Harbinger, April 1, '65. 66 day; but secure to him the estate as a personal possession, by documents and seals undeniable, what a stimulus to healthy and persevering labour! The dyking and draining, weeding and planting, will proceed as by enchantment. In a short time the desert places will be glad and blooming as Eden. The yellow cornfields will soon invite the labor and songs of the reaper and the voices of men and damsels sound free and happy in the hall and in the hamlet. You might have said to the heathen in Grecian or Roman days, "Abandon the sensual and frivolous life and live pure and noble in virtue and consecration." I think I hear him answer. For what purpose, Osage? While death is on the road to devour us as he hath our fathers, why should we not have as much pleasure as we can grasp in our little day? Why labor with the adornment of a temple which the earthquake may swallow in a few days, or with a mansion which is sure to be swept away by the sea? Rather 'let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.' But how great the revolution which is accomplished when we have the firm abiding conviction that identity is sure, personality eternal -no forces of intellect or glories of moral character to be lost in the sepulchre -all the property sealed and inviolate. With the soul-pervading, life-inspiring assurance we work in the seed-field of time for eternity and God, and discover in all directions that our own advancement is linked with the diffusion of his glory. The ground of our certainty is only found in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. The voice which thrills and quickens says, "I am the resurection and the life. He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live; and he that liveth and believeth in me, shall never die." The rabbi in the synagogue might gloss and refine, the academic might guess and speculate, the modern philosopher might reason from analogies and probabilities; but here are we in the midst of misery, ruin, and death, demanding such force of conviction and majesty of assurance as none of them could give. "I am the resurrection and the life." It is the voice of God we hear this time-the same voice which said Let there be light," and light was. I never hear the words without thinking of all the things which are strong and enduring, the everlasting rocks, everburning stars-yea, the central stay of all abiding things, the throne and sanctuary of the Highest. "Because I live, ye shall live also." But this and similar utterances can only have power over us if we have come into a vital union with him who is the essential life. If we know that we have eternal life, it can only spring from the well-grounded assurance that we are in him who is the true God and the life everlasting. The little children, the young men, and the fathers, however distinguished from each other by degrees of intelligence and holiness, were all expected to have this foundation knowledge lying like the granite underneath all other growth and accumulation. The absence of immortality from the city would have defaced and obscured all other glories. All the other jewels in the house would have lost their grace and their lustre. The dread thought that the enjoyment was to terminate at some given or some uncertain period, would have kept intruding like a wrathful fiend or an unquiet ghost. Such a fear would have discoloured even the waters which issue from the throne, and would have brought discord into the music of the harpers. But when we know we shall live for ever, all the jewels in the house of life give forth a finer radiance. The rest is glorious, the knowledge is entrancing, the power is godlike, and no shadows can gather when the light of eternity is burning. 66 V. The Vision of God.-In the Sermon on the Mount it reads, " Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." On the one side it is true that God, who is spirit, cannot be seen by the creature; for the highest among the finite would perish in the insufferable splendour of his unveiled essence. On the other side, it is equally true that the pure in heart shall see his face and dwell in his presence for ever. The longing of the devout soul is for closer manifestation and richer communion, and such shall never be crowned in their desires, until they awake in his likeness and live at his right hand, where there are pleasures for evermore. Fragments and splinters of truth are to be found both in Pantheistic dreams and Brahminical absorption. As the rivers run to the sea, redeemed humanity is running on to God. The true goal of a spiritual priesthood is close and eternal fellowship with God. We expect the darkness to clear away, the J 130 APPEARANCE OF EVIL. Harbinger, April 1, 65. veil to be lifted, when we reach the shore of realities, and abide for ever in the light of his countenance. When Moses said," I beseech thee, show me thy glory' "-when Philip said, "Show us the Father and it sufficeth us"-though the desire to see with mortal eyes his glorious personality was unquestionably there, yet so was the deeper underlying reality. The great thing then and now is, yearning for such life and fulness that we may feel we are one with God. We can only find such yearning where there is purity of heart. The heart of the ungodly man is like a troubled sea which cannot rest. The stormy waves are in pain, and they turn up both mire and monsters. As it hath been well remarked in the olden time, the sun cannot mirror itself in the sea when that element is shaken by the tempest. There must be peace and purity over the face of that deep, when the sun-god glasses himself in brightness. Neither can the impure or passion shaken heart see God, or receive the image of the Lord. The purity of heart seems