Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

2 ©itv ynlpit THE HEATHEN LOST, WITHOUT THE GOSPEL. Substance of a Discourse by Robert H. Harris, Pastor First Baptist Church, Columbus, Ga., Delivered at the "Centennial Missionary Meeting" of Mt. Zion Church, Muscogee County, July 16.1892. ¥ WSIp REV. ROBERT H. HARRIS. It is strange that, with the open Bible before us, there should be any question, upon this subject. But, that there is such a question, in the minds of many excellent people, can not be denied. Perhaps not a very great many entertain a decided con viction, in the negative; but a com paratively large number of persons are honestly in doubt—and, with most of them, so far as affects their practical conduct, doubt is tanta mount to conviction. Os people whose views are not af firmative, there are two general classes: Ist, Those who, in .the good ness of their hearts, would fain hope that, in some mysterious way, the benighted multitudes of earth may be saved, notwithstanding their ig norance of the Bible plan of salva tion; 2nd, Those who, in their mean ness and stinginess of heart, are glad to favor any doctrine that will ex cuse them from the conscious duty of contributing money to the Lord’s work. Kind-heartedness, on the one hand, and covetousness on the other, are the totally dissimilar influences ■which produce precisely the same result upon mental characters, otherwise entirely unlike. Some prejudiced—l. e., pre-judged —in the negative, and others whose minds are merely doubtful, are un willing to hear this question discuss ed, apparently lest their convictions nifty be disturbed or their doubts re-1 moved; while others, still, already know more upon this, or any other subject, than any one under heaven can tell them. So, among therm they either absent themselves, alto gether, on occasions like this, or at tend with self-bliuded eyes and stopped-up ears, determined not to be moved. It is said that when the Hon. Benj. H. Hill, as a young attorney, presented himself, for the first time, before the Supreme Court of Geor gia, he offered simply to submit his brief, remarking, in effect, that no argument on his part, could enlight en that tribunal; whereupon, Chief Justice Lumpkin replied, in sub stance, that there is no judicial w is dom so complete that it may not re ceive a suggestion of value, from the youngest attorney at the bar. Thus, perhaps even 1 may be able to suggest some truth to even the most profoundly wise, who will con descend to hear me. Ido not pre sent myself as the assumed reposito rv of all wisdom, nor as the fountain of knowledge, nor as the only source of information. I know no more on this subject than any of you might know, if you would study the Bible, and, possibly, not as much as some of you do know. But whether my knowledge be scant or otherwise, it w ill do us no harm to study this question together. » If the negative be true, and the heathen are not lost w ithout the Gos pel. then, the greatest calamity that w e could inflict upon them would be to send them the news of salvation jn Christ. Wo are so unfortunate as to have heard of Jesus! and, while some of us will be saved in him, most of us are destined to be lost, because we have heard. Now, in loving pity toward our benighted fellow-men, let us conceal this fatal news from them. And, to be consist ent, let us do more. We love our children and we are deeply concern ed about the generations yet unborn. Let us burn up all the Bibles, raze the church buildings to the ground or convert them into dance halls and the atres,extirpate the preachers,bind our selves by inviolable oaths to eternal silence on this most dangerous sub ject, and die with the fatal secret locked up in our bosoms—that our little children and generations yet to come may enjoy equal blessings with heathen murderers and cannibals, ud all be saved! . Any other course than this must be illogical and cruel, if the advo cates of the negative doctrine are right in their position. Almost as cruel as God lias been, in subjecting his pure and innocent Son to an ig nominious life and horrible death, to insure the fiery torments of an eter nal hell, to most of the miserable wrethes who are so supremely un fortunate as to hear of IIim! But what care I, personally, whether I can convince the preju diced, or not? I have no ambition in the premises, to serve, and am not in the slightest degree concerned about my success, on this occasion, as an advocate of the affirmative doctrine. But I am gravely concerned about the consequence