Another misapplication is made to consist in deciding that the Apostle, by the idea of works, includes faith, &c. A little attention to the pamphlet would have rectified this mistake. If, however, as Campbell affirms, and J. D. reaffirms, faith, repentance, and baptism, are to be done by the sinner, in order to secure his personal salvation, then they are placed in the same position with legal effort. "This do and thou shalt live," is the language of the law; faith, repentance, and baptism, are the works represented as being required by the gospel to obtain eternal life. Strange that the passage quoted should prove the very reverse. "It is of faith, that it might be by grace." That is, the gospel says, believe on Jesus, and thou shalt be saved-believe that he has done all, that he requires nothing of thee, yea, that faith itself is his gift; for if, as the Apostle declares, we are saved by grace through faith, he adds," and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God." I now come to the concluding part of your correspondent's strictures, commencing with a caution to the "Baptist members," as "juvenile warriors," simply enough taking no trouble about the premises they lay down. This sage admonition may have emanated from one deeply versed in the theological lore of " Bethany College." I will, however, take leave to examine his remaining" perver sions." And first with regard to perversion 14. Eph. i. 19, at least teaches that there was a power exercised on those who believe a power of the same character as that wrought in Christthe same power of which the Apostle goes on still further to speak in 2nd chapter, "And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." Consequently, the power here spoken of embraces the commencement, as well as the continuance, of their spiritual life, seeing its operations commenced when they were dead in trespasses and sins, and is described as being "the work of faith with power." Perversion 15. Philippians i. 29, is made, in J. D.'s hands, to speak tautology. The passage, however, though the word "opportunity" is dragged in from Macknight, must, to an English reader, (and it cannot be denied that our translation is strictly a literal one) convey the idea that something more than an opportunity was given to believe, as something more than an opportunity was given to suffer. Their sufferings for his sake were the result of his grace and providence, since the one placed them in circumstances of suffering, the other enabled them to support it; and their belief in Christ was from the same source, if there is any meaning in the Apostle's language, for an opportunity to believe, and given to believe, are two very different ideas, since the former may result in unbelief, and would have been equally applicable to those Philippians who had heard the gospel, and yet did not believe it. Perversion 16. Dark as that part of the religious world may be in which the writers of the pamphlet live, there is sufficient light at least to enable them to judge about the correctness of your correspondent's "perversions." On Col. ii. 12, he tells us "the ablest Greek scholars are decided that the idiom of the language will not admit of this construction"-that is, I presume, that faith is of the operation of God. This, it cannot be denied, is strictly the literal rendering of the passage, and is coherent with the subsequent verse, where believers are said to be quickened with Christ. They were dead in their sins, and the power by which they were raised with Christ was the power of God. As it regards the construction of the language not admitting this idea, it would have been well if we had been furnished with some proof of this. In the absence of this, and the fact The least reflection will suffice to show the fallacy of perversion 17 on Acts xi. 18 and v. 31 (though at the first blush there appears a great show of argument), for as in the former case he cites (that is the case of Cornelius), it was more than the proclamation of repentance which had been granted to the Gentiles, seeing they were manifestly the subject of it; so in the latter case there is no solid reason why the words should not be understood as referring to a divine change, manifested on the day of Pentecost, in the conversion of 3000. But we are told that supplementary words are necessary, and your correspondent decides that his own supplementary words are to be substituted. In reply to this, I answer there are no supplementary words necessary; the fact that Israelites and Gentiles were made the subject of real repentance justifies the use of the expressions. 