frequently going to "the upper-room ;" and thence, "over the brook," into "the garden," and studying the scenes which took place there 1800 years ago. We see the eleven; and the three only -the favored three, with "the man of sorrows;" and then we see him alone, becoming sore amazed-exceedingly sorrowful-kneeling down-falling on his face on the ground crying, "O my Father, take this cup from me? nevertheless, not what I will but what thou wilt." Shall not this pattern prayer aid us in prayer? Shall we not drink into the spirit of our Redeemer? Shall we not catch his fervour, and cultivate his submission? Let us see to this; and let us watch against that which filled this bitter cup! And now, after repeatedly retiring for prayer, the holy sufferer rouses his disciples to meet the betrayer, with the armed soldiers and their captains; followed by a multitude,' or mob, urged on by "the chief Priests and Elders! (Luke xxii. 52; John xviii. 3), the soldiers with swords, and the mob with staves; while the hearts of those who sent them, although they had no weapons, were, perhaps, the most bloodthirsty! He who has all authority in heaven and on earth-before whose dread tribunal they and we must all appear-Annas, Caiaphas, Herod, and Pilate not excepted-suffers himself to be laid hold of, and "led away" as a criminal-first to Annas, by whom he was sent bound to (the Sanhedrim presided over by) Caiaphas. It was, probably, before the Sanhedrim arrived (at day-break, Luke xxii. 66,) that Caiaphas found opportunity to ask Jesus of his doctrine, &c. And Jesus rebuked his culpable ignorance! (John xviii. 19.) The question, "Art thou the Christ ?" was put by the high-priest in the most solemn and imposing manner; as that which was of the most intense interest and importance. The answer, which was both prompt and plain, (Mark xiv. 62,) was accompanied with a declaration of the utmost importance to all around-"You shall see the Son of man, sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven!" This they denominated blasphemy, and condemned him as worthy of death-for that was all that they could do. They led him to Pilate to obtain that which they could not give-sentence of death. Pilate could find no fault in him; he declared him to be a "just person;" he labored hard either to convict him, or to pacify his enemies. But they had determined on his death, from the time when he raised Lazarus from the dead. John xi. 45-53. Behold the Son of God, learning obedience in suffering! He is smitten; and spit upon, and blind-folded, and buffetted and mocked, his head pierced with a crown of thorns; his whole frame bending beneath the weight of the cross. And now that he is lifted up, in order to draw all men unto him, he is exposed to the taunts and derisions of the multitude of the chief priests especially! The Captain of our salvation was made perfect in suffering! And thus has he become "the Author of everlasting salvation to all who obey him." Let us rejoice that this great work has been accomplished for us, to bring us to God; and that he who suffered and died for our sins; rose again for our justification; and ever lives to make intercession for us! Seeing, then, that we have such a High-priest, let us hold fast our profession; that, being faithful unto death, we may receive the crown of life!

(To be continued.)

REVIEW OF "WATER AND THE SPIRIT."-BY D. W. SCOTT.

(Continued from page 135.)

Their

OUR Author denominates "Infant sprinkling a vain mockery," and repeatedly assures us that "the early Church," was composed of such as believed and were immersed-exclusively so-yet calls those sectarians who refuse fellowship with the unimmersed :practice he regards as intolerant, a snare of Satan," &c., (p. 40.) We reply by asking, "What saith the Scripture?" It is a practice which he admits to accord with that of "the early Church :" by which we' persume he means the Church in apostolic times. We have therefore only one word to say, and that is, Enough! (Paul was intolerant to some, and he was called a sectarian. Acts xxviii. 22.) Christians are called upon to "sink their differences." But surely we are not to include a divine ordinance in our differences! Truly it is said that "Our Lord has given us fixed laws-as binding as were those of Moses," and baptism is shewn to be the law of entrance. Surely then we are not to "sink" Baptism! "Those who make Baptism, and not belief in Jesus, the test of communion give it not its proper place" (p. 40.) But Paul says, one faith, one baptism, &c., and not faith without baptism, nor baptism without faith. One God, one Lord, one Spirit, one faith, one baptism, and one hope. He who is the Author of everlasting salvation to all who obey Him has joined together faith and baptism; and these, too, with the forgiveness of sins, and church fellowship: and we put them asunder at our peril.

