Elementary Truth

      NOW these are two distinct lines of truth; the one, which is the power of God, for the conscience; the other, which is the wisdom of God, for the spiritual mind. Christ comprises both. The apostle says, "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect", etc. Now to the wisdom the babes in Christ should be gently led on; but the power, what the grace of God is in dealing with a ruined sinner, ought to be within the comprehension of the true-hearted, however young in the school. Nevertheless it will be found, in daily converse with souls, that even this, elementary though it be, is very feebly apprehended; nay, that the divine idea in renewing a soul is seldom or never laid hold of; and if this be not laid hold of there can be no correct or adequate conception of what new birth is. I believe it is at the very foundation that the real cause of weakness in souls is to be found. And one of the evidences of how the will is in this weakness -- for it is nothing but the flesh -- is the obduracy and slowness of souls to lay hold of God's idea in sending His Son to bless them. If you ask believers in general what they consider is elementary, you will find that it is something which is to contribute to man as man is. Now the grace of God begins entirely outside, reveals His Son in me. I am daily more convinced that the reason why souls call God's idea - and, blessed be His name, His accomplished purpose, that He has given us eternal life in His Son -- 'high truth', is because they do not want to cease conferring with flesh and blood.

      Surely our Lord's wondrous words in John 4 as to the "gift of God" were elementary; or, at least, He considered that they were not above the reach of the poor, ignorant, and abandoned woman of Samaria; yet if such truth were insisted on in the present day, there is no doubt that all who desire to gratify their reputable tastes and foster their ambition, would designate it 'high truth'. It was the definiteness of God's idea for man that our blessed Lord then enunciated: "Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst, but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life". thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in this day, though most elementary; and, to the true hearted soul, it will always be with the voice of the Son of God.

      Souls like forgiveness to be preached, and they like to enjoy it; and though forgiven, to lie on their beds just as palsied as ever (see Mark 2:8-12), only more comfortably as to conscience, which is quieted by being delivered from the fear of judgement; but they have no idea of what is God's thought for them by the gift of eternal life in His Son, for if they had they would take up their beds and walk. I fear what people call 'high truth' is too often, even as it was with the scribes and Pharisees in our Lord's day, something which they do not wish to understand.

      b) Assurance of Salvation.

      Some declare that it is "presumption "for any one to say that he knows he is saved. All we can do, it is con fidently affirmed, is to "hope" for the "best" and wait until the "great day" to see where we are to spend eternity. But such teaching is not according to God's Word. Christians, in apostolic days, had no doubts about their salvation from sin's penalty. For proof of this let us appeal to Scripture. "We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were disolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heav ens" (2Corinthians 5:1). "We are confident, " we are "always confident" (vv. 6-8). "In Whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins" (Ephesians 1:7). "Being Justified by faith we have peace with God" (Romans 5:1). "We know that we have passed from death unto life" (1John 3:14). "I write unto you little children because your sins are forgiven you, for His Name's sake'" (1John 2:12). If God tells me that by believing on Christ I am forgiven, which is the greater "presump tion," to believe or doubt His testimony? Scripture declares that those who believe on Christ are forgiven. "Whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:43). I believe that Christ bled and suffered and died for me, and according to God's Word, my sins are remitted or pardoned. Am I "presumptuous" in taking Him at His word and believing that I am forgiven? In Acts 13:38-39. it is distinctly stated that "All that believe are justified from all things." I do believe on Christ, and God's Word says I am "Justified from all things." Ought I to doubt my justification, or believe that I am justified because God says so? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31). I do believe on Him Who died on Calvary for all my sins, and according to God's Word, I am saved. Shall I "set to my seal that God is true" and thank Him for salvation, or shall I disbelieve Him and assert that "no one can know that he is saved until the great day"? "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness (or testimony) in him self; he that believeth not the record that God gave of His himself: he that believeth not God hath made Him a liar, because he believeth not the record that God gave of His Son: and this is the record that GOD HATH GIVEN TO US ETERNAL LIFE and this life is in HIS SON: he that hath the Son HATH LIFE and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life" (1John 5:10-11). Scripture says that those who believe on Christ have everlasting life (John 3:16: 6:47). 1 do believe on Him, and therefore I have everlasting life. If I did not believe that I was the poss essor of everlasting life. I would be guilty of the horrid sin of making God a liar, and I dare not commit such a heinous offence.

      "Verily, verily I say unto you," says the Lord Jesus, "he that heareth My Word and believeth on Him that sent Me HATH everlasting life, and SHALL NOT come into condemnation (judgement R.V.), but is PASSED from death unto life" (John 5:24). All who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ are privileged to say "GOD LOVED. GOD GAVE. I BELIEVE, AND I HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE."

      c) Law & Grace.

      All who are under the law break it. and if obedience to it is necessary to eternal life, who can be saved? "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight" (Romans 3:20). God's Word assures us that "He that believeth on the Son hath ever lasting life"(John 3:36; 5:24). Scripture nowhere says that "He that keepeth the 'moral law' shall inherit eternal life." "Eternal life" is a gift and cannot be earned by law-keeping (Romans 6:23). "If righteousness come by the law. Christ is dead in vain" (Galatians 2:21). The law never called on anyone to give all his goods to the poor. That would be loving his neighbour better than himself. If by the "lacy" is meant the expression or communication of the will of the Creator, all things are responsible to obey Him. That will. however. may be expressed at various times and in different ways. The expression of God's will to Adam was different from that given to Noah; and the expression of His will to Abraham was different from that given to Israel. In the case of Adam a single prohibition was sufficient. "Thou shalt not eat" (Genesis 2:17) was his rule of life. This was "law" to him. He transgressed the command, and by it fell. The Christian, in God's reckoning, is no longer in the "flesh" but "in the Spirit" (Romans 8:9), and as a risen man in Christ is exhorted to walk worthy of His calling. "For even here unto were ye called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that ye should follow His steps" (1Peter 2:21). None of the moral principles inculcated by the law will be ignored by the believer. Knowing that he is "Under law to Christ." he desires to walk "even as He walked" (1John 2:6). "The righteousness of the law" will be fulfilled in him (Romans 8:4), not because the law says. "Thou shalt not," but on a much higher footing.

      d) The Two Natures.