tb those who refuse to be convinced by the declarations of God. Private opinions upon the subject are entirely immaterial. The real question is: What saitß the Loid? The Bible should be our only guide. Its teachings must* be ac cepted and its commandments obey ed, whether we understand God’s motives and purposes, or not. In this view, let us consider the last commandment of Christ: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,” Matt, xxviii, 19; “Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to ev creature,” Mark xvi, 15. Why “therefore”? Jesus had said: “All .power is given to me in heaven and in earth,” Matt, xxviii, 18—I have breathed my spirit into you—l have finished my work in my flesh, and I am going home—but I have com mitted the full accomplishment of that work to you, pledging my di vine power to sustain you—now, “therefore,” do it. Why “go”? Be cause his work was for the benefit of the world—“ God so loved the world,” Jno. iii, 16, and movement, outward, from the initial centre, was necessary, to “teach” “the world” of mankind “the way” of life that had been opened up for those who should walk in it. “Go ye,” all ye who have my spirit and my pledged pow er, for ye are qualified, “and teach all nations”—not merely those who are contiguous to Judea, but “into all the world,” as is more explicitly stated by Mark. The latter evan gelist also individualizes this teach ing. The messengers of Jesus are not merely to plant the banner of the cross, upon every nation’s shore, and the Gospel of the' kingdom,” in every national capital in l4 nll the world,” but they arc to carry their message to each individ ual as expressed in the language, “every creature.” What is the “gospel?” Good news. The term is compounded of two Anglo-Saxon words—“god,” good, and “spell,” story or tidings. Hence, the Scripture expression, “glad tid ings of great joy.” What is the best news to a drowning man? That a rescuer is at hand. What is the gladdest tidings to the’dying patient? Os a physician who can and will heal. Os what, is the “good news,” that the messengers of Jesus arc to carry to “every creature”? Os salvation. Why do 1 say so? “The gospel of Christ is the power of God unto Sal vation.” Rom. i, 16. And yet a prominent “minister in this country has recently declared from the pul pit, that the gospel of Christ was a very unimportant factor in the con version of Cornelius! “The power of God"—“ a small matter!” The last are his own words. “This “good news” is of salvation to whom? To the lost. “The Son of Man is come to save that which was lost,” Matt xviii., 11. The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost,” Luke xix, 10. “To seek” means to hunt for. Ef fort is necessary, both on the part of Jesus, himself, and on the part of his messengers. Those who “have his spirit must “go” forth “into all the nations of the world,” “seeking,” in that spirit, for the individuals, whom God bath “predestinated to be con formed to the imago of his son,” Rom. viii, 29. • Who are lost? All men. “Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,” Rom, v, 12; the wages of sin is death,” Rom. vi, 23; “wo (Christians) were by nature the chil dren of wrath, even as others,” (the unregeernate, or heathens), Eph. ii,3. The God of “foreknowledge and forcordination,” the God of “predes tination,” has declared that all men, naturally, “are under the curse,” Gal. iii, 10—that “by the offense of one, judgment hath come upon all men, to condemnation,” Rom. v, 18—and that bis people, saved from the lost, are “elect, ’ through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprink ling of tire blood of Jesus Christ,” 1 Peter, i, 2. Now who are the heathen? There THE CHRISTIAN INDEX: THURSDAY, AUGUST 11. 1892. are only three classes of animated creatures known to us : 1. Angels ; 2, Men; 3, Beasts. Under the term beasts, I inclride, for this occasion, all creatures, from the highest brute, to the lowest form of animal life. Are the heathens angels? None will assert it. Are they beasts? Blood analysis will settle the question. The red corpuscles in the human blood> every scientific physician knows, are different from those in the blood of any other animal. The blood disks in all animals of the canine family are similar, and so, with the felines, or members of the cat family, and so, also, with all other genera, of the lower orders; but none of these re semble corresponding disks in human blood—and the corpuscles are found to be precisely alike, in all the races of mankind. God “hath made of one blood, all nations of fnen, for to dwell on all the face of the earth,” Acts, xvii., 26. Not that all are white men—or all black men—or all brown or red men—but that all are men—homo, human. “All flesh is not the same flush ; but there is one kind of flesh of men. another flesteaf beasts, another ctf fishes andMflfts of birds,” I ( or., xv., 39J®!