particular part of the day is contended for, but why not the very day as well as the very hour? How can we have the precise time without the very day as well as the very hour? If the proper tim is included in the proper hour, it is also included in the proper day the greater includes the less. But as the church, under apostoli direction, did not observe the feast on the recurrence of the exac season of its institution, it follows that the restriction contende for is not of divine limitation. Again, if our brother replies that h wishes the ordinance attended to at the season the early christian observed it, we reply, first, that we have no evidence that they ob served it at one uniform hour; second, the Jewish mode of calcula ting time is so different from ours as to render exact conformity t their usage impossible. They calculated the day from the even ing onward; we from the morning. "The evening and the morn ing were the first day." Thus observing an ordinance in the even ing, they began the day or week with it, but we begin the day o week by a morning observance. If Bro. H. takes note of Acts x 7, &c., as he suggests, he will find that the season when the disci ples came there together was equal to our Saturday evening-tha the discoursing to and fro (not preaching), went on till midnigł -that bread was broken, and each continued till break of day, an that on the morning of the first day of the week-our Sunday, Pa departed. This breaking of the loaf, therefore, was earlier by least half a day than the occasion when the Saviour was known his disciples after his resurrection in the breaking of the loaf, an equally so to that of Pentecost. Therefore, third, the day but not th hour of day being determined, we are at liberty with respect to th latter to arrange as most expedient, and taking into account th actual differences in the season of the day in different latitudes, one instant of time, and the different methods of computing time a well as the varied habits of different nations, we cannot but admir the wisdom which has refrained from placing the universal brother hood under the bondage of a useless and impracticable uniformity.

ED.

TO OR BY THE ANGEL.-QUERY AND REPLY,

BROTHER MILNER,-Will you or any of your competent contr butors, be so good as say if Mr Campbell, of Bethany, has sufficier authority for the change made in the address of the apocalypt epistles, in his revised version of the New Testament, in substitu ting "by the angel," instead of the universal rendering "to th angel ?" The words are small, but the difference of meaning i somewhat important. If he has brought out the right one, pit the discovery has come so late. Earlier it might have saved muc unprofitable controversy and ink-shed. J. D. Z.

The dative case denotes either to or by. In the absence of othe criteria, the one rendering is as correct as the other. Here, how ever, the sense would serve to guide to the choice of by; the fac evidently being that John was to write to the churches by th angels.-ED.

Intelligence.

CONFERENCE AT EDINBURGH.-On Wednesday, December 7th, between thirty and forty brethren from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Perth, Dundee, Banff, Cupar, Dysart, Crossgates, Grangemouth, Dalkeith, Stevenston, Bathgate, Auchtermuchty, &c., met in Nicolson-street Hall, as messengers from the churches to confer as to what ought to e done in the work of Evanglization in Scotland. Letters, also, vere read from various churches in different parts approving of the bject of the meeting. The brethren heartily concurred in the duty nd necessity of united action in the work. It was not sought to form ny society for the purpose, but to ascertain and carry out the New estament method of procedure. This, it was admitted, regards the hurch as the pillar and stay of the truth, and requires the individual ad joint forthholding of the word of life on the part of the faithful. cknowledging the church to be the one organization designed by od, for the high and all-important end of the conversion of the orld, the brethren also concluded against any office-bearers, and reed to recognise only those provided for in the church polity of the riptures. If no human society was to be organized, of course, no ficers, other than those exemplified in the New Testament, should be cognized. And this understood, it also followed that the designans of Scripture character only should be employed. Thus all such ings, ideas, and words as the following must receive their dismissal, society, association, committee, rules, bye-laws, secretary, presint, patron, agent, collector, minute-book, annual meeting, subibers, votes, divisions, &c., &c. But was not this fanciful and pian? Was it not like straining out a gnat and swallowing a nel? Some brethren had their doubts. What could be done witht organization? Was not the present meeting an organization? swer-nothing was proposed to be attempted without organization, the organization contended for, is that of the church. sent gathering was no organization, but a simple meeting of breen to confer-to speak one to another, as to the Lord's will-the estion before them was, Shall we organize? and the answer was

The

But what was to be done? What could or should they do? at were the brethren to say to the churches? That it is manifrom the scriptures that the churches communicated as directly possible with the preachers that they sent messengers to supply ir need-that these messengers were brethren of note among the rches and apostles-that Paul speaks of Epaphroditus as his ther and companion in labour, and fellow soldier, but the messenof the Philippians, and he that ministered to his wants-and, refore, that it is competent to the churches of the present day and ir duty in this matter to act just in like manner to choose their ssenger or messengers for the distribution of their bounty to the ngelists who should be able as did Titus, Epaphroditus, and ers such, to visit and co-operate with the preachers in their ours. Brother Milner was asked whether he would serve the rches in this respect. He said, that so far as in his power he ild be happy to render any service of a scriptural character in the therance of the truth, and that if the churches should see fit to

entrust him with their contributions for evangelistic purposes, he would, aided by the counsel of brethren in office around him, attend to the ministering of their bounty. The principle of action determined upon, brethren as labourers, and fields of labour, occupied the attention of the meeting. The names of Brother Rotherham and that of a brother, expected shortly from the South, were mentioned as those for whom present arrangements should be made. Various interesting statements were given regarding the progress of the Gospel in different localities, and of the prospect of good now presented, together with the willingness and desire of brethren and churches for the efficient proclamation of the word of life. Banff, Perth, Aberdeen, Glasgow, &c., seemed worthy of particular attention. It was also suggested, that alike in conjunction with the spoken word and alone, when the former cannot be had, the truth in writing he had recourse to, as largely as consistent with the resources of the brethren. With the understanding that these things were to be reported to the churches, the brethren separated. We hope from time to time to lay the results before our readers.

