our world. Hence his prayer, to be glorified with "that glory which he had with his Father before the world was." Great, indeed," is the mystery of godliness, God manifest in flesh." But it is not true, when applied to Jehovah, that a clean thing cannot be brought out of that which is unclean. It is His prerogative to bring light out of darkness, truth out of error, purity out of impurity, and life out of death! Were it otherwise, how could a congregation, purified and redeemed from this guilty and polluted world, be presented glorious, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing? We can see no reason why the body of Jesus, though born of a woman, might not be as pure as the body of Adam, when first created out of the dust of the ground. But if, as the same author and many others teach, death had prevailed for ages before the creation of Adam, then the earth must have been polluted, for death is the wages of sin. Yet Adam, moulded from the dust of the ground by the plastic hands of the Divine Creator, was presented to an admiring universe, spotless and pure as the angels in heaven. And why not the body of the second Adam, proceeding from the womb of a virgin? "That holy thing," said the angel to Mary, "which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." The body itself, although voluntarily surrendered up to death as a sacrifice for sin, was incorruptible. It could not be held under the power and dominion of death. He saw no corruption. Nothing impure could possibly emanate from the Divine Being. J. W. CORRESPONDENCE. TO WILLIAM TURNER, KING-STREET, LEIGH. SIR,-In the "Harbinger" of January 1, 1850, I see your letter to William Martin, of Bowden, chairman at a meeting at the Free Trade Hall, Manchester, respecting the three expelled ministers of the Wesleyan connection. I noticed some of your remarks with much interest and pleasure. In the first particular, I wish to remark, your advice of recommending the Bible as the only sure rule and guide for the members of the church of Christ; and next lay aside all" isms," &c. and live in the unity of the Spirit, which is the bond of peace, for Jesus is the Prince of Peace. You notice briefly the character, in high terms, of the late John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. Here I wish to add, that the venerable Wesley, in his day, was, I may say, honored by the Lord, in opening the eyes of thousands who sat in darkness, and turning them from the power or to remark, which you fully admit of the above influence of Satan to God. And I here wish Wesley, that the gospel he preached and taught was the joy of your heart for 25 years; this you confessed in public and out. Now, Sir, I am somewhat astonished that you, as a preacher for 20 years, should say (for it must be by your own acknowledgment) that the whole time you were laboring in darkness, and teaching a gospel you did not know; for you say that a few years ago you begun to think on baptism, and that you have been immersed. Now Wesley salvation, neither did the Apostle Paul. For, says he, when writing to the church at Corinth, on the subject of baptism, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach;" and his commission was certainly to us Gentiles. Are did, and as I have stated, the Lord honored we, then, to believe him? I believe Wesley him. Now if these two great and good men were honored of the Lord by preaching "Repentance toward God, and faith in the Lord to know by grace the pardoning love of God, I Jesus Christ," and thousands of sinners brought am really astonished when I see your statement in the letter, being and experiencing 20 years a preacher and teacher in the church of Christ, you did not state fully the doctrines you held, not fully acquainted with them. Should you or what you taught for the 20 years. I am feel at liberty at any time to explain yourself, and publish the same in the “ Harbinger,” Í should take pleasure in the perusal, as a friend is so kind as to lend me a copy occasionally. If I now understand you aright, you mean to did not stickle for immersion with adults for say that immersion is salvation. Now I am not of such a way of thinking: therefore your faith and mine do not agree here, for it is written, "The day that thou seekest me with thy whole heart I will be found of thee, saith the Lord." And again, "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted." It is possible, which I fully admit, that there may be in the best of men a little error in judgment on minor matters, but in essentials I cannot but think that if a good man is led by the spirit of Christ, he will be led into all truth which is essential to salvation. Wesley says, By thy unerring spirit led, We shall not in the desert stray." How so? For, saith the Lord, "A new heart will I give them, and I will write my laws thereon, and they shall be my people, and I will be their God." So I think these few texts which I have quoted may be the leading doctrines taught by the late Wesley. I say I do not fully understand you, therefore, if you were in error for the 20 years, what you preach ed. I admire your mode of calling your friend but in essentials I cannot but think that if a good William Martin-or any other person, when a man