he CORRESPONDENCE. J. G. LEE AND THE MAINTENANCE ONE of the main pillars in the sectarian temple is the payment of pastors; and it is with no little regret that we find brethren leaning to this practice in several quarters. The remarks of J. G. Lee, in your last, (page 118) demand some attention, and with your permission, we shall submit a few words to your readers. That the elder who may re be much discouraged, because cannot, in his district, impress the minds of his fellows with the importance of religion, and the necessity of unqualified submission to the divine will. The soil in which he labours may be, from various causes, sterile. Such a condition is discouraging. The husbandman would be discouraged if he found no fruit to gather home in the proper season. But if his neigh-quire pecuniary assistance has less right to rebour's fields brought forth plentifully, so that he had enough and to spare, the unfortunate husbandman would be relieved from fear of starvation. The nation threatened with dearth must rejoice to know that a neighbouring nation has prospect of abundance for its own use and that of the less fortunate. Jacob was in heaviness when exposed to the severity of a famine; but no sooner did intelligence reach him that corn was to be had in Egypt, than his spirit revives. rie expostulates with his sons, saying, "Get ye down thither, and buy for us, that we may live and not die," (Gen. xlii. 1 and 2.) In like manner is the spirit of a spiritual labourer cheered, who may himself have cause to lament that but little fruit attends his labors, when he hears through the medium of his periodical, of the success attending other labourers in the good cause. His spirit is thus revived when he thus contemplates that the garden of the Lord is not becoming a wilderness. Thus is he encouraged to proceed in his apparently unrewarded labour of love, rejoicing in that which is being accomplished by others. The knowledge he thus receives is power. It is to the interest of the brethren of the Reformation to support their religious periodicals, seeing the advantage to be derived from them, considering the spiritual knowledge they disseminate, and knowing that no other knowledge can effectually eradicate the evils which oppress the human family, than the knowledge of God. G. S. ceive it than any other brother or sister, is not what we intend to assert. We only deny that he has any greater or other right to receive it, correspondent, with much confidence, thus as a consequence of his being a pastor. Your writes" So, then, by the law of God, elders and evangelists are entitled to pecuniary support from the congregation." Casting his eye over this declaration, the reader would certainly conclude that preceding it were a number of close arguments, and a mighty array of Scripture, amply sufficient to convince the man who dares to say, "God never gave such a law." How great, however, will be his disappointmeat upon finding only one word presented as the mighty rock upon which this law of heaven rests. 1 Tim. v. 7, is quoted, and J. G. Lee thus presents his argument-"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR." 'MISTHOS, the word here translated as honour, properly rendered, signifies recompense or reward, wages or pay; it never means honour. * * Now as the elders who rule well are to be counted worthy of double pay, it is evident that the other elders must and logic of J. G. L. We declare them unsound have had some pay." Such are the statements for the following reasons: 1. They make the apostle promise as a reward to the Christian elder for ruling well, a double salary. This may do for the kingdom of Mammon, but not for that of Christ. The very idea is contemptible. DOUBLE PAY-extra money for ruling well in a Christian church! It out-Herods State Churchism. 2. The import of the apostle's words is clear. The simple meaning of the word translated HONOUR IS VALUE; and the command given by Paul was, in substance, none other than this. Let the brethren set a HIGH VALUE on the elders that rule well. But no paraphrase can be superior to what the same apostle furnishes us with when writing on the same subject to another church, And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, to ESTEEM THEM VERY HIGHLY in love, for their work's sake," 1. Thes. v. 12. 3. J. G. L. evidently does not understand the subject, and so far from being able to correct our translators, he does not know what the Greek word rendered HONOUR really is. He says, "The word MISTHOS here (1 Tim. v. 17) translated honour, properly rendered, signifies recompense or reward, wages or pay. It never signifies honour." Now the simple truth is, the word rendered honour is not MISTHOS, nor anything like it, but TIMEE, which word occurs frequently in the New Testament, either as a substantive, verb, or participle; but in no case is it translated wages, salary, or maintenance, or by any synonymous word. Nor has there ever been adduced an instance of any Greek author having so used it. When the writer of "Questions of the Present Age" shall have given you some better