to include something more than mere forensic justification. It seems to comprehend a battle with, and a victory over, the world-a steady advancement in sanctity and elevation of soul-the growth and formation of a positive character, born and nourished out of suffering and trial, and victorious over the flood and the fire. Where is the man who without faltering, though the tears may be in his eyes, can say, "Whom have I in heaven but thee, and there is none upon earth that I desire besides thee?" When we find him, such is the man that has purity of heart, because he has undivided love. In such a case the "seeing God" begins in a measure even amid the disorder and rocking of the present life. Human philosophy has had a dream of our reality. It has spoken to us concerning an "intuitional consciousness" standing in the presence of truth as a seer. It has painted for us some faculty or condition of soul which needs not, like common sense, to climb laboriously the great eminence where the prospect is serene and the upper lights are shining; but which flashes through all the veils and stands in the holy of holies. This shadow has no substance save in that city of God which we are seeking. The realization can never come until we abide in a city which hath no temple. The ordinances and symbols which belong to a temple are all gone, for the essential life is present, and the uncreated glory is visible. A sort of sublime scorn is flung upon all others cities, from Babylon to Rome, and downward. They had no foundations. Time and the elements defaced and wore them away-war enveloped them in fire and desolationpestilence spotted them with death-earthquake shook them and buried them in darkness. But there is a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. May God clothe and inspire us with much valour and power, that we may overcome all peril on the road and safely reach the everlasting city. APPEARANCE OF EVIL. IF I perform an act which appears to all the world wrong, the goodness of my motives will not neutralize its influence opon the moral feelings of the community. Should we ever, then, forget that "we are made a spectacle to the world?" Should we be entirely careless of public opinion? Should we think it a light thing that we have conducted ourselves so indiscreetly as to be misunderstood, and to have our motives impugned? All this evil may come upon us when we have done our very best. But even then we should deeply regret it, and carefully and anxiously inquire whether the mischief may not have originated in some negligence on our part, and how the like evil is to be avoided in the future. Let us never forget that if our actions, words, or spirit have the appearance of evil," we are in all cases inflicting a wound upon the moral feelings of others-our example is essentially injurious-and so far we are helping on the cause of sin and error? What an astounding consideration is this to a tender conscience? And shall we dilligently labor to build up the cause of Christ with one hand, and pull it down with the other? Shall we through our want of true Christian prudence, more than neutralize all our exertions in the cause of truth and holiness? God forbid.-George Peck. 66 Harbinger, April 1, '65. ATTACK BY W. CATTLE. 131 REVIEWS, NOTES ON PASSING EVENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, &c. BAPTISM, BAPTISTS, & A. CAMPBELL ATTACKED BY W. CATTLE. AT a recent meeting of the Bible Society the "Rev." W. Cattle, of Walsall, Wesleyan, was unexpectedly called to the platform, and not being prepared to speak to edification, he endeavored to hold up to ridicule those who desire a revision of the Common Version. Of course he did not remember that John Wesley published a Translation and Notes, which Wesleyan preachers are required to accept in their entirety before they can attain to the office he now fills. Not content with this inconsistency, Mr. Cattle made a special attack upon one verse of a translation by A. Campbell, President of Bethany College-"I indeed immerse you in water, unto reformation; but he who comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to carry. He will immerse you in the Holy Spirit, and in fire" (Matt. iii. 11.) To make Jesus promise to immerse them in the Holy Spirit, is, according to Mr. Cattle, next to blasphemy. He also handled the Baptists somewhat for putting forth a translation thus insulting to the Spirit. His remarks having been reported in the Walsall Free Press, A Lover of Truth and a Baptist" gave kindly chastisement, and at the same time threw overboard A. Campbell-" A. Campbell of America is not a Baptist, though he practises immersion. He stands at the head of a denomination founded by himself, but is rejected by the million of Baptists in America and by the quarter-of-a-million in this country." This "Lover of Truth," if report speaks truly, is W. Lees, pastor of the Baptist church. It would have been quite as well had he duly acquainted himself with Mr. Campbell's work and standing before undertaking to enlighten the Walsonians thereupon. Had he done so, he would have been able to inform them that A. Campbell is not the founder of any denomination, and that no denomination exists of which he is the head. The churches with which he is associated have neither founder nor head, save Christ the Lord. They know Mr. Campbell as a brother in Christ, whose abundant labors have been most largely blessed, but he never sustained other official relation to those churches than that which Mr. Lees sustains to the Baptists of America and England-that of an elder or bishop over one church. To return to the Walsall Free Press. The several letters having made evident the weakness of the sprinkling side, the discussion was terminated by the Editor in the manner most usual when newspaper controversies upon this subject arrive at a stage adverse to the anti-Baptist cause-"We think no good can possibly result from a continuance of this controversy. We must respectfully decline any further communications upon the subject." Not satisfied with this abrupt termination, the Editor of the British Millennial Harbinger appeared upon the field, and the following letters were exchanged "To the Rev. W. Cattle.