<»nniiral isrn was proved upon cIMo members of the Greely by the presence, in their sfimßßfcliM, of the striped tissue, which is pecu liar to human muscle. The flesh and blood of the heathens are found to be of identically the same kind as ours. The heathen, therefore, are men. If men, the heathen are lost, in common with other men,-“for there is no respect of persons, with God,” Rom. ii., 11, and, therefore, Christ, “came to seek and to save th6m,” since “there is no difference,” Rom. iii. 22. The question rjow recurs, will any men be saved? In the light of Scrip ture, I answer, yes. Who? Let the Scriptures answer : “He that be lieveth and is baptized shall be saved,” Mark, xvi., 16; “Whoso ever shall call up&n the name of the Lord, shall bo saved,” Rom., x., 13 —and everv intelligent person knows that the word “Lord,” whenever ap plied to the Deity, in the Scriptures, either means Christ directly, or in cludes the idea of Christ, with God —; “For God gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have 'everlasting life,” Jno., iii., 16. Another question now presents’it-' self: Is there any means of salva tion, outside of Christ, intimated in the Bible? The Scriptures, them selves are emphatic, in the negative : “Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved,” Acts, iv. 12—the language is most posi tive, “must”; and “he that believeth not shall be damned,” Mark, xvi, 16. If there were any other means, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was unneces sary: “For if righteousness come by the law, (works), then Christ is dead in vain,” Gal., ii., 21 “For by grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works,lest any man should boast,” Eph., ii., 8-9. Salvation is of God through the gift of grace, by faith in Christ, also his gift, and all this, men may “despise,” to their own damnation. Rom., ii., 4-6. On the other hand, if any, heathens or others, can be saved by “honestly do ing the best they know,” they will “have whereof to boast,” and will have a right to march up to heaven's gates, flying the banner of “good works” and demand admittance. Then consider what a reflection such a doctrine casts upon God’s business capacity! I speak of Him, most reverently. He declares that He has exhausted heaven's treasury, plucked the pricelesc jewel from His own heart, and with “the Brightness of Ilis own glory,” purchased human salvation ; and yet millions of men arc saved by their own efforts to “do the best they can, with the lights be fore them,” and buy their salvation at a price infinitely cheaper than God has paid! The Omniscient God has actually been out-traded, by some of His ignorant, finite creatures and has spent His All, for what might have been, by Him,and by others is, bought at an infinitely low er price! Such is the horrible absur dity into which such a doctrine leads. “But,” asks one, “do not the Scrip tures declares that ‘the heathen are a law unto themselves’ and that‘they shall be beaten with few stripe?’ ”? Let us sec. “That servapt which knew his lord’s will prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten yvith few stripes,” Luke, xii., 47-48. There appears, here, to be “no so far as the fact of punishment is concerned. Neither is saved from punishment. “For there is no respect of persons, with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law,” (now to skip the parenthe sis for the present), “in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel,” Rom., ii., 11, 12, 16. Here, again, it is matifest that, 1 there is no difference.” Those who have not the law “perish,” whether the stripes be “many” or “few,” and “the secrets of (all) men are judged (alike) byJesus Christ, according to the gospel.” The heathen, then, who arc “without the gospel” are not justified by that fact. If, as in the suppositional case, parenthetically introduced by the apostle, “the Gen tilcst —or heathen—wlxq have not the law, (should) do, by nature, the things contained in the law, they Ku Id be) a law unto ving the work of the heir hearts” and being “accused or excused by one another, ’’ accord ingly. But such a case is impossible, in the face of this language, by the same inspired apostle: “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God ; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be,” Rom., viii., 7. Where, in all history, is the record of a single man, who, “by nature did the things contained in the law?” I defy the world to produce one example. The purest heathen I ever heard of—Socrates— died a suicide—a deliberate self murderer! Continued next week. ASKED AND ANSWERED. C. E. W. DOBBS, D. D. I have always thought that Jesus wrote nothing while on earth, or at least that no writing of his was pre served. Recently 1 saw what pur ports to be a letter from Jesus to a certain king. Do you know any thing of this letter ? J. L. Yates. The letter is unquestionably a for gery. It is first mentioned by Euse bius, who died abput A. D. 340. In his Ecclesiastical History, Book 1, chapter 13, he tells us that he found fn the puHMMflKves of the Asiatic ‘•ity of the Syriac lan-| guage, a correspondence ’alleged to have occurred between the king Ab garus and Jesus, and he gives the epistle of each as he found them. Abgarus writes asking Jesus to come to his city and heal him of a certain disease. In reply Jesus writes de clining to come, but promising that after lie “lias been received up” one of his disciples shall lie sent to heal him. The Edessa record goes on to say that after the ascension of Jesus “Thadeus, one of the seventy” went to Edessa and preached, the king and his people embracing the Gospel. There is no reason to doubt that Eusebius really found these apocry phal epistles in the public archives at Edessa. He has been accused of forging the correspondence him self, but this unworthy suspicion has been refuted by the discovery and publication of the original Syriac. The forgery was done probably long before his day, and the epistles were supposed by him to be genuine. Hi s critical insight, but not his honesty, was at fault. The apocryphal char, acter of the correspondence u no longer a matter of dispute. Can you tell me how many Cath olics there are in America, and what is theiprospect of their ruling this country? Also do they believe that any protestant can be saved ? Alexander. 1. According to the official fig ures furnished the United States cen sus bureau by tlus Roman Catholic prelates themselves, in 1890, there were in the United States 10,221 organizations, 8765 church edifices, 1,469 halls, 6,259,045 communicants. The census bulletin from which these figures ai e taken, says: “As the Roman Catholic Church always gives in its published annual statis tics the number of baptized members or population instead of communi cants, the census appointee in each diocese was requested to comply with the requirements of the census schedules and furnish the number of communicants, in order that the sta tistics of all the denominations might be uniform. According to in formation received from bishops, it is the custom for baptized persons to make their first communion between the ages of niuo and eleven years. Baptized persons below the ago of nine years are not included there fore in tho census returns. Some ecclesiastical authorities estimate that members of this class constitute aboqt fifteen per cent of the popula tion of the church, which of course, embraces both baptized members and communicants.” That would seem to show a total Catholic popu lation of 7,353,000. The total pop ulation of the United States' is 62.622,250. There is one Catholic t A very eight and a half of the pop ulation. 2. Our correspondent, in the light of these figures, can answer his second question as intelligently as we can. It tn ay be said, however, that the Catholics have not maintain ed their strength in this country. They should number at leapt nine or ten millions, if they had kept all who came to them by natural increase and by foreign immigration. We believe that they lose more than they gain by converts from Protes tantism in this country. There is an influence in our free American institutions and methods of thoughts that is fatal to Romanism. We have no fear of the future. 3. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that all “baptized” persons may be saved, and it does not con fine baptism to its own pale. On the contrary it regards all “baptisms,” valid, no matter who administers the “saerftment.” A high dignitary of the Church, Cardinal Manning, de clared that “non-Catholics may go to heaven.” He wrote an elaborate statement giving the position of his Church on this question, in which he said: “Wo believe that the Holy Ghost breathes throughout the world, and gathers into union with God and to eternal life all those who faithfully co-operate with His light and grace. None are responsible for dying inculpably out of the visi ble Body of the Church. They on ly are culpable who knowingly and wilfully reject its divine voice when sufficiently known to them.” Another Catholic authority says that protestants may be saved through “good faith and invincible ignorance/’ Good faith is explained to mean that “faith which is perfect ly sincere and which lives in holi ness and good works.” Invincible ignorance refers to all “who either never knew of the Catholic Church, or, having knbwn, are incapable through prejudice or otherwise, of coming to the knowedgo of the truth.” The explanations would seem to leave the bars down very widely. And after all we know that both Catholic and Protestant must be saved by grace alone. What did the apostle Paul mean when he said “all things are lawful for me.” . f. h. d. He certainly did not mean what your friend thinks. Paul was not an antinomian; aad he did not*re-l gard himself as absolved from all law. It is scarcely to be believed that any one claiming to be a believ er in the Gospel could argue that “a Christian cannot sin,” because Paul used the expression you rofer to. Dr. Gould, in the American Com mentary, (on 1 Cor. 6 :12) says : “Os course the statement 1 ‘all things are lawful for me,’ is subject to the ob vious limitation, that it applies to in different things, those which do not possess positive moral quality. Evi dently, then, the application of this principle to<he ■ matter of fornica tion, is an unwarrantable use made by parties in the Corinthian Church, early Antinomianism.” Dr. Phemptre, in Ellicott’s Com mentary, writes a similar note: “It is a maxim of Christian liberty which does not refer to matters which are absolutely wrong, and that even in its application to iddif ferent matters it must be limited and guarded by other Christian princi ples. The eating of meat sacrificed to idols and the committing forni cation, were two subjects of discus sion closely connected with heathen worship, and it may seem astonish ing to us now that because St. Paul ‘had maintained the right of individ ual liberty concerning the former, he should perhaps have been quoted as an authority for liberty regarding the latter, yet it is a matter of fact that such a mode of reasoning was not uncommon. They were both regarded as part and parcel of hea then worship, and therefore, as it were, to stand or fall together, as being matters vital or indifferent. (See Acts 15 :29 and Rev. 11:14, as illustrations of the union of the two for purposes respectively of condemnation and of improper toler ation.”) Os course, on so delicate a subject, one must write guardedly. Still the foregoing extracts from eminent com mentators will show how shameful a' use was attempted to be made of the apostle’s words. Paul argued that in the Gospel dispensation we are not under law, but under grace. He taught that we. are not justified by law but by faith. Yet he indignantly repelled the false conclusion that his doctrine encouraged sin. (See Rom. 6:1-2-15 and elsewhere.) A tine illustration of the principle that guided the apostle may be seen in 1 Cor. 9:21-22. The parenthetical statement not without law to God, but under law to- Christ) is at once an explanation of his former saying, and a condemnation of the improper application of that saying. He recognized the moral law of Christ as being the reguant rule of all living. We thank Rev. Dr. D. Shaver for his kind words in commendation of the work done in nreuarincr this de- partment of the Index. Also for calling our attention to the fact that in the “third revised and enlarged edition” of the Schaff-Hezog Ency clopedia, Sisera is not called “king.” He is so called in the first edition, the one in our library. It is gratify ing to note this correction in a work so very valuable. It is an evidence that the revising editors are very careful and painstaking. Sisera’s name occurs only incidentally, being found in the article concerning De borah. Are you sure that scriptural sacti fication is progressive ? Is there not a distinction to be made between sanctification and holiness? B. O. C. The noun sanctification does not occur in our translation of the Old Testament, though the verb sanctify is found quite frequently. Its pri mary meaning is to set apart and appropriate anything to a holy use. Thus it is applied to the sev enth day as the Sabbath. (Gen. 2:3; Dcut. 5:12: Neh. .13:22) —to