and more truthful arguments in support of paying elders, or when you shall have received them from some other pen, you may hear from us again. We affirm that no divine law exists for supplying a salary or a maintenance to elders, and that the New Testament contains neither precept nor example to favor it. DAVID KING. [NOTE. It is not for us, of course, to decide the point at issue between Brother Lee and Brother King, and other brethren who have written to us on the subject. We leave the decision with those of our readers who, by long and diligent study of the Greek language, have rendered themselves competent to such a work. We may, however, remark, that not one of our translators has, either in the text or marginal reading, given the word VALUE, or the words HIGH VALUE, in the place of double honour, in Tim. v. 7. Nor, in our opinion, would the connection admit of that construction. It may be regarded as a good rule for our guidance, that when a word is so translated as not to render the connection in which it stands common sense, the word is incorrectly applied. The apostle, in this chapter, is giving directions to Timothy how to regulate his conduct while labouring in the church at Ephesus, and, we suppose, in all other churches. No brother or sister reading this chapter, especially in the new translation, can fail to understand the meaning of the apostle. Honour widows who are really widows; but if any widow have children or grandchildren, let these learn first piously to take care of their own family, and then to requite their parents; for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God. If any believing man or woman have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the congregation be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows. Let the elders who preside well be counted worthy of double honour, (esteem and support) especially those who (beside presiding well) labour in word and doctrine. For the Scripture says, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox treading out corn; and the labourer is worthy of his wages. Surely a double office, that of president and evangelist, is worthy of double honour! We are not to conclude from these passages, that every man who may be chosen pastor, president, elder, or bishop, in a congregation of disciples, is to be supported and kept as gentleman out of the hard earnings of the poor, or even by the misdirected liberality of the rich, much less by the pay of a state church. The prophets, the apostles, the Son of God, would alike unite in spurning such an idea, as originating from the self-importance, pride, idleness, and covetousness of "Put me, I pray thee, into the office of priest, that I may eat a morsel of bread.” ED.] man. QUERIES AND REPLIES. IN reply to the Query on the cover of the last number of the BRITISH MILLENNIAL HARBINGER-In what sense is baptism said to be for the remission of sins? (A Baptist) the following is presented: The difficulty to the inquirer that is in these plain words of Peter, spoken by inspiration of God, in reply to a very urgent question by a very earnest people, under great excitement and alarm, being convicted of the guilt of innocent blood, even of Him now proved to be both Lord and Messiah, must arise, we conceive, from the seeming incompatibility of attributing remission of sins to immersion as much as to the blood of Christ, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world." And as Jesus himself said of the cup, when instituting the ordinance of the supper, "This is my blood of the new institution, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Mat. xxvi. 28.) How, then, can remission of sins be attributed to both? And as the attributing of remission to immersion is thought to derogate from the blood of the Son of God, the idea is repudiated altogether by many serious people; and another meaning is sought for the expression, as it occurs in Acts ii. 38, to reconcile it with the words of the Saviour now referred to. In order, then, to show their perfect agreement, and how they explain and illustrate each other, we remark, that when the blood of Jesus Christ was shed, and when he had made himself an offering for sin, there was no remission of sins AT THAT TIME, BY THAT ACT. He was then making "reconciliation for iniquity"—offering himself an expiatory sacrifice to take away the sin of the world; laying a ground, it is true, for the remission of sins, in consistency with the justice of God; but this was not HIS ACT OF REMITTING SIN. The act of Jesus dying for us, and the act of remitting sin, are separate and distinct. The one was absolutely necessary to the other. The death of the Son of God was essentially necessary in order to the remission of sins; but not to be identified or confounded with it-preparatory, but not the same. Some, indeed, have affirmed, that when Jesus died, all the sin of all men was pardoned, even of those not yet born, and of sin not yet and buried with him in immersion-risen with him to walk in a new life: and thus passes from death into a state of justification of