      That such expressions as the "old nature" and "new nature" do not occur in Scripture any more than the words "substitution" or "trinity," we frankly admit. The doctrine, however, is clearly and fully unfolded. The believer is viewed in Scripture in two aspects--as a child of Adam and as a child of God. The "nature" he inherits from Adam is incurably bad. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6). The two are not merged in one. They are essentially different, and are opposed to each other. "The mind of the flesh is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" (Romans 8:7, margin). "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other (Galatians 5:16). Sometimes it is asked. "What is saved and sanctified? Not the old nature; it cannot be remedied, they say. Not the new, for it was never lost or defiled: it is perfect and sinless." In reply we would remark that it is not the "nature" that is saved or sanctified. It is the man himself We do not regard either the "old nature" or the "new nature" as the man. "Na ture" and "person" are widely different terms. A man ho was dead in trespasses and sins is the same person now that he is a Christian. It is the man who acts, not his nature;" it is the man who is accountable for his acts, not his nature; it is the man who sins and is the sinner; it is the roan who is pardoned and sanctified.

      Speaking on the subject of regeneration, Dr. Ryle, Bishop of Liverpool, the well-known tract writer, says:-- "It is a new creation. It is the calling into existence of a new creature with a new nature, new habits of life, new tastes, new desires, new appetites, new judgements, new opinions, new hopes and new fears. All this, and nothing less that this, is implied when He declares that we need a new birth." Dr. Baldwin, Bishop of Huron, remarks that, "The old heart will not therefore be re-made or changed. It will continue to the end, the same utterly hostile, corrupt nature that was at the first" ("Life in a Look," p. 39). Dr. James H. Brooks, of St. Louis, writes thus:-- "Do what we will with the nature we receive by birth from the first Adam; improve it, reform it, cultivate it, refine it, baptise it, confirm it, make it join the church, it is still the flesh and it is still enmity against God" ("The Truth," vol. 5, p. 500).

      e) Judgement of Believers.

      A Christian, though in the world, is not of it (John 17:16). He is one with Christ in His rejection (Matthew 10:24), and may expect similar treatment to that which his Master received. He may count on persecution, if faithful to God and the Word of His Grace. "As then, he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now" (Galatians 4:29). He knows that "the friendship of the world is enmity with God; whoso ever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God" (James 4:4). He is promised "tribulation" while in it (John 16:33), and is told that because he has been chosen out of it, the world will hate him (John 15:19). He is exhorted by the mercies of God, not to be conformed to the world (Romans 12:2), but to be separated from it (1John 2:15). He is commanded to "love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1John 2:15). The "Church" and the "world" are contrasted in Scripture, though we often hear professing Christians speaking of the "Christian world" and the "Religious world." All who have not been regenerated by the Holy Spirit compose the "world," whether "religious" or "irreligious," moral or immoral. Some of the unsaved are travelling on the clean side of the "broad road," and others on the dirty side; but both classes are hastening to everlasting perdition. Though there are multitudes of religious professors in these "last days" of this dispen sation, God's people are but a "little flock" (Luke 12:32). Innumerable passages might be quoted which show that the Christian is to be separated from the world. We would however, specially refer to one. "Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers; for what fellowship have right eousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness; and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? Wherefore come ye out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord" (2 Corinthians 6:14-18, R.V.)

      Innumerable attempts have been made to break the force and blunt the edge of this plain and pointed precept. Some have had the hardihood to assert that the injunction does not apply to Christians at the present time that it was a special command given to the believers at Corinth, and is not binding on us. Are we then at liberty to reject those portions of Scripture which do not suit us? Were the epistles to the Corinthians not written for our instruction and guidance? The first epistle is (1Corinthians 1:2) add*ressed not only to the saints at Corinth, but to "All that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's," and in view of those who would detract from the Word Paul, writing by the Holy Spirit, added, "If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (1Corinthians 14:37). The "command" is from the Lord, and is addressed to, and is therefore binding on all Christians. "Believers" are persons who have been born again of the Holy Spirit, and "unbelievers" are those who have never experienced the great change.

      It is maintained by some that the injunction is to be limited to "marriage." Doubtless the marriage of a believer with an unbeliever would be an "unequal yoke." But there are many other "yokes" in addition to the matrimonial one. The Lord does not specify the character or object of the "yoke" but the command is explicit and comprehensive, and applies to anything in which we voluntarily unite with others to attain a common object. A Christian should not marry an unbeliever, nor enter into business partnership with an unbeliever, nor join "societies" or "clubs" with unbelievers, nor enter or continue in church fellowship where known unbelievers are admitted. The child of God should persistently refuse to be "yoked" with the unconverted, whether for matrimonial, commercial, religious, or benevolent pur poses. "What communion hath light with darkness? (verse 14). "Ye were once darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord" (Ephesians 5:8). What "communion" can a child of light have with a child of darkness? At creation God divided the light from the darkness (Genesis 1:4). "What part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" (2Corinthians 6:15). The .word translated "infidel" is the same Greek word that is rendered "unbeliever" in 2Corinthians 6:14. The Revised Version has "unbeliever" in both cases. What fellowship, then, can there be between a believer and an unbeliever? The one is a child of wrath, and the other an heir of Heaven; the one is a friend, the other is an enemy of God (Romans 5:10). Of Israel it was said, "The people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations" (Numbers 23:9). Children of God are a redeem ed people, and it is the divine purpose that they should be consecrated and separated to Himself.

      "But with what subtlety and effrontery Satan op poses." says one, "or seeks to neutralise every precept of the Lord. When pressing this command upon the con sciences of God's children, how constantly is it cast aside with the remark, 'It is impossible to tell who are believers and who are not,' 'the tares and the wheat are to grow together.' 'you are commanded not to judge,' etc., etc., as if the apostle would exhort the saints to a separation that is impossible; as if the tares and the wheat being allowed till the end of the age to grow Together in the world (the field is the world, not the 'Church,' see Matthew 13:38), implies their being yoked together in the Church; as if the command not to judge, implied that the believer was to close his divinely enlightened eyes to the difference between light and darkness, between life and death, between Christ and Belial."