66 that power. Ephesians, chap. i. I have already referred to. The assertion, that from i. chap. 13 ver. the allusion is to the apostles, is completely gratuitous. It is evident that the apostle, in the two first chapters, teaches the union of Gentile and Jew in one church, both partakers of the same blessings. We have, in perversion 20, another attempt to make the writers of the pamphlet speak tautology, like the following:-"When the power of God is accompanied by the power of God, the sinner obeys." According to this fashion, it might be shown that there was tautology in the apostle's language to the Thessalonians, who might be made to speak thus: "Our power of God came not unto you in word only, but in power," &c. The absurdity of such a mode of argument must be manifest. Again, the writers of the pamphlet Perversion 18. J. D. appears to are charged with blowing hot and be very much amused by the idea of cold, because they make justification men being "made willing," and ex-in one place the result of calling in horts the writers of the pamphlet to another; they do not admit that look and see that no such words as calling even includes election. We making them a willing people in have, however, a distinction made by the day of Christ's power" occur in J. D. himself in reference to calling, Psalm cx. Now, if the words them- in his idea of ordinary calls and Old selves do not occur, their meaning Testament calls; and certain it is does, which is just the same thing. the brethren addressed by the apostles The psalm teaches that Christ shall are styled "the called." Now, surely have a day of power and authority, this must convey the idea of a special and a people willing in the day of call, and a call the result of choice or purpose. If it does not, calling and election, on the part of God, as it regards its speciality, is completely set aside, and thus involves an absurdity, since all hearing the gospel may be called and elected, provided they are only so disposed. But choice supposes a selection of some from among others; and that this choice is not the result of certain acts performed by the sinner, is plain from the apostle's language, "Who hath chosen and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works," | &c. True diligence is necessary in the Christian life as a means to an end, but not as a condition; the former teaches that by diligence we make our calling and election sure; the latter supposes we never can make it sure, since it is entirely dependent on our continuance in faith and holiness. Approaching to a climax in his similitudes, your correspondent likens the authors of the pamphlet to a lion lashing itself into fury by the violent use of its tail, so that they even become valorous enough to pen Campbell a challenge!! Since, how ever, he interposes as his champion, I will take leave to consider his explanation of the difficulty proposed in Ezekiel, chap. xxxvii. viz. the reason why the prophet prophesied to dry bones. The first reason that he gives is, that Ezekiel was commanded to do so; and with this statement the objection, that it is absurd to call upon men to repent and believe the gospel when they have no power, vanishes. The prophet considered the command given sufficient authority, without questioning the divine power to make the dry bones hear and live. In the same way, those who proclaim the gospel to men, though dead in trespasses and sins, have the highest authority and encouragement to do so. But he tells us the vision is prophetical. Israel was not really dead; they might be restored. Still it is plain they were dead nationally, and were restored nationally by Almighty power. Your correspondent denies that the prophecy can have any reference to a resurrection of sinners from sin and unbelief, because the prophecy refers to Israel nationally, and not to a part, but the whole. Israel, however, it is clear, was typical of the true church; and precisely the same idea is brought forward in reference to Gentile and Jew, as being raised up together and made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus; and that the prophecy has a reference to a spiritual resurrection, is plain from the promise that God would put his Holy Spirit within them, and David, his son, should be their Prince for ever. To be as liberal as possible, however, he admits that the prophecy may have a reference to the church raised from her Laodicean state. I amf ar from thinking that the addresses to the seven Asiatic churches may not be understood prophetically; but that there is any allusion to the Laodicean state of the church in this prophecy, is very questionable. Israel was to be raised from death by the Divine Spirit being put within them. This, however, is said of all believers, and consequently the prophecy must refer to men raised from the grave of their sins to a new life by the Spirit of God. This Spirit is given in connection with the preaching of the gospel-the dead hear the voice of the Son of God; and thus, however the idea of calling on men to believe, who nationally have no power, may be considered absurd, it is fully sanctioned by the example furnished in the case of the prophet. Yours respectfully, Liverpool, March 22, 1848. G. R. D. PEACE AND UNION. Dear Brother-Little did I think, when I penned my letter of the 16th October last, that I was writing matter that would call forth a reply; and you may, therefore, imagine my sur shall the weak brother perish for prise to find in the March number of the Harbinger, a letter from Brother P. C. Gray, Edinburgh, condemning or censuring our brethren who seceded from the Baptist body here, for that act. Not only so-had this been all it would not have elicited a rejoinder, but would most certainly have shown a want of charity, of brotherly love towards them and the church in Dundee, and also a self-importance in Brother Gray which ought to be abased ;—but in that letter it is distinctly asserted, as a fundamental principle of