life"Re-there and then. After this manner the blood of atonement is applied with saving efficacy to the condemned. And as in the case of the ordinance of the red heifer, the water of separation derived all its virtue from the spotless unblemished animal, so, in like manner, the efficacy that is in the water to cleanse from sin, is all derived from the blood of the spotless Lamb of God, which, by the appointment of Heaven, is transferred to it. So that had Christ not died, there had been NO ATONEMENT for sin - no atonement, there could have been NO GLAD TIDINGS to publish, AND NO ORDINANCE WHAT committed; and who call the gospel, THE GOSpel of pardon, addressing all men as if their sins WERE ALREADY forgiven. But this is not the way the apostles spoke. They said, form, and turn to God, THAT YOUR SINS MAY BE BLOTTED OUT;" or, as in the words under consideration," Reform, and be each of you immersed in the name of Jesus Christ, IN ORDER TO THE REMISSION OF SINS." And instead of these expressions derogating from the blood of Christ, they only show how the blood is to be applied for remission, and its saving efficacy realized. The case may be illustrated by reference to the law, and the ordinance of the red heifer, Num. xix. The children of Israel were commanded to bring a red heifer, without spot, wherein was no blemish, and upon which never came yoke, to the priest; and one was to slay her before his face: the priest was then to take of her blood, and with his finger sprinkle of her blood directly before the tabernacle of the congregation seven times. And one was to burn the heifer in his sight; her skin, and her flesh, and her blood, with her dung, shall he burn. And after being burnt to ashes, a clean person was to gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp, in a clean place, to be kept for the congregation; to form, being mixed with water, a water of separation, for it is a purification for sin. Then the cases of defilement are described, to which this water of separation was to be applied; and though the defilement contracted was only that of a bodily kind-by coming in contact with a dead body, a bone, or a grave-yet unless the defiled person was purified with the water of separation, after the manner prescribed, such persons REMAINED IN THEIR UNCLEANNESS, defiled the tabernacle of the Lord, and were to be cut off from Israel. Now, any one may see at a glance, that the process of preparation of this water of separation-and, as it is called, purification for sin" -is one thing, and the application of it to the persons defiled, is another. No one was purified by the process of preparation, nor even by the ashes as they lay in the clean place without the camp, but only by the application of the water of separation, after the prescribed manner to the persons defiled. Even so when Christ was offered as a sacrifice without spot to God, and his blood shed for the remission of sins, no one's sins were remitted by this act, and at the same time. It is only by the application of the blood to the sinner after the manner prescribed, that remission of sins is obtained, which is on this wise-Christ having become a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and all that he has done and suffered being set forth in the divine testimony concerning him, aud the whole world being concluded guilty before God, the glad-tidings are proclaimed by the commandment of the everlasting God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, to the whole creation, he that believeth and is baptized, is saved washed from sin--dead with Christ EVER COULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED TO GIVE ASSURANCE OF THE REMISSION OF SINS. But as the reverse of this is true, and as Christ has died for our sins according to the Scriptures, been buried, and risen again according to the Scriptures, what a gracious institution is that of immersion for remission, which at once determines the amonnt of faith requisite, settles the manner, and puts the obedient and penitent believer in the ACTUAL POSSESSION of the blessing, and the blessedness of the forgiveness of all his sin; and, by the same act, at the same time, gives him the adoption of a child into the family of God, and makes him an heir of an everlasting inheritance! hibited in the following verses: There is a fountain filled with blood, That fountain opened once for sin, Where'er God's testimony goes, For when in water plunged are we, From our old sins we're then set free, Then, who will bring us to the blood? For, lo! 'tis near, that all who would, O, wondrous love, that for man's sake That washed and sanctified, we may, ANOTHER REPLY.