THE APOSTLE HENRY.-The following extract from a late speech at Guildford, of Henry Drummond, Esq., M.P., and apostle of the Holy Catholic apostolic Church, will show any, save those under a strong delusion, somewhat of the difference between an apostle after the will of the flesh and one, such as Paul, according to the will of God:-"I consider that all capable of doing so ought to be made to bear arms, without any exemption whatever; and my reason is this-that at present the army is raised almost entirely from the lower classes, but I want a body for the national defence to be composed of the middle and upper classes. (Hear). However, we cannot have that; but I can encourage you to arm yourselves somehow. I do not believe that the rifle movement is the best way of doing so; but I do not wish to quarrel with you about that. Remember, however, that the rifle is very different from a common gun. It is a clumsy customer to manage; and unless you take great care, and attend to your drill, you will never become efficient riflemen as long as you live." We fear this warlike M.P. will never become an efficient apostle as long as be lives. If a rifle is very different from a common gun, not less aifferent is he from a true apostle of the Prince of Peace. We fear that should any one try he will be found indeed a clumsy customer to manage.

BAPTISMS.-Birmingham.

The church meeting in Bond-street has received into fellowship by baptism thirty-five from Nov. 6 to Dec. 20 inclusive. Grangemouth. Two persons gave themselves to the Lord and to his people in this ordinance last month. Glasg The church in Brown-street has been gratified by the addition of three young persons by immersion. Dundee. The Barrack-street church received two young men, of whom much is hoped, who put on their Lord in baptism on 15th Dec.

Printed by Samuel Owen, Wrexham.

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

EVERY thing relating to a sinner's justification before God is important. Reason, conscience, and scripture concur in investing it with the utmost solemnity. Can mortal man be ust with God? How?

Happily, the great body of christian believers are united in acknowledging the glorious truth, that justification has been provided through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. The grace of God flows through the sacrifice of his only begotten Son unto the justifying of the ungodly. So far we have no controversy with our contemporaries.

The whole question in dispute is-How is justification to be received? Is it to be received and enjoyed by faith alone? Now if we return an answer, at once confident and paradoxical, let not the reader condemn it as either flippant or erroneous, before giving it a serious and impartial examination. Well, then, "Is justification received by faith alone ?" We inswer—“Yes” and "No." In the sense in which the Apostle Paul discusses the question-"YES." In the sense in which most religious teachers of the nineteenth century discuss it— "NO." Paul's sense and theirs differ.

Paul discusses "faith versus "works;" the moderns discuss "faith" versus "baptism." Here lies the first difference. Paul discusses "faith" as a great principle: the moderns discuss it as an isolated, momentary act. This is the next difference.

Paul's object was to silence those Jews or Judaizers who wished to make the observance of the Mosaic Law a condition of justification: the object of the moderns is to silence those christians who simply contend that the apostolic scriptures mean what they say relative to the import and effect of Christian immersion. This is a third difference.

Thus Paul and the moderns differ essentially. They have nothing in common but appearance. The moderns, knowingly or unknowingly, appear to be discussing an apostolic question, while, in reality, they use their terms in another meaning-raise a totally different issue-aim at contrary objects. Hence our paradox-' Yes and No.'

And this paradox will prove as true in the end as it is pertinent in the beginning. To demonstrate its truth we lay down the following proposition as applicable to the Apostle No. 2, Vol. IV.-February, 1859.

Paul's treatment of justification by faith in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians. Paul teaches that justification is received by faith as the only PRINCIPLE; but never that it is received by faith as the only ACT. If due intelligence and candor be brought to bear on this proposition, it will appear self-evidently true.

1. A principle is a principle of action which may run through many individual acts. An individual act as such is not a principle of action. For example: gratitude may be regarded as a principle of action, developing itself in the individual acts of thanksgiving, help, obedience, and commendation. A needy individual, having met with a kind benefactor and received benefactions from his hand, is grateful. His gratitude becomes more than a mere momentary feeling or emotional act-it becomes strong, abiding, and practical enough to be a principle of action; it develops itself in the acts of thanksgiving-help-obedience-and commendation. The grateful individual, on and by the principle of gratitude, thanks his benefactor-helps him—obeys him—commends him. Neither thanksgiving, help, nor commendation is a principle of action. They are the actings of the principle of gratitude. They are distinct and distinguishable acts prompted, inspired, united by gratitude-the one active principle from which they spring. Now, before we go further, observe two or three points.

(1.) Gratitude is the principle of action, and neither thanksgiving, help, obedience, or commendation.

(2.) Gratitude is naturally opposed to any opposite principle, such as envy or hatred.

(3.) Gratitude is not naturally opposed to thanksgiving, help, obedience, or commendation. Who would think of discussing "gratitude" versus "thanksgiving?" Who would imagine a writer to be holding commendation in disesteem lest it should destroy gratitude, because he does hold envy and detraction in disesteem? What would be thought of such logic as thisGratitude sets aside detraction, therefore gratitude sets aside commendation ?

(4.) Gratitude may be opposed to thanksgiving, help, obedience, or commendation as soon as these are perverted and become hypocritical; i.e., as soon as these are no longer performed from the principle of gratitude, but perversely performed on some principle opposed to gratitude,—and not till

then!