      Again and again we have been grieved and shocked as we have listened to persons telling how they were invit ed, urged and pressed to "join the Church" while unsav ed. On pleading personal unfitness, and suggesting delay they were assured that it was their "duty" to "observe the ordinances," that it was "time" for them to "make a profession of religion," and they were "of age," and So-and-So was "joining." Some have said that they attended the "minister's class" and on answering certain questions satisfactorily as to the facts and doctrines of Scripture, they were admitted into communion. Others have spoken of being "confirmed" by the Bishop, and led to imagine, whilst unconverted, that they were in a fit condition to observe the Lord's Supper. No inquiries were made as to when, where, or how the great change had taken place, or for that part of it, if it had taken place at all. They were received, to use a popular expression,--on their own responsibility." Large numbers of "mem bers" of the various denominations make no profession of being regenerated. If this is doubted, ask the average religious professor how long it is since he was "born again," or "saved" and you will discover the truth of the Statement. In our experience we have found.that the most bitter and determined opposition to plain, searching and awakening preaching comes from unconverted professors, who, while having a "name to live," are spiritually dead.

      f) The Security of the Believer.

      A Christian, though in the world, is not of it (John 17:16). He is one with Christ in His rejection (Matthew 10:24), and may expect similar treatment to that which his Master received. He may count on persecution, if faithful to God and the Word of His Grace. "As then, he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now" (Galatians 4:29). He knows that "the friendship of the world is enmity with God; whoso ever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God" (James 4:4). He is promised "tribulation" while in it (John 16:33), and is told that because he has been chosen out of it, the world will hate him (John 15:19). He is exhorted by the mercies of God, not to be conformed to the world (Romans 12:2), but to be separated from it (1John 2:15). He is commanded to "love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1John 2:15). The "Church" and the "world" are contrasted in Scripture, though we often hear professing Christians speaking of the "Christian world" and the "Religious world." All who have not been regenerated by the Holy Spirit compose the "world," whether "religious" or "irreligious," moral or immoral. Some of the unsaved are travelling on the clean side of the "broad road," and others on the dirty side; but both classes are hastening to everlasting perdition. Though there are multitudes of religious professors in these "last days" of this dispen sation, God's people are but a "little flock" (Luke 12:32). Innumerable passages might be quoted which show that the Christian is to be separated from the world. We would however, specially refer to one. "Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers; for what fellowship have right eousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness; and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? Wherefore come ye out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord" (2 Corinthians 6:14-18, R.V.)

      Innumerable attempts have been made to break the force and blunt the edge of this plain and pointed precept. Some have had the hardihood to assert that the injunction does not apply to Christians at the present time that it was a special command given to the believers at Corinth, and is not binding on us. Are we then at liberty to reject those portions of Scripture which do not suit us? Were the epistles to the Corinthians not written for our instruction and guidance? The first epistle is (1Corinthians 1:2) add*ressed not only to the saints at Corinth, but to "All that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's," and in view of those who would detract from the Word Paul, writing by the Holy Spirit, added, "If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (1Corinthians 14:37). The "command" is from the Lord, and is addressed to, and is therefore binding on all Christians. "Believers" are persons who have been born again of the Holy Spirit, and "unbelievers" are those who have never experienced the great change.

      It is maintained by some that the injunction is to be limited to "marriage." Doubtless the marriage of a believer with an unbeliever would be an "unequal yoke." But there are many other "yokes" in addition to the matrimonial one. The Lord does not specify the character or object of the "yoke" but the command is explicit and comprehensive, and applies to anything in which we voluntarily unite with others to attain a common object. A Christian should not marry an unbeliever, nor enter into business partnership with an unbeliever, nor join "societies" or "clubs" with unbelievers, nor enter or continue in church fellowship where known unbelievers are admitted. The child of God should persistently refuse to be "yoked" with the unconverted, whether for matrimonial, commercial, religious, or benevolent pur poses. "What communion hath light with darkness? (verse 14). "Ye were once darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord" (Ephesians 5:8). What "communion" can a child of light have with a child of darkness? At creation God divided the light from the darkness (Genesis 1:4). "What part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" (2Corinthians 6:15). The .word translated "infidel" is the same Greek word that is rendered "unbeliever" in 2Corinthians 6:14. The Revised Version has "unbeliever" in both cases. What fellowship, then, can there be between a believer and an unbeliever? The one is a child of wrath, and the other an heir of Heaven; the one is a friend, the other is an enemy of God (Romans 5:10). Of Israel it was said, "The people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations" (Numbers 23:9). Children of God are a redeem ed people, and it is the divine purpose that they should be consecrated and separated to Himself.

      "But with what subtlety and effrontery Satan op poses." says one, "or seeks to neutralise every precept of the Lord. When pressing this command upon the con sciences of God's children, how constantly is it cast aside with the remark, 'It is impossible to tell who are believers and who are not,' 'the tares and the wheat are to grow together.' 'you are commanded not to judge,' etc., etc., as if the apostle would exhort the saints to a separation that is impossible; as if the tares and the wheat being allowed till the end of the age to grow Together in the world (the field is the world, not the 'Church,' see Matthew 13:38), implies their being yoked together in the Church; as if the command not to judge, implied that the believer was to close his divinely enlightened eyes to the difference between light and darkness, between life and death, between Christ and Belial."

      Again and again we have been grieved and shocked as we have listened to persons telling how they were invit ed, urged and pressed to "join the Church" while unsav ed. On pleading personal unfitness, and suggesting delay they were assured that it was their "duty" to "observe the ordinances," that it was "time" for them to "make a profession of religion," and they were "of age," and So-and-So was "joining." Some have said that they attended the "minister's class" and on answering certain questions satisfactorily as to the facts and doctrines of Scripture, they were admitted into communion. Others have spoken of being "confirmed" by the Bishop, and led to imagine, whilst unconverted, that they were in a fit condition to observe the Lord's Supper. No inquiries were made as to when, where, or how the great change had taken place, or for that part of it, if it had taken place at all. They were received, to use a popular expression, -on their own responsibility." Large numbers of "mem bers" of the various denominations make no profession of being regenerated. If this is doubted, ask the average religious professor how long it is since he was "born again," or "saved" and you will discover the truth of the Statement. In our experience we have found.that the most bitter and determined opposition to plain, searching and awakening preaching comes from unconverted professors, who, while having a "name to live," are spiritually dead.

      g) The Work of the Holy Spirit.