the first born (Ex. 13:2) —to the mount (Ex. 19:23) —to the altar (Ex. 29:36), and other things of w hich moral quality cannot be predicated. To sanctify the Lord was to regard him as holy. It does not appear to be used in the sense of producing subjective holi ness. and is not applied to persons in that sense, in either in the Old or New Testament, though in the last, it does seem to take on a higher spiritual meaning. In such passages as John 17:17; Acts 20;32; 1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 5:26; 1 Thes. 5:23; 2 Tim. 2:21, surely something more than a formal setting apart to Christ’s ser vice is meant. Certainly there is a ref erence to the inward purity of soul. In the New Testament the noun sanctification is the translation of the 'Greek word, hagiasmos, in 1 Cor. 1.30; 1 Thes. 4:3, 4; 2 Thes. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2. It is rendered “holiness” in Rom. 6:19, 22; 1 Tim. 2:15; Heb. 12 14. It occurs in no other places, though two words from the same root are translated “holiness” in Heb. 12:10; Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 7:1; 1 Thes. 3:13. In Acts. 8:12 and Eph. 4:24, still other words are found in the Greek—the first being that usually rendered “godliness,” which.term the Revised Version has in that text. The Revised Version everywhere renders hagiasmos by “sanctification.” Careful ’study of all the passages shows that while to sanctify means primarily to devote, or consecrate one to a holy service, yet it also means to “make one holy in character, and thus for a holy ser vice.” Hence there is no-impropri ety in speaking of sanctification as progressive. The Christian is to be ever “perfecting holiness in the fear of ■ God. When we are born of God, but VS Wire ®nly “babes in J Christ.” Then begins that growth in grace and knowledge of Jesus, whereby we gradually attain “unto a full grown man, unto the measure of the stuture of the fullness of Christ.” (Eph. 4:13). We shall be “perfect ed” only when in glory we see him, with eye no longer dimmed by the darkness of sin. (1 John 3:1-3). Blessed sight! Blessed likeness! B. O. C. urges 1 John 3:9, as im plying the instantaneous sanctifica tion of the regenerated. We must read all scripture in its relations to other scripture. John certainly did not teach that any are sinless, or that any have yet attained absolute per fection. (See chapters 1 and 2). We quote the American com mentary: “Whosoever is born of God. The perfect participle. It might bo translated, ‘Every one who has been born of God.’ Doth not Commit. Does not do it (present and continuous tense as the law of his life, as the ideal tendency of his being. In the Revised Version I find an important omission in 1 John 5 :7-8, and no marginal note explaining the omission.' Usually some allusion is made. Why was it not done in this case ? Allkx. In the old version the passage reads: “There are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in the earth,) the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.” The Revised Version omits the word sin parenthesis, and the word “record’’ is rendered “witness.” When omissions are made it is gen erally noted in the margin, as in the Acts 8 :87, where it is said : “Some ancient authorities insert, wholly or in part, verse 37.” But in the case of the words omitted in John’s epistle, that could not be said, because they are found in no Greek manuscript of the New Testament earlier than the sixteenth century! “No determination of modern criti cism,” says Dr. Sawteye, in Ameri can Commentary, “is more certain than the spurious character of this part of the text. And it seems ut terly foreign to the argument John is evolving.” The case is so clearly stated in Ellicott’s New Testament Commeutary, thaUwe cannot do the reader a better service than to quote: “The words are wanting in all the Greek Codices, including the Codex JSinaiticus, and in all the ancient ver sions, including the Latin, as late as the eighth century. Since then they are found in three variations. Had they been known, they must have been quoted in the controversies about the Trinity ; but they aro not cited by any Greek, or any of the ol der Latin Fathers The words probably crept into the text gradually from Greek notes on the passage Luther never translated them; in his first commen tary he pronounced them spurious. . There is hardly a pas sage in all literature more demon strably spurious.” In view of these facts the Revises would have been false to God s holy book if they had not omitted