"In (en) one Spirit are we all baptized, into one body-and have been all made to drink into one Spirit," 1 Cor. xii. 13. Calvin, Doddridge and others say that "this refers to baptism by (?) water"Barnes and others say that it does not. Certainly the term spirit does not necessarily mean the Holy Spirit, as it clearly does in verses 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11. ("The Spirit; the self same Spirit" &c.) In verses 12 to 27 we have an illustration of verses 1 to 11. The body is one -"all the members" have imbibed a similar spirit. In that spirit they enter the Church: for in order to do so each one is required to manifest the same spirit of contrition, faith, gratitude, love, &c. And just as John the Baptizer said to some in his day who came not in the right spirit, (saying, we have Abraham for our father,) "Bring forth fruits meet for repentance:" so in our day it is desirable, when a person proposes to be baptized into the "one body," to ascertain, as far as possible, whether he is actuated by a right spirit. "Let your deportment be according to the Gospel-stand fast in one spirit, with one mind." Phil. i. 27. There is neither precept nor precedent for the idea of baptism in the Spirit, in order to enter the Churchthe one body. No one is, or ever was commanded to be baptized in the Spirit, or by the Spirit, or to pray that he might be so baptized. None are said to be born of the Spirit, except such as are born of the water. In Acts ii. and x. Jesus is the Baptizer-not the Spirit. The Apostles baptized in water, in order that the baptized might participate in the gift of the Spirit. It is those only who had been baptized in water, who are said to be baptized in one spirit.

These considerations, we hope, will prevail with those who have put a singular construction on the passage to review the same, at least, and to quote it correctly. Not "By one Spirit," nor "By the one Spirit" (p. 20,) but "In one Spirit," &c. For if it teaches that all the members of the " one body"-whether baptized in water

or not are baptized by the Spirit, it would thus be made to contradict those which (our Author admits) teach that we are baptized in water into the Church or Body of Christ. If it teaches that the Spirit is the Baptizer, it is singular; and so also if it teaches that Jesus baptized by the Spirit; unless it can be shewn that en is to be rendered by in such passages as Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 16; Acts i. 5; xi. 16, &c.

What authority there is for expecting the baptism of the Holy Spirit in our day is a question which we cannot now enter further into. Is it not enough that if baptized in water, in a right spirit, we have the promise of the Holy Spirit? The building in which we thus become living stones is the Temple of the Spirit. We rejoice that our brother on whose pamphlet we have so freely commented, has come so far away from Babylon as to baptize in water. We recommend him to say as he does-not "with," but "in." And if in the water is correct, in the Spirit is so also. We search the Scriptures, for in them we have everlasting life; and they testify of Him who came by water and blood;-not by the water only :-not by the blood only; but by the the water and the blood. He shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins; and He ordained baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

66

With the following extracts we must leave the subject for the present. "It is not for me to reproach any, but I dare not alter what God has written. This is my beloved Son-hear Him-Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God," (p. 19.) Hereby do we know that we know Him if we keep His commandments." 1 John ii. 3. "He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me." (John xiv. 20.) We see here that what is required of us is practical, and not mere theoretical Christianity-The spirit of love is obedience, as Jesus says, "If any man love me he will keep my words." Now baptism is the first act of obedience after belief. 66 Repent and be baptized." Acts ii. 38. "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." Acts xx. 16. (p. 43.)

Correspondence.

W. D. H.

PURE LANGUAGE.-QUERIES AND REPLIES.

DEAR BRO. MILNER,-Your reply to the following queries respecting a pure speech will, I am sure, interest and instruct your readers: 1. Is it not much easier to prove the importance of the restoration of a pure language in discoursing on divine things, than to define the limit within which such language should be used, or rather define what constitutes a pure speech? Hence should not our best efforts be directed to the ascertaining of our precise duty in this respect?

2. May we not take it for granted that Christians have permission, within certain limits, to speak freely, in their own words, their sentiments in relation to divine subjects; and would not the reverse of this forbid all speaking and writing on religious topics except such as consisted in the formal repetition of portions of scripture; and, moreover, would not an inability, on our part, to express scripture truth in our own words go a long way to evince that we had not found God's word a revelation to us?

3. Assuming an affirmative answer to these queries, it appears the

more important to ask,-Under what circumstances, and to what degree are we limited to the diction of the Holy Spirit?

4. Can the rule be established that when we would speak at once with the utmost precision and authoritativeness concerning the mind and will of God, we should use Bible Words; and does not this amount to saying that we must enforce no technical language on the things of God other than that coined in the mint of inspiration?

5. Does not every science known to us demand a technical language for the accurate conveyance of its peculiar ideas; and, if so, why not the science of redemption?

6. As scientific writers, when professing to write scientifically, are held bound in common honesty to conform to the established technology or terminology of their science; unless they can claim authority to change its terminology; so are not all who would speak exactly on the science of redemption bound, in honesty and to avoid ambiguity and disputation, to use the authorized terminology?