      Whilst owning that man in his natural state is utterly depraved and unable to do anything to save himself, and that it is the Spirit's work to convict of sin and lead to Christ, we ought to remember that souls are saved, not on account of a work done in hens by the Holy Ghost, but on account of a work done for them by the Lord Jesus eighteen hundred years ago. In all ages the saints of God have had the Spirit, but at Pentecost He was "given" in a special manner. The characteristic of the dispensation of grace is that the Holy Spirit dwells in believers. In past dispensations Old Testament saints could pray, "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me"(Psalm 51:11). Since Pentecost, believers are indwelt by Him; otherwise how can we explain such Scriptures as the following: "The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7:39)? "When the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from My Father" (John 15:26); "If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you" (John 16:7). No unsaved person has the Holy Spirit. The passage in Luke 11:13 has perplexed some: "If ye then being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children; how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him?" The "Com forter" had not then been "given;" the Lord Jesus had not then been "glorified" (John 7:39). Christ has been "glorified." The Holy Spirit has been "given;" and the Christian does not need to pray that he may receive the Holy Spirit, being already indwelt by Him and "sealed until the day of redemption" (Ephesians 4:30); He is the earnest of his inheritance (Ephesians 1:14); his comforter, teacher (John 14:26); helper and guide (Galatians 5:17-18).

      h) The Inspiration of the Scriptures.

      There are three great forces at work today in Christ endom, viz., Romanism, Ritualism and Rationalism. Many who admit that the Bible is a "good book" deny that it is the Word of God. Some say that it is "inspired" but claim the same kind of "inspiration" for the writings of Shakespeare. Milton. Plato and others. In Peter's second Epistle, chapter 1 and 20 we read that "no pro phecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation." That is to say that it "did not arise or originate out of the writer's own interpretation or imagination." The next verse explains the reason: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but Holy Men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Paul writing to Timothy declares that "all Scripture is given by inspir ation of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2Timothy 3:16). The inspired writers do not use the word "Scripture" of any writings but the Sacred Scriptures. Inspiration is spoken of the writings "All Scripture." "A Scripture or writing is made up of letters and words and not on invisible thoughts only; but we are told all Scripture is given by inspiration of God; what is written is therefore inspired of God; and that which is inspired of God is all Scripture; it is all that is written." (Dr. Gaussen).

      In former days. those who attacked the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures were from without the professing Christian Church; now they are from the pulpit and theological chair. It is related of Thomas Carlyle, the Chelsea Sage, that on a certain occasion noticing Dr. Stanley, Dean of Westminister, walking in front of him he remarked, "There goes Dean Stanley boring holes in the Church of England." To-day clergymen and theological professors are doing the very same thing in the various denominations with which they are connected.

      Dr. James Kerr, Glasgow, in his timely book entitled "The Higher Criticism: Disastrous Results" proves conclusively by copious quotations from the addresses, speeches and writings of Professors George Adam Smith, Dr. Denney, and Dr. Marcus Dods, of the Glasgow United Free Church College, that they are unsound on the subject of inspiration. Dr. Kerr shows that "They hold that the Word of God is not inspired; it contains errors, legends and myths; that it represents fictions as facts; that it has errors in its original documents, that it has many irreconcilable discrepancies, sanctions atrocities, contains forged books. They also teach that the first eleven chap ters of Genesis are full of legends, that the Bible account of creation is a myth, that the Bible story of Adam and Eve is a fable, that the Bible story of the Fall of Man is a fiction, that the Bible story of the Flood is an invention, that the Bible stories of the Patriarchs are fancies, the Bible stories of Moses are a fraud, the Bible stories of Jonah is a nursery rhyme, the books of Chronicles are very 'precarious,' the Prophetical books have alterations to suit the times, that the God of the Bible was originally a tribal God," etc., etc.

      If the teaching of these theological professors is true, that the Bible is unreliable and uninspired, why believe it to be the Word of God?

      The Lord Jesus said to the Jews, "If ye had believed Moses ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings how shall be believe My words?" (John 5:46-47). Was Christ mistaken? Again and again He quotes from the Old Testament showing that He believed in its inspiration and inerrancy.

      1. He refers to the creation of our first parents (Mark 10:6).      2. He speaks of the deluge (Luke 17:26,27).      3. The murder of Abel (Luke 11:51).      4. The destruction of Sodom (Luke 17:28).      5. The Brazen Serpent (John 3:14,15).      6. The cleansing of Naaman of leprosy (Luke 4:27).

      We must not allow man to take from us a single word of the Holy Scriptures. "For ever, 0 Lord Thy Word is settled in Heaven" (Psalm 119:89). Inspiration is claimed only for the original manuscripts in which the Scriptures were given. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets" said Christ; "I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5:17-18).

      We heartily endorse the words of Dr. Bishop: "Verbal and direct inspiration is therefore the Thermopylae of Biblical and Scriptural truth. No breath, no syllable; no syllable, no word; no word, no book; no book, no religion." "There is no half-way house," said Sir Leslie Stephen, once a clergyman, but afterwards an unbeliever, "between the doctrine of verbal inspiration and a total abandonment of the Christian Faith."

      i) Separation from the World.