the New Testament, that a member going to a distance can hold fellowship with the unbaptized. Now with every desire to discover in what part of the Scriptures this principle is recorded, I must avow I cannot find it. Brother Gray asks, “Were not the weak told not to condemn the strong, and the strong not to despise the weak, for God hath received them ?" This is all very true, but in reply I would refer him to Rom. xv. 1: "We then who are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves." The Apostle Paul could, in the strength of his mind, eat meat in an idol's temple, but he would not, lest his brother should be offended; and he warned those Corinthians who possessed strength, not to do this lest their weak brother perish. Apply the same principle to the present case. Read also 1 Cor. viii. 8, &c. with notes in brackets. "But meat commendeth us not to God; for neither if we eat (in an idol's temple with the disobedient) are we the better; neither if we eat not are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this I do not think it necessary to perliberty of yours become a stumbling-plex the discussion of the major problock to them that are weak. For position enunciated by Brother Gray, if any man see thee which hast know- by considering whether we should ledge (not the weak or ignorant) sit bestow on the Baptist body in general at meat in the idol's temple, (or with the appellation of our brethren," the unbaptized) shall not the con- or view them as such; but trusting science of him who is weak be em- that this subject will not be lost sight boldened to do likewise through your of, I will, for the present, leave example; and through thy knowledge the matter, and request Brother Gray 66 to answer the above and the following queries, viz. : 1. Have we any command or precept warranting us to hold Christian fellowship with any who have not been admitted (by baptism) into the family of God; or is there any example of the first Christians having done so ? 2. If not, by what authority does Brother Gray substantiate this as being a fundamental principle of the New Testament? Yours, &c. FRATER. Dundee, 17th March, 1848. P.S. Is it possible for unconscious infants to be carried into the kingdom of God's dear Son? Brother Gray has said they can, "surreptitiously.' among brethren, by supposed or imaginary, than by real cases of this kind. Can a brother or sister be found in any of our churches, who openly and intelligently gave themselves to the Lord by baptism, for the remission of sins, who afterwards desired, or even troubled themselves for one moment about sitting down at the Lord's table with the unbaptized? Of the existence of such a case we have not heard, either in England or Scotland. Then why controvert the subject? Respecting our being brought into union with all who have been immersed, the idea is utopian. As well might we expect to be brought into a union with the Roman Catholics. "Their inveterate hatred, and unmistaken opposition to baptism for the remission of sins, although it is repeatedly commanded by the Holy Spirit, is proof positive that, as a body, they can never fraternize with us. [NOTE. Since receiving the above we have again read Brother Gray's letter, page 136, in which he says "There is a broad line to be drawn between those who are carried sur-The Baptist may, as some affirm, be reptitiously in their nurse's arms into the kingdom; and those who, openly and intelligently, have given themselves up to the Lord in the institution of baptism." And again, "Suppose a brother so diverse in his opinion from me, as to sit down with those who have not been baptized, am I at liberty to regard this difference of opinion so as to shut him out from the table of the Lord," &c. Brother Gray does not, in this paragraph, even intimate, that he himself would sit down at the Lord's table with the unbaptized. For him to do this would be to offend a weak brother. But suppose a weak brother be induced to do so, he could make this matter of forbearance, and allow it to pass without admonition or reproof: at the same time, however, we hope not without imparting further instruction on the subject. Without entering into particulars, and thereby preventing Brother Gray answering for himself, we take leave to remark, that more controversy, and more grief of mind, have been created the constitutional kingdom of Christ now on earth, (the unbaptized not having even entered the kingdom) still it is a fact acknowledged by many of the most intelligent of their own body, that they have, in many things, grossly departed from the spirit and practice of Primitive Christianity. To reform whole churches is found to be almost impossible. Those, then, who have the moral courage to plead for what they perceive to be clearly revealed in the gospel, must separate, and come out from among the disobedient-" For that servant who knew his Lord's will, and did it not, shall be beaten with many stripes." We were glad to hear that some, possessed of this moral courage, were found among the Baptists in Dundee. We hope many more are on the way, who will not only lay aside all human creeds and dogmas, but will exhibit, both in spirit and practice, the truth as it is in Jesus. The idea of persons being recognized as disciples of Christ, before |