-Dear Sir,Personally acquainted with Alexander Campbell, President of Bethany College, I have been instrumental in extending the circulation of that translation of the New Testament which you denounce as approaching to blasphemy in its rendering of John's promise of baptism in the Holy Spirit. In Walsall, during the last year, we have proclaimed the ancient faith and the one baptism of the church of Christ— which baptism I have demonstrated is immersion and immersion only. As a result a number of persons in your town have denounced the sprinkling to which they were subjected in infancy, and have been baptized according to the law of the Lord. We occupy, as a temporary place of meetIn Birmingham our labor has been highly ing, the Temperance Rooms in the Square. successful, as indicated by large membership. Under these circumstances I regret that your discussion is so abruptly terminated by the Editor of the Free Press, and therefore invite you to a full and public discussion of the points at issue. You affirm that the translation, 'He will immerse you in the Holy Spirit and in fire,' is a false and almost blasphemous rendering, and that baptism can be performed by pouring or sprinkling. This I deny, and affirm that the translation is correct, and that baptism can neither be administered by pouring nor sprinkling. I will either pay half the cost of the proceedings and admit the public free, or a small charge can be made to cover expenses. I will not now propose conditions, excepting that 132 ATTACK BY W. CATTLE. Mr. King. Dear Sir,-With you I regret the termination of the 'baptismal discussion' in the Free Press. I wanted to refer before I had done to a subject you triumphantly refer to in your letter to me, namely, your great success in the immersion of members of other churches-you mean your great success in robbing other churches of those whom God had converted through their instrumentality. Is that a matter to glory in? Go into the world and by the mercy of God convert sinners, if he will help you to do it: then I care not how many thousands you dip, and plunge, and wash; but don't do what is a disgrace to you, sneaking and creeping into other churches better than your own, leading away from the fold where God had placed them silly and ignorant people. If the members of the Baptist churches were canvassed, I have no doubt but one half their number would consist of persons seduced from other Christian denominations. And as to yours-for I suspect you don't belong to the old Baptist body, but simply a Yankee fungus-I don't believe you can look upon a single member of your fold that has not been stolen-not one that you have fairly and truly converted from sin to holiness. You are nothing better than robbers of churches, and you glory in it. I cannot condescend to discuss the matter with you in any shape. Your's truly, W. CATTLE." "Birmingham. Mr. Cattle.-Sir,-It requires some amount of grace to enable one to answer your epistle, but my sense of duty to an erring man rather than regard to my own inclination prevails. But understand me -I write not to urge your acceptation of my former invitation to discussion, but to give you opportunity to make reparation where you have most unwarrantably not only violated Christian courtesy, but trampled upon truth and justice. Either, Sir, you know nothing about the people I am identified with, or you knowingly and intentionally slander them for the purpose of escaping a fair and manly defence of an attack made when you were in a position that admitted of no reply. But, Sir, not withstanding appearances are somewhat against you, I will not as yet conclude in favor of the latter alternative. I, therefore, for the present, act under the hope that you have become by some means the subject of grossly false impressions. First, then, as to your elegant and chaste designation of the body' to which I belong. It Harbinger, April 1, '65. is true that the Baptist Hand-Book' for the present year gives us 300,000 members in the United States, and that we consider this statement at least 100,000 under the real number. But, then, Sir, if I mistake not, there are in that country a good number of Methodists, whose faith and practice are nearly identical with your own. Perhaps, then, you will be quite willing to accept the conclusion that the fact of large connections in America is not necessarily a disgrace. You no doubt intended to imply that the 'body' I am connected with originated in America and has been transplanted here. But the churches I am connected with did not emanate from any one centre. In several parts of this country and also in the United States they arose without knowing one another, and it was some time before the churches in this land heard of the existence of like-minded disciples on the other side of the Atlantic, so that though recognizing churches in America, we are not of American origin— not that I consider it would have been worse for us to receive truth from America than for the people of that continent to receive Wesley's invention of Episcopal Methodism from England. Next, as to our conduct in the advocacy of truth, so far from being of the cringing character you intimate, it is (our opponents being judges) the most open and manly possible. We offer to the ministers and accredited