7. Is not the Holy Spirit's terminology the only authorized? Can any individual, sect, synod or council lawfully change it?

8. Yet does not the recognition of the technical language of the Holy Spirit, as the only authorized, leave ample liberty of free dis course; so that as scientific subjects may be popularly explained and enforced, in like manner may this grandest of all subjects be po pularly exhibited?

9. At the same time should not the instructed, for the sake of avoiding unprofitable controversy, be always ready to resolve their popular and, therefore, inexact language (legitimate enough for many purposes) into the terminology of inspiration?

10. And this terminology itself-in what does it consist? in the very words used, and as they are used, by the sacred writers? or in those words, with their cognates, by which I mean such as admittedly convey the same idea only modified grammatically so as to suit the discourse we may have in hand? So that if I find "man," I may say "human; if" God," I may say "divine," "deity," &c. ; if "baptism," I may say "baptismal." For instance, I read "The Word was God,' ," "Christ who is over all, God blessed for ever;" is it pure language to speak, for convenience sake, of "The Deity of Christ ?" Your answer, dear Bro., to the above illustrated and confirmed as you may think expedient, will be most welcome, probably, to many besides yours affectionately in Jesus,

Perth.

J. B. ROTHERHAM.

1. As all religion is based on knowledge, and all knowledge is expressed by speech, purity of speech is essential to purity of religion. The value of a pure language in divine things is, therefore, incalculably great. By pure speech we understand the Word of Godthe Scriptures given by inspiration; thus Ps. xii. 6, "The words of the Lord are pure words;" xix. 8, "The commandment of the Lord is pure;" cxix. 140, "Thy word is very pure." Prov. II. 5, "Every word of God is pure." It is God, therefore, who promises man a pure language, which is not less an integral part of the plan of redemption than is the mediation of the Redeemer. Therefore, Zeph. iii. 9, "Then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord to serve him with one consent," and hence also the injunction of 1 Pet. ii. 2, “As new-born babes, desire the sincere unadulterated-milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby." Certainly, therefore, our best efforts

should be directed to the ascertaining of our precise duty in this respect. A departure from the faith is effected by a disuse of the sound words of the faith, and a return to it must be accomplished by a resumption of these tried words. 2 Thess. ii. 15; 2 Tim. i. 13; Tit. i. 9.

2. We may, and indeed, must use our own words in one sense; that is in following the example of instruction set us by the Saviour and his apostles we must adopt a style of illustration familiar to the people we address. But in referring to things and occurrences with which they are acquainted for the purpose of illustrating divine truths, there need be no forsaking of the pure speech of heaven; the words of God's selection and giving are only made to address themselves to the understanding of those we would teach by apt and natural comparison with things well-known around. As we cannot be too scriptural in our use of words that stand expressive of divine ideas, so we cannot be too natural in our method of illustration and application.

3. We are thus limited to the diction of the Holy Spirit whenever an ultimate appeal is necessary. Our illustrations and methods may be in themselves or to the minds of some very faulty and inexpressive; that ascertained, we are bound not to enforce them. We may seek to justify them by further illustration, but failing to commend them to the consciences of others, we are to be satisfied that they adopt, as we do, the inspired words.

4. This implies that when we would speak with the utmost precision and authoritativeness respecting the mind of God, we should use Bible words-we should say, 'It is written.' Not only to Christian, but to other minds, the conclusion of a sentence, or the enforcement of a point in dispute, by an appropriate Thus saith the Lord,' is felt to carry incalculable weight. The above paragraphs also imply that we must enforce no technical terms on the things of God; but that speaking technically we ought to confine ourselves to the language coined in the mint of inspiration. For this reason, the word economy is more proper than system in describing the faith in Jesus.

5. Every science has its own terms, and these are, of course, technical, for each science when exppressed is itself a technology, and distinct from all others by the difference in its nature from them. The science of salvation, therefore, has its own appropriate terms.

6. As in other sciences, so in this-one who would speak accurately, honestly, and understandably by those who know the science, must conform to the authorised terminology. He who would deviate must show cause for so doing.

7. The Holy Spirit's terminology is that which alone is authoritative with the Christian. The apostles spoke not in words that the wisdom of men taught, but which the Holy Spirit taught, as said the Saviour himself, "The words I speak are not mine, but his that sent me," so to the apostles, "He that heareth you, heareth me, and he that heareth me, heareth Him that sent me.' No party or power on earth may lawfully or safely change or depart from the God-spoken words.

8. As remarked under par. 2, this strict recognition of the pure and authoritative leaves ample scope for free popular explanation, illustration, and application.

9. It is already admitted in par. 3, that both instructor and in