--Where there is a guilty conscience there is an impure heart: so teaches Paul. To the unbelieving there is nothing pure, for even their mind and conscience are defiled. In such a heart the Holy Spirit cannot dwell. When God symbolically dwelt in the camp of Israel, every speck of filth must be removed even from the earth's surface. Before the Holy Spirit can be received, the heart must be purified, guilt must be removed from the conscience; there must be a sense, a feeling, or an assurance that sin is pardoned and transgression covered. For obtaining this there must be some appointed way; and that means or way is baptism into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; so that, according to this order, it is incompatible, and therefore impossible, that the Holy Spirit can be received, or can dwell in any heart not purged from a guilty conscience. Hence it came to pass that Peter said, "Be baptized for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," and the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Dumfries, March 12th, 1849. A. C. In answer to the Query on the cover of the HARBINGER" Ought thanks to be presented for the wine as well as for the loaf ?"-I consider that all who have become disciples of Christ, have submitted their will to his will, and placed themselves in the position of students, ever willing to learn, and ready to obey, Jesus himself being our exemplar, Lord, and King. In the first place, we will take the example of Jesus, as recorded by Matthew, (xxvi. 26-7) which clearly shows, that after they had finished the Paschal supper, he took bread and gave thanks, gave it to his disciples, and they did all eat of it: after which, in the same manner, he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, drink ye all of it. In the next place, we turn to Mark, (xiv. 22-3) who says, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and gave it to them, and said, Take, eat; this is my body: shen he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Drink ye all of it. And Luke writes the same meaning, although not the same words, and says, (xxii. 19-20) After he had given thanks for the bread, he gave it to his disciples; and iu the same way he took the cup, &c. From what we see recorded in the gospels, we can only find one way in partaking of this memorializing "feast." But we will turn to Paul, and see what he says, (1 Cor. xi, 23) "For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it and said, Take eat, this is my body which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me and after the same manner also, (as with the loaf when he had given thanks) he took the cup when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me for as oft as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." And now I am led to say, in closing, that nowhere in the New Testament, does it authorise the giving of thanks for the loaf (bread) or cup at one time, or even hint at such a thing. Therefore we must conclude, that any church carrying out such a system, is acting contrary to the laws and example of Jesus, and following the rudiments of the world. Nottingham, March 6th, 1849. In reply to the enquiry on the cover of the HARBINGER, for February, "What is that sin unto death for which the Apostle John says we are not to pray?" I beg to offer the opinion, that it refers to the apostolic age, when diseases, directly from God, were inflicted upon those members of the Christian church whose conduct merited such chastisement; not, indeed, for their "destruction" (although, if impenitent under the infliction, it resulted thus); but for their" edification" or reformation, (2 Cor. x. 8.) In some cases the disease proved mortal; in others, it was miraculously cured in answer to inspired prayer-the prayer of faith. From Such as had the power of working miracles, when sent for by a sick and penitent brother, by an impulse of the Spirit presented "the prayer of faith" for the removal of the sickness or discase which was NOT unto death. The inwrought or inspired prayer availed to this end, (James v. 16.) But if a Christian brother continued impenitent and unreformed under the divine chastisement, the elders would receive no impulse of the Spirit to ask for his recovery, and therefore are directed not to do so. the case of the incestuous person (1 Cor. v. 5.) and others, it may be inferred, that those only were sins unto death which were unrepented of. The phrase "delivered unto Satan,” (1 Cor. v. 5, and 1 Tim. i. 20) may be understood of a direct infliction of punishment and also of excommunication from the church; for, to be delivered back to the world, (the territory of Satan) was also called a delivery over to Satan. From 2 Cor. ii. 8, it appears probable that this person had become penitent and was restored to (the church of) Christ. The following paraphrase of 1 John v. 16-17, is perhaps, of itself, a sufficient exposition of it:-"If a Christian, by an impulse of the Spirit, perceives that any Christian brother has sinned such a sin, as to draw down upon himself a disease which is not to end in death, but to be miraculously cured by him; then let him pray to God; and God, in answer to his prayer, will grant life and health unto such Christians as have sinned a sin which is not to end in death. There is a sin which draws down a disease upon Christians, that is to end in death. I do not say that he who has the power of working miracles shall pray for that, because God, in such a case, would not hear his prayer, nor