the words in question. There is no doubt they would have retained them if there had been any evidence that John penned them. We should be grateful to the scholars who la bored so prayerfully and reverently to give us in the Revised Version the New Testament in its purity, as it came from the pens of the sacred authors. Please explain the 11th verse of the 3rd chapter of Matthew: “I in deed baptize you with water,” etc. In Student. There are three points in this pass age, concerning which “Student” asks explanation: 1. The use of the preposition “with.” True the text, even as ren dered in the common version, furnish es no real argument for affusion, yet it is so used quite successfully. There is a silly little Methodist book called “Theophilus Walton,” in which the changes are rung on the phrase “baptize with water.” It is well, therefore, to note the fact that all the earlier English translations, except the Genevan, had “in water.” Wi clif (in 1380) had: “I wash you in water * * * * he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire.” Tyndale (1534): “I baptize you in water.” So Cranmer (1539), and the Rhciins Roman Catholic, in 1582. The first English version in which we find “with water,” in this place, is the Genevan, made by Scottish ex iles who fled from the cruelty of “Bloody Mary.” They were under the influence of John Calvin, who enunciated the principle that the form of baptism should be regulated by the church, in accordance with th® climate. Scotland was a cold coun try and sprinkling would be more convenient! So this Presbyterian version appeared in 1557 rendering “with water.” King James’ men followed this version (1611). The Revised (Canterbury) Version has a marginal note giving the alternative “in. The majority of the revisers voted at first.to put “in” in the text, but on the final revision it failed for want of a two-thirds vote. The American revisers, a company of thirteen scholars, of whom only one was a Baptist, were more faithful than their Ehglish brethren. In the “list of readings and renderings pres ferred by. tl>«» Amerioau , CoaaraitU>o,’| in the “Classes of passages,” they say? “IX. After ‘baptize’ let the margin ‘in’ and the text -‘with’ exchange places.” This is a commendable ex hibition of conscientious scholarship. The Presbyterian Rev. Dr. Phil ip Schaff, who was president of the American Committee, translates Lange, the commentator: “I baptize you in water, immersing you in the element of water. * * * He will en tirely immerse you in the Holy Spirit.” 2. The second inquiry is as to the “baptism in the Holy Spirit.” It is well to note that the phrase “bap. tisni of the THoly Ghost,” so often heard in the pulpit and elsewhere, is unknown to the New Testament. Even the scriptural expression “bap tize in the Holy Spirit” occurs in only three instances, viz. Matt. 3:11, and parallel passages; Acts 1: 5, and 11: 16. The fact is suggestive In view of the stress laid on the words in common modern thought With out going into an elaborate discus, sion of the subject, it must be said that this baptism in the Holy Spirit is not regeneration. The only in* stances in which it was received, so far as the New Testament affords examples, were on the day of Pent®, cost, in the household of Cornelius, and, perhaps in the cases of the con* verts in Samaria and the twelve in Ephesus. (See Acts 2: 1-4; 8: 17; 10: 44; 19: 6). In all these instances there seems to have been an extraor dinary inipartation of the Spirit, en abling the recipients to manifest miG aculous powers. Perhaps we should say that this special “baptism” was peculiar to the apostolic age, and ceased with the age of inspiration and miracles. Christians now hav4 the Holy Spirit as their indwelling sanctifier and comforter, but that blessed experience is not what the New Testament means by baptism in the Spirit. Commenting on Matt. 3: 11. Rev. Dr. E. H. Plumptre, the distinguished Episcopalian, in Ellicott, says: “As heard and un derstood at the time, the baptism with the Holy Ghost would imply that the souls thus baptized would be plunged, as it were, in that crea tive and informing spirit.” 3. Baptized in tire. This has been understood to refer to the everlast ing fire of perdition—that Christ would baptize some in the spirit and some in hell-tire. But the interpre tation, though strongly supported, seems harsh. Rather “fire” is sim ply appended as an image of the spirits enlightening and, perhaps, purifying work upon those receiving the promised baptism. Kfl UMt Cough Bjnjp. Good. UmM i ini