      A Christian, though in the world, is not of it (John 17:16). He is one with Christ in His rejection (Matthew 10:24), and may expect similar treatment to that which his Master received. He may count on persecution, if faithful to God and the Word of His Grace. "As then, he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now" (Galatians 4:29). He knows that "the friendship of the world is enmity with God; whoso ever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God" (James 4:4). He is promised "tribulation" while in it (John 16:33), and is told that because he has been chosen out of it, the world will hate him (John 15:19). He is exhorted by the mercies of God, not to be conformed to the world (Romans 12:2), but to be separated from it (1John 2:15). He is commanded to "love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1John 2:15). The "Church" and the "world" are contrasted in Scripture, though we often hear professing Christians speaking of the "Christian world" and the "Religious world." All who have not been regenerated by the Holy Spirit compose the "world," whether "religious" or "irreligious," moral or immoral. Some of the unsaved are travelling on the clean side of the "broad road," and others on the dirty side; but both classes are hastening to everlasting perdition. Though there are multitudes of religious professors in these "last days" of this dispen sation, God's people are but a "little flock" (Luke 12:32). Innumerable passages might be quoted which show that the Christian is to be separated from the world. We would however, specially refer to one. "Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers; for what fellowship have right eousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness; and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? Wherefore come ye out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord" (2 Corinthians 6:14-18, R.V.)

      Innumerable attempts have been made to break the force and blunt the edge of this plain and pointed precept. Some have had the hardihood to assert that the injunction does not apply to Christians at the present time--that it was a special command given to the believers at Corinth, and is not binding on us. Are we then at liberty to reject those portions of Scripture which do not suit us? Were the epistles to the Corinthians not written for our instruction and guidance? The first epistle is (1Corinthians 1:2) add*ressed not only to the saints at Corinth, but to "All that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's," and in view of those who would detract from the Word Paul, writing by the Holy Spirit, added, "If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (1Corinthians 14:37). The "command" is from the Lord, and is addressed to, and is therefore binding on all Christians. "Believers" are persons who have been born again of the Holy Spirit, and "unbelievers" are those who have never experienced the great change.

      It is maintained by some that the injunction is to be limited to "marriage." Doubtless the marriage of a believer with an unbeliever would be an "unequal yoke." But there are many other "yokes" in addition to the matrimonial one. The Lord does not specify the character or object of the "yoke' but the command is explicit and comprehensive, and applies to anything in which we voluntarily unite with others to attain a common object. A Christian should not marry an unbeliever, nor enter into business partnership with an unbeliever, nor join "societies" or "clubs" with unbelievers, nor enter or continue in church fellowship where known unbelievers are admitted. The child of God should persistently refuse to be "yoked" with the unconverted, whether for matrimonial, commercial, religious, or benevolent pur poses. "What communion hath light with darkness? (1Corinthians 14:14). "Ye were once darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord" (Ephesians 5:8). What "communion" can a child of light have with a child of darkness? At creation God divided the light from the darkness (Genesis 1:4). "What part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" (2Corinthians 6:15). The .word translated "infidel" is the same Greek word that is rendered "unbeliever" in 2Corinthians 14:14. The Revised Version has "unbeliever" in both cases. What fellowship, then, can there be between a believer and an unbeliever? The one is a child of wrath, and the other an heir of Heaven; the one is a friend, the other is an enemy of God (Romans 5:10). Of Israel it was said, "The people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations" (Numbers 23:9). Children of God are a redeem ed people, and it is the divine purpose that they should be consecrated and separated to Himself.

      "But with what subtlety and effrontery Satan op poses." says one, "or seeks to neutralise every precept of the Lord. When pressing this command upon the con sciences of God's children, how constantly is it cast aside with the remark, 'It is impossible to tell who are believers and who are not,' 'the tares and the wheat are to grow together.' 'you are commanded not to judge,' etc., etc., as if the apostle would exhort the saints to a separation that is impossible; as if the tares and the wheat being allowed till the end of the age to grow Together in the world (the field is the world, not the 'Church,' see Matt. 13:38), implies their being yoked together in the Church; as if the command not to judge, implied that the believer was to close his divinely enlightened eyes to the difference between light and darkness, between life and death, between Christ and Belial."

      Again and again we have been grieved and shocked as we have listened to persons telling how they were invit ed, urged and pressed to "join the Church" while unsav ed. On pleading personal unfitness, and suggesting delay they were assured that it was their "duty" to "observe the ordinances," that it was "time" for them to "make a profession of religion," and they were "of age," and So-and-So was "joining." Some have said that they attended the "minister's class" and on answering certain questions satisfactorily as to the facts and doctrines of Scripture, they were admitted into communion. Others have spoken of being "confirmed" by the Bishop, and led to imagine, whilst unconverted, that they were in a fit condition to observe the Lord's Supper. No inquiries were made as to when, where, or how the great change had taken place, or for that part of it, if it had taken place at all. They were received, to use a popular expression,--on their own responsibility." Large numbers of "mem bers" of the various denominations make no profession of being regenerated. If this is doubted, ask the average religious professor how long it is since he was "born again," or "saved" and you will discover the truth of the Statement. In our experience we have found.that the most bitter and determined opposition to plain, searching and awakening preaching comes from unconverted professors, who, while having a "name to live," are spiritually dead.

      j) A Clergyman's Testimony.

      Dr. Robert Knox, a devoted and gifted Presbyterian minister, at a Christian Convention (attended by believers of the various denominations) in Belfast, in May 1881, in the course of a soul-stirring address asked, "Why are so many of our Church members so slow to speak? In nine cases out of ten they know they have no right to do so. They have not yet settled the question of their soul's salvation, and hence there is no freedom" (see the "Christian," of London, England, June 16, 1881). Nine cases out of ten Church members unconverted! What a terrible admission! What a sad confession! Think then, of Christians sitting side by side at the communion table with those who make no profession of being born again, passing the bread and wine to them and helping them to perdition. And this is done under the plea that "w*e have no right to judge"! Are we not at liberty to "judge" those to be unsaved who themselves confess that they have not been regenerated? "We cannot help sitting at the table with the uncoverted," one may reply. But you can stay, away , and Scripture commands that you should not be "unequally yoked" with unbelievers. "There are unsaved people in all communions," it is affirmed. Supposing this to be true, is there not a vast difference between persons "creeping in unawares" (Jude 1:4), professing to be converted, and persons received without being asked if they have experienced the great change? We are told that we "should not judge." But the injunct ion (Matthew 7:1) surely does not mean that we are not to "discern." and "discriminate" between "light" and "darkness," between the saved and the unsaved, for Scripture plainly declares, "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:20) and "Do not ye judge them that are within?" (1Corinthians 5:12). The Word of God distinctly commands "believers" not to be yoked with "unbeliev ers" and it is, therefore their duty to discern or judge in the matter.