miraculously cure his Christian brother at his request." The apostle speaks of some of the congregation at Corinth who were either sickly, or who slept, (1 Cor. xi. 39-32.) Such as had fallen asleep who had died in consequence of eating and drinking condemnation to themselves -had sinned unto death-died in impenitencc. Hymeneas and Alexander, Paul "delivered to the adversary, that they might be taught by chastisements not to defame," (1 Tim. i. 20) See also the following passages in illustration of that which speaks of the sin unto death, &c. :-Num. xii.1, 2 Kings v. 27, John ix. 2, | Acts i. 10, &c. Scripture is the best interpreter of scripture; and those parts which are most transparent, will usually throw light on such as are, at first sight, obscure. I have read with interest and profit the replies in the HARBINGER to the question, "In what sense is faith the gift of God ?" There is, however, a sense, if not THE SENSE, in which it was so, which has not been referred to. I will take leave to express myself in the language of Whitby. In 1 Cor. xii. 9, he says, "That by faith here, we are to understand a miraculous faith, seems highly probable from 1 Cor. xiii. 2. But chiefly I would understand by it, a peculiar impulse that came upon them when any difficult matter was to be performed, which inwardly assured them God's power would assist them in the performance of it." In Phil. ii. 27, he says, "Epaphroditus was not recovered by the gift of healing, that gift being not exercised by them to whom it was imparted at their own pleasure, but as God was pleased, by a special instinct and a strong faith, to excite them to the exercise of it." In James v. 16, he says, "Among the miraculous gifts at first vouchsafed to preachers and elders, was THE GIFT OF FAITH. That which is styled the faith of God* and by which they healed the sick :" (Acts iii.16, The faith which is by him") "and therefore, this is here promised, that where the prayer of the elders was attended with SUCH A FAITH, it should be successful for the healing of the sick." In conclusion, allow me to suggest that these illustrations may throw light on some other passages in holy writ. I will now refer to one only, viz. Rom. viii. 26-27. Here the prayer appears to be that of the INTERCESSORY character. Now, the most "fervent" prayers of the most "righteous" men do not avail, in all cases. See Gen. xviii. 23; Exod. xxxii. 31; 2 Cor. xii. 8, &c. These prayers were founded on no promise, nor were they offered "by divine * See the marginal reading of Mark vi. 22. Not faith exercised by the person healed: but that which was GIVEN to PETER, at that instant. appointment." They were sincere and "fervent," but not "effectual," because uninspired.§ They differed from that of Elijah, and from "the prayer of faith," which saved the sick, James v. 15-18. Those who had "the first fruits of the Spirit" (Rom. viii. 23) were divinely aided in their intercessory prayers. The Spirit dictated their intercessions in unutterable signs; and He that searcheth the heart of man, recognized the mind of His own Spirit, making intercession for the saints by divine appointment. Now, when we offer prayer for the recovery of a sick brother, we must add, “Nevertheless, not as I would, but as thou wilt;" for we have not now the gift of faith. We cannot, in such a case, offer the prayer of faith. I shall probably furnish some additional thoughts on these subjects soon. In the mean time, if any of the brethren who read this perceive that I am in error on either of the above texts or questions, I shall be truly thankful to be corrected. W. D. HARRIS. ANOTHER REPLY.-I am surprised you have not received an answer to the Query" What is the sin unto death for which we are not to pray ?" There has been to much said and written respecting the sin against the Holy Spirit, that it is thought by some, that great wisdom and learning are requisite to find out its meaning. Hence want of courage has deterred the brethren from sending replies on the subject. Now although I have neither talent, learning, nor wisdom, of which I can boast, yet I have mustered courage to send you my thoughts on this matter. John says there is a sin unto death, I do not say that you shall pray for it. When men or women believe the gospel, repent, and are baptized, and go on their way rejoicing for a few years, but afterwards, being wearied of the restraints of the gospel-(ought I not to have said, that they are careless and disobedient, loving the bondage of Satan rather than the freedom wherewith Christ makes his people free ?)-go back to the world, their last state is worse than the first. Engaged in gratifying the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, they are again covetous and worldly-minded, drinking with the drunkard, and thus grieving the Holy Spirit, and defiling his temple: 1 Cor. iii. 17, which, if a man defile, him shall God destroy, for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, According to the will of God." Rom. viii. 27, and 1 John v. 14, should be rendered, according to Tholuck, BY DIVINE APPOINT |