representatives of denominations from which we differ the use of our chapels and places of meeting to refute our plead. ings and correct our members, provided only they will do it in a spirit of love. And we hold ourselves bound to defend our position by the side of any accredited, respectable, and competent opponent. Then, Sir, as to our converts. I must in common justice demand that you substantiate your charge, or, like an honorable man, withdraw it, with suitable apology. Let me inform you of the facts. In Walsall, our membership is not large. But, Sir, I think I should only express the truth if I were to say that not above one of the whole number came to us from any neighbouring church-that is, if we except that nominal membership in the Church of England of persons who neglect its ministrations and deem themselves of the Church because they were made members in in. fancy. But granting the possibility that I may not call to mind every case, I will make my affirmation quite secure by putting it thus-at least three fourths of our members in Walsall were not in membership with any church when they came under our influence. In Birmingham, Sir, it is a rare thing for a week to pass without our baptistery being used. Many confess faith and repentance and are immersed into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Now, Sir, I am prepared to prove, by the production of the names and the persons, that not one fourth thus baptized were in membership in other churches when they became hearers in our midst, and I do believe that were I to say not one tenth I should be nearer the mark. Under these circumstances I can hold your letter only as gross defamation. I have now put the facts before you so that you can recall your epistle, prove its truth, or leave yourself open to public repudiation as a false accuser. If, then, I hear not from you in the course of the present week, I shall conclude that you have no more to say, and act accord. ingly.-Your's, &c. DAVID KING." Destitute of any ground for his charges and also of the manliness requisite to their withdrawal, Mr. Cattle remained silent, and accordingly a public meeting was convened in the Guild Hall, when Mr. King read the correspondence and sustained the proposition submitted in the first letter. The reading of that letter brought forth considerable applause, while Mr. Cattle's reply was received with cries of Shame! and very general disapprobation. The Hall, which is the largest in the town, was crowded, and many were unable to gain admittance. The propositions established in the lecture were-1, That the instances of baptism recorded in the New Testament, with such attending circumstances as indicate what was done, demonstrat, without exception, that the act was immersion. 2, That the figurative use of the word presents in every instance the idea of immersion. 3, That Greek Lexicons, without exception, give dip, immerse, or an equivalent word, as the primary meaning of βαπτιξω, and that not one can be found which has pour, sprinkle, or any equivalent term. 4, That Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and leading sprinklers on every hand, admit that the baptism appointed by Jesus and administered by the apostles was immersion only, and that pouring was adopted, not because it is expressed in Barriέw, but as a convenient substitute, which the corrupted church granted to itself the liberty to introduce. Mr. Cattle's incompetency as a critic was demonstrated from his own letters. One sample only will our space admit. He wrote in allusion to the Eunuch, "The whole stress of the argument rests upon the Greek particle rendered into. Now this particle is more than a hundred times translated at, &c. so that there is not the slightest proof that they went into the water." This is simply bold and untrue assertion. "The whole argument" does not rest upon the particle into. Strike out the clause, "they went down into the water," and merely read that Philip baptized him, and they "came up out of the water," and then it is quite clear that they were in the water, for otherwise they could not have come out of it. So far, then, from the "whole stress" resting upon into, we can give up the whole clause of which it forms part, and the fact that they were in the water is unmistakeably indicated. But though we could thus give up the entire clause, we shall not do so, but on the other hand, shew that if the coming up out of the water were not named, the going down into it is affirmed, and that without resting the whole stress upon into. We therefore beg to inform Mr. Cattle that the verb has to be taken some notice of, and that karaßàww in construction with eis does and must of necessity indicate the descent into the water. In twelve instances in the New Testament these words are found in combination, and, without exception, the context shews that the motion indicated was that of complete entrance, as in Rom. x. 7, "Who shall descend into the deep?" So that whatever may be said of eis sometimes meaning at and not into, that never holds good when it is connected with karaẞàivo. But let us hear Mr. C. upon "coming up out of the water." He renders the clause, And when they were come up from the water." Strange that he objects to a new translation of the Scriptures and yet proposes a new rendering of the text in question! But he does so, and cites Acts xii. 10("The angel departed from him") as proof that èk means from. "The angel," he says, "departed from him, not out of him." Certainly the angel did not go out of him, say we. But let us look into the original of Acts xii. 10, for somehow we don't feel that Mr. Cattle is to be trusted. What if, after all, ek is not found there? Why then, of course, Mr Cattle don't understand what he is 66 |