      Christians are permitted to marry only "in the Lord" (1Corinthians 7:39). If one entered the matrimonial yoke with an unbeliever, would the popular plea that he "had no right to judge" be acceptable to God? Assuredly not. The excuse bears the stamp of Satan, and shows how success fully the arch-enemy of souls has broken down the wall of separation between the Church and the world. The supposition that the Lord Jesus allowed Judas to partake of the Supper is the excuse given by many for continuance in fellowship with known unbelievers. But a careful study of the Gospels will lead to the conclusion that Judas was not at the Supper, though present at the Passover. The Paschal feast preceded the Supper. Judas ate bread with Christ, and dipped his hand with Him in the dish (see John 13:18; Matt. 26:33). This was at the Passover, at which Judas, as a descendent of Abraham was entitled to be present. The words, 'He then, having received the sop, went immediately out" (John 13:30; Matthew 26:25; Mark 14:21), shows that this took place before the Supper was partaken of. After this the Supper was instituted and celebrated. Judas, therefore, could not have been pres ent. Luke's narrative (which has perplexed some) speaks of Judas' hand on the table after Supper was observed. But this was manifestly not the order of events. Bible students are aware of the fact, and commentators have again and again remarked that the order of Luke's Gospel is moral rather than chronological.

      k) What Church should I Join?

      This is a question that is often asked by young Christians. Some are advised to "stay where they are;" others are exhorted to go where they will be "best fed" or be able to do "most good." Such directions are unscrip tural and misleading, and proceed on the assumption that God has not given instructions in His Word on the subject. Which of the sects does Scripture counsel believers to "join"? All of them certainly cannot be right. "They should join the good old Church of England," say many. What portion of God's Word speaks of the Church of England or of any other national "Church"? Are not all kinds of heresies upheld within its pale? Is not the dread ful, soul-destroying doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration taught in its standards? In the service of 'Infant Baptism' we read, "Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is by baptism regenerated and grafted into the body of Christ." It is distinctly asserted in the Catechism that in baptism an infant is "made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven." Multitudes are deceived by this satanic lie, and believe that they were regenerated when babies at their baptism, and do not require to be "born again." Should Christians, whose desire is to please the Lord, support a system in which fundamental error is upheld?

      If a "Church of England" clergyman is charged with heresy, the Bible is not brought into court. It is the "Prayer Book" which has to decide; and, however serious the error, if not condemned by the Prayer Book, he is at liberty to hold it! The consciences of numbers of Christ ians seem to be little exercised about their association with evil. From the way they speak and act, one might con clude that they did not think that such Scriptures as the following were binding: "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness" (Ephesians 5:11); "Come out front among them and be ye separate" (2Corinthians 6:17). Many wins at evil, and excuse themselves for member ship in u, scriptural associations, by such pleas as, "It is only a matter of opinion;" "I would not dare to differ from such able men as So-and-So;" "It matters little where we go," etc., etc.

      What scripture is there for "joining" the "Methodist Society"? It is not required of applicants for fellowship in that denomination that they profess conversion to God. One of the "Rules" declares that "There is only one con*dition pre4'iously required of those who desire admission into these societies, a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and be saved from their sins." Should any but those who have already fled from wrath to come be en couraged to partake of the Lord's Supper? Multitudes who once had "a desire to flee from wrath to come, and be saved from their sins," are now beyond the reach of hope. What passage of Scripture exhorts believers to "join" the "Presbyterian,' "Baptist," or Congregational" communions? None! If, then, the Word of God (the believers "Inquire within upon everything") does not even mention such "churches;" if in their constitution they are opposed to that Word, and if the Church of God is "one body " (Ephesians 4:4; 1Corinthians 12:13), why should Christians join any other "body"?

      Two Christians met in a railway train, and in the course of conversation one inquired of the other what denomination he belonged to. 'That is a common enough question was the reply, "but will you say first what is to de me in my path as a Christian?" "God's word." 'If you will allow me I will answer your question by proposing another: What denomination does the Word of God put me in?" On thinking for a little he replied, "None at all." "Then I cannot belong to any, for according to your own showing, I should be in a position where the word of God had not placed me." "Are we not exhorted in Scripture not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together?"(Hebrews 10:25). "Yes it does, but a Christian does not need to belong to a denomination to obey that word, for the Lord Jesus says, "Where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20).

      l) Is Denominationalism Scriptural?

      When told that we ought to connect ourselves with some sect, we ask, "With which?" All cannot be right. Which is the scriptural one? What sect did Paul, Peter, or John belong to? Were they "Methodists," 'Presbyter*ians," or "Baptists"? "There were no sects in those days; believers were all together." But should they not be together still? Why should there be "sects" now? If by one Spirit all believers are "baptised into one body" (1Corinthians 12:13); "if the Scripture be a revelation from God, then of necessity (as has been well remarked by another), the formation of various bodies, the union of Christians by distinguishing them from one another, the adoption of human creeds (as if the Word of God were not full enough or plain enough for the guidance of His people) must be sin." Paul beseeches his beloved Corinthians that they "all speak the same thing," and that there be "no div isions" among them (1Corinthians 1:10). "For ye are yet carnal, for whereas there among you envying, and strife and divisions, are ye not carnal?" (1Corinthians 3:3). Though out wardly one, they were divided in heart, and were ranging themselves under different leaders. This was sectarian ism in the bud. Denominationalism scatters the children of God instead of bringing them together. It invites all who are like-minded on certain truths to form themselves into a distinct "body," "sect," or "society" instead of "gathering simply to the Name of the Lord." It may be replied that "We shall never all see alike on earth. Is that any reason why we should not seek to please the Lord, and endeavour to be of the same mind and judgement? We should not "agree to differ," but we ought to ask our God and Father to make us of "one mind." The Lord prayed that His disciples "might be one; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me" (John 17:21). The spectacle of several scores of parties separated from each other because they cannot agree is not calculated to accomplish this object!