is led by the spirit of Christ, he will be reformation, as on the present occasion amongst led into all truth essential to salvation." the Wesleyans, or any other religious body, is Essentials and non-essentials are not to be required to the Bible alone. You say, I hope found in the Christian dispensation. There you will bear with me when I say, to the New are no such words in the Bible, as I am aware, Testament, and to it alone, for the government of such an idea. To entertain such a sentiof the church of Christ. The Old Testament ment would be a reflection on the wisdom and says that Aaron and his line should be reserved benevolence of God, who has not given one unfor the priestly office, and that they should have necessary precept, nor made one unnecessary no land allotted for them, but that their work promise. Those who have a right to the tree was constantly at the altar, and that the offer- of life are they who do all his commandments ings of the people, tithes, &c. would support (Rev. xxii. 14.) I know there are non-essenthem. The New (Jesus) says, "Take neither tials in Methodism, but not in Christianity. purse nor scrip," &c.; and Paul says, "He that For instance, a person may be a member of will not work, neither let him eat." Now, Sir, society who has not been sprinkled nor imas I take you to be a reasonable, thinking man, mersed either in infancy or in riper years, (I when taking into account your standing as a have known such ;) but a person cannot be a public way-mark for about 30 years, how is Christian, now in the kingdom of God, till he this state of things? Are the people more to is born of water and of the spirit (John iii. blame, or the priests? Now I say that Christ 3-5.) In Methodism it is not essential at all must have left an ample copy in the New Tes- that a man should have his sins forgiven in tament for a perfect body, as laid down by him- order to his becoming a member of society. self and his apostles, for the government of his There are tens of thousands who testify that. church. I fully admit with you, that the Not so in Christianity: every member of the priests are making fearful work, not only in the new covenant has his sins forgiven, and the Wesleyan body, but in all other churches. As law of the Lord written upon his heart (Heb. therefore, as I have observed, you have been so viii. 8-13.) long standing in the church, you will please give a little fuller development, for you know it is vritten," He who feedeth a flock, eateth of the milk of it; or who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof ?" I will leave these few questions for your consideration; you will, of course, answer them at your leisure. I remain, A LOVER OF TRUTH. TO AN UNKNOWN "LOVER OF In Methodism it is not essential that the members of the society should sit down at the Lord's table, and commemorate the Lord's death till he come: I doubt whether one half of the Methodist societies sit down at the Lord's table once in three months, and not a few never in the whole course of their lives. But the Saviour says, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (John vi. 48-59.) I think you will see, from these observations, that there is a great disparity between Methodism and Christianity: for no person can deny that these things exist. It may be optional SIR,-A short time since I received a letter with you as a Methodist whether you attend to from you signed "A Lover of Truth," and de- certain duties or not-whether you add a little siring an answer to several questions. It to, or leave a little out, just to accommodate would have been much better to have given yourself to the spirit of the age; but as a your name, but you promise to do this in your Christian, if you add to or take away, God will next, if required. I need not tell you that add to you the plagues of his book (Rev. xxii. every man wishes to know who his antagonist 18-19.) is, that he may know what kind of shot to prepare for him. You refer to a letter which I published in the January number of the " Harbinger," to William Martin, and you say you are astonished that I did not say what I preached when I was a Methodist preacher, and what I preach now as a Christian. I tell you now, that you may not be astonished any longer. J preached Methodism"-true Wesleyanism, as taught by John Wesley in his notes on the New Testament, and his four volumes of sermons; but now I preach the ancient gospel, as taught by Jesus and his inspired Apostles. 'You say that in the best of men there may be a little error in judgment in minor matters, You falsely accuse me, by insinuating, "that I mean to say that immersion is salvation." I do not say any such thing. God has not said so, and I have no authority to say it. But God says that in old time, the saints at Rome were planted into Christ by being buried with Christ in baptism (Rom. vi, 1-5); and Paul tells us the Galatians were put into Christ (not under some powerful eloquent sermon, nor at some prayer meeting, nor at a penitent bench, nor in a dream, as I have heard some state) by being baptized into Christ (Gal. iii. 23.) You say your faith does not correspond with mine. It is well for you that I am not the standard; but does it correspond with God's |