      It is amazing what excuses are given for the perpetuation of sectarianism. We are pointed to the learning and ability of some in the sects; to the earnestness and devo tedness of others. Honoured names of great and good men who have done much for the spread of the Gospel and the defence of the truth are brought forward to justify continuance in unscriptural positions. if Martin Luther had remained in the Roman Catholic communion would that have justified "Protestants" in being "Romanists"? The various sects have been compared to regiments of an army all under the same commander, and guided by his instructions. The comparison is most misleading. Let us suppose that the Emperor of Germany appoints a general to be his commander-in-chief. For a length of time his orders are strictly and faithfully obeyed. But by-and-by the soldiers form themselves into companies, each com pany appointing its own officers. Whilst still professing to maintain their allegiance to the Imperial Crown, could they be properly called the Army of the German Emperor? When they set aside the authority of their commander, would not each regiment be in a state of mutiny? And would it be right for loyal German soldiers to uphold such divisions? This aptly illustrates the condition of Christ endom. Instead of a united army of Christian soldiers, subject in all things to the will of their Commander -in-Chief, the Lord Jesus. eye have an innumerable host of "divisions" with self-appointed, or division-appointed, officers who have formed their own "rules" and "reg ulations," each differing from the other.

      We are thankful to see of late years among Christians in the denominations a greater desire for fellowship. Conventions and united prayer meetings are increasing and believers. for the rime being, "forget" that they are sectarians and, as it is called, "shake hands over the wall." What a pity it is that there are any sectarian "walls!" Who built them? Who props them up? God or Satan? Mav it be our firm determination not to allow ourselves to be enclosed in any such "walls." "The attempts at unity made from time to time by the denom inations (says one) only manifest the utter hollowness of the basis, as long as the cause of the difference remains untouched. Such unions are invariably founded on the understanding, expressed or understood, that what are called 'controversial doctrines,' that is, such as are held by some and not by others, are to remain in abeyance. Now, if these are considered of sufficient importance to ordinarily bring about separation in that which God designed should be one, on what authority are they sunk, whatever the motive may be? Again, if they are so trivial that they can be shelved at pleasure, how can those so acting clear themselves of the charge of schism?" "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms (Greek) among you" (1Corinthians 1:10).

      When George Whitfield separated from Charles and John Wesley, some of his friends advised him to start a new sect. To this suggestion the great field-preacher replied --

      Let names and sects and parties fall,      And Jesus Christ be all, in all.

      "GROUND OF GATHERING"

      'Where two or three are gathered together in My Name there am I in the midst of them " (Matthew 18:19-20). Not merely gathered "In" ("**") His name, as that would not necessarily mean more than gathered by His authority but gathered unto ("***") His name, implying that Christ's Name is the centre of gathering. Christ's Name is the expression of what He Himself is. It has been often alleged that the promise refers to a few gathered together for prayer. His promised special presence to the "twos" and "threes" gathered to His Name is connected not only with meetings for prayer but with Church gathering, worship and discipline (see Matthew 18:15-18; 1Corinthians 5:4). To gather Christians around any other centre than Christ is to divide them. Sects are gathered on the ground of acceptance of certain doctrines on which they are agreed, and reception of these doctrines is expected from those who join the party. Christians may not vet have learned them if they are to be found in the Word, or they may reject them because they are not in the Word, but in either case unless they do violence to their consciences they cannot become members of the particular sect, for there is no Scripture for gathering on the ground of any doctrine or truth however precious. Christians are not enjoined to gather on the ground of the "one baptism" or the "one body." When this is done a truth or doctrine is elevated into a "ground of gathering" instead of Christ Himself. Of late years most of the sects have become exceedingly "liberal" and accommodating. If a Christian thinks of becoming a member of a particular denomination, but cannot conscientiously accept its doctrinal declaration, he is assured that is in unnecessary for him to believe it!

      m) A Distinguishing Name.

      There are those who say, "You must have some name to distinguish you from other Christians." To this we would reply, what "distinguishing name" had John, Peter, or Paul? The names which God applies to His people include the whole body of Christ: "Believers" (Acts 5:14), "Saints"* (Philippians 1:1), "Brethren" (2Thessalonians 1:3), "Disciples" (Acts 20:7), "Children of God" (John 11:52), "Christians" (Acts 11:26). The Holy Ghost through the Apostle Paul rebuked the Corinthians for ranging themselves under the names of different leaders and saying, "I of Paul," "I of Apollos," while some even went the length of saying "I of Christ," to the exclusion of other believers. If, then, they were "carnal" through so acting, are Christians in these days "spiritual" who commit the same sin? The divisions now are, "I of the Methodist," "I of the Baptist," "I of the Presbyterian," "I of the Church of England," "I of the Salvation Army," etc., etc. "But you are called 'Plymouth Brethren'," some may say. We reply that the world has called us by various nicknames. We, however, neither "The Breth ren," nor "Brethren" (captial B), nor "Open Brethren," nor "Close Brethren," nor "Plymouth Brethren." We are "brethren" of all believers, but distinctly refuse to take any sectarian name. If fellow-Christians call themselves by names that do not include the whole household of faith, such as "Baptist," "Methodist," etc., etc., and come under the same condemnation as the Corinthians, we cannot have fellowship with them in such insubject conduct, even though we should be counted "narrow" and "bigoted."

      *Paul never spoke of Peter as "Saint Peter;" Peter never called Paul "Saint Paul." Christians ignorantly speak of a select few of God's people as "saints," whereas every child of God is a saint. (See Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:1.) Peter, the converted shoe-black is as really a "saint" as "Saint Thomas" or "Saint John."

      Some denominationalists in defending sectarian names, affirm that it matters little by what name Christ ians are called. We may be unable to hinder persons from calling us by sectarian names, but that is a very different thing from acknowledging and designating ourselves by such appellations.

      It is admitted that there will be no sectarian names in Heaven. Why, then, should there be any on earth? "Call not yourselves Lutherans" said the great German Reformer: "Who is Luther but a miserable bag of dust and ashes? Call yourselves Christians after Him who died for you"! But alas! this advice was not needed.

      n) Christian Baptism.

      The Lord Jesus instituted two ordinances for the observance of His people, Baptism and the Supper. The Lord's Supper shows Christ's death for us, and Baptism our death with Him. Baptism is a type of death and resurrection. It is also an act on the part of the Christian by which, having died and risen with Christ, he acknowledges the claims of Jesus as Lord. "We were buried therefore with Him through baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so eye also might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3,4, R.V.; Colossians 2:12). As the believer goes under the waters of baptism he declares "I am buried with Him by baptism into death;" and as he rises from the typical grave he can add. "Like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, even so I ought to walk in newness of life." In baptism the Christian confesses his identification with the Lord Jesus in His death. burial and resurrection. Baptism is neither a means of salvation nor the door of entrance into the Church. It is a profession of faith on the part of the believer; and in submitting to the ordinance he virtually says, "I have died with Christ, I have been buried with Christ, and I am risen with Christ." Christian baptism was instituted for believers only (see Matthew 28:19-20 and Mark 16:16). In apostolic times whenever a person believed, he was baptised (see Acts 2:41; 8:12; 10:48; 16:15-33: 18:8; 19:5). There is not a single example in Scripture of infant baptism. nor the semblance of a command to baptise infants.

      In a catechism on Protestantism, inspired by Rome, the following directions are given: "When a Protestant offers you a pious book praising the Bible to the skies, and attacking at the same time the truths of our faith and Christian practice, under the pretext that they do not find them in the Bible, ask him where he finds in the Bible that it is right to baptise little infants, which they do just the same as ourselves." The scriptural mode of baptism is by immersion. "Baptism" (**pi******) is a Greek word with two letters omitted. Why was the word not translated? Because at the time the translation was made, sprinkling had been adopted. The Greek verb "Baptise" signifies to "immerse, submerge. sink, dip." (See any standard Greek Lexicon.) In the Greek Church baptism is perform ed by immersion. One would naturally suppose that Greeks should be well acquainted with their language.

      We give the testimony of some representative men in the various denominations which practice infant sprink ling, etc. Calvin, the Reformer, says: "The word 'baptise' signifies to immerse, and the rite of immersion was ob served by the ancient Church." JOHN WESLEY, in expounding Romans 6:4 ("Buried with Him in baptism"), says :-- "The allusion is to the ancient manner of baptism by immersion." Dr. Stanley, Dean of Westminster, in his article on Baptism which appears in the Nineteenth Century (October 1879), declares that "for the first thir teen centuries the almost universal practice of baptism was that of which we read in the New Testament, and which is the very meaning of the word 'baptise,' that those who were baptised were plunged, submerged, immersed into the water. Baptism by sprinkling was rejected by the whole ancient Church (except in the rare exception of death-beds or extreme necessity) as no baptism at all."

      DR. TULLOCH. Principle of St. Andrews University, in Good Words for February 1871, says: "Adult baptism and baptism by immersion were the rules in the early Church: every scholar knows this."

      DR. WHITBY (Church of England): "Immersion was religiously observed by all the Christians for 13 centuries and was approved by the Church of England." DR. WALL: "Immersion is so plain and clear by an infinite number of passages that one cannot but pity the weak endeavour of such as would maintain the negative of it."

      MARTIN LUTHER: "I could wish that such as are to be baptised, should be completely immersed in water according to the meaning of the Word and the signif icance of the ordinance."

      BISHOP HANDLEY MOULE: "True, Scripture indicates a usage if immersion in the apostolic missions, very plainly."

      o) Subject of Baptism.

      "Households were baptised, and there must have been babies in them." Such is one of the props on which infant sprinkling rests! Three households are mentioned as having been baptised, viz., the household of Lydia (Acts 16), the Philippian jailer (Acts 16), and Stephanus (1Corinthians 1:16). To establish infant baptism it is necessary to prove that there were infants in the households, and that such were baptised. Of Stephanus' household it is said they were the "first-fruits" of the preaching in Achaia and that "they addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints" (1Corinthians 16:15). Could infants "addict themselves to the ministry of the saints"? Does the Word not inform us that the jailer "rejoiced greatly with all his house"? (Acts 16:34, R.V.) Lydia's household is frequently adduced to support infant baptism. But before this can be established, it is necessary to show--

      1. That Lydia was, or had been, married,      2. That she had children and that some of them were infants,      3. That she had brought them to Philippi,      4. That such infants were actually baptised.

      "There might have been babies in the household," it is said. In order to prove infant baptism to be a scriptural doctrine, there must be stronger evidence than that derived from mere supposition. "There couldn't have been infants in the jailer's household," said one, "for wasn't the youngest eighteen years of age?" "Where do you find that?" said another, sharply. "Where you find there were infants: I guessed it." The Word of God give: no room for such "guessing." "Many of the Corinthian: hearing, believed, and were baptised" (Acts 18:8). This is God's order still-hearing, believing and then baptism.

      "Baptism has taken the place of circumcision,"it is affirmed. No passage of Scripture says so. On the contrary we find that numbers were baptised in addition to being circumcised (Acts 15:1-2). If baptism takes the place of circumcision, only male infants should be baptised (Genesis 17:12). If baptism is substituted for circumcision, domestic servants of Christians should be baptised whether believers or not (Exodus 12:44). But if baptism ha really taken the place of circumcision, the analogy is in favour of believers' baptism. If a literal infant under the law corresponds to a literal infant under grace, then only babes in Christ should be baptised. As natural life and birth were pre-requisites for circumcision, so spiritual life and birth are pre-requisites for baptism. Often thy question is asked, "Does the Word of God forbid infants baptism?" To this we might reply, Does God's Word forbid the baptism of bells? (practised by Romanists) There is as much Scripture for the baptism of bells a there is for the baptism of babies.

      p) Testimony of Scholars.

      Many of the ablest teachers in the various denominations which practice infant baptism, admit that there is no Scripture for the sprinkling of infants. We select few testimonies of such. BISHOP HANDLEY MOULE "In the New Testament we have not indeed any mention of infant baptism." DR. PLUMMER, Master of University College, Durham: "The recipients of Christian baptism were required to repent and believe. Not only is there n mention of the baptising of infants but there is no text from which such baptism can be securely inferred." PROFESSOR L. LANGE of JENA: "All attempts to make out infant baptism from the New Testament fail. It i totally oppos