that in Mat. xxv. 31, when reading of the Messiah coming to judgment, we hear not a word about the saints coming with him, for if they had been in heaven, they must have accompanied him to the great tribunal, inasmuch as in 1 Cor, vi. 2, we are distinctly told that the saints shall judge the world? If this difficulty be got over by saying that being now spiritualized they could judge spiritually, how would their absence be excused, when we read, in the same chapter, that all nations, kindreds, and tongues, are to be gathered before him? And where would they find scripture to justify the belief in two ascensions and two descensions, independently of the descent in which he took our likeness, and lived here below?

Should the saints, after joining the Lord, return to the earth, difficulties of the same nature occur: two descents have yet to transpire ere the world's history will be completed, if Matthew and John mean what their words imply. In the narrative of the first of these apostles, (xxv.) his appearance at the day of judgment is represented as coming: "When the Son of Man shall come in his glory." Now had he been on earth a thousand years before this solemn occurrence, he would not have to come to it to judge it. That this is his first appearance after that in the flesh is, I think, still more evident from what we read further on, " And then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory." Now already does he sit upon his throne; there is a constitution of which King Messiah is head; he has subjects who obey his mandates, and observe his laws; he is ever ready to repel foreign aggression; maintaining the happiness of his people unimpaired he guides, governs, and protects them as loyal subjects: they love him, and as a kind prince he cherishes them: and all this spiritually, for he is unseen, preparing a better kingdom, of which we shall take possession when the tenure of this provisional abode shall expire. What does the word THEN mean in the passage quoted, or why is it placed there? Simply to import that some distinct and apparent change will take place in the divine appearance and circumstances; and what can this change be but the inverse of what is now? He reigns spiritually now, then he shall appear personally. Once he appeared in shame, but then he shall descend the fountain-head of might and glory. If he appeared one thousand years before this day--which all admit is the judgment day-it would be a contradiction of this passage; for not again is he to be rejected and despised; his mediatorial office on earth is accomplished, his work as an ambassador is finished, and if he come at all he must come to reign, which, in the very nature of things must be glorious.

that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation." Now regarding these words, (as to which Brother Campbell made some excellent remarks in the HARBINGER for March) it will not do for parties to say, that one thousand years before the last day this voice shall be heard by all that are in their graves, but they that sleep in Jesus only come forth and obey it: this would be a construing of the meaning wholly unjustifiable. We must neither add to, nor take from, what is said.

But it is asserted, again, that at the commencement of the personal reign of one thousand years, the saints shall rise and reign with Christ. Now allowing this, these saints must die again, so that they may be in their graves when the voice of the Master is heard summoning every soul, just and evil, to come forth and be judged. But of this second death, so very important, not a word do we see recorded. We hear of a first and second resurrection, but never do those that officiate in the one take part in the other also, it being understood that one part of the human family makes one, and another part constitutes another. This conclusion to which they are legitimately brought, the word of God is silent upon, and, being so important, if true, it would have spoken distinctly.

Lastly, it is said with a mode of reasoning peculiarly their own, that when the voice mentioned in John is heard, the righteous rise only. Now the Lord emphatically declared that ALL who are in their graves should hear the voice; and this is strengthened by the fact that there is no mention of the voice speaking twice. Here then is a state which we have no language to describe: the wicked are in a state of sensibility in their graves; they hear sounds, yet know they are not to obey them.

It will be seen that I have endeavoured to make out, from the premises of the literalists, three unscriptural conclusions:-1st, two descensions, independent of the one which has already taken place; 2nd, the raising of the saints from their graves, their second death, and their return to their graves; and 3rd, some indefinable notions about the wicked being in a state of sensibility in their graves, prior to everlasting punishment. These, and some other difficulties, are, I think, fairly deducible from what they profess to believe.

The reasons must now be obvious which lead me to believe that the descent of the Lord adverted to in Thessalonians will not take place, until the millennial reign be ended; and that no personal appearance of our beloved Lord need be expected until the end of time, when he shall come to judge, and then put forth his almighty fiat, which shall make

to say, that the reasons for a universal acknowledgment of the authority of Jesus-and consequently, a glorious reign of that kingdom which is in the bosom of every disciple of Jesus, during which Satan shall be so restrained, that none of his machinations will be allowed to mar its felicity-are so plain and obvious, that to deny such would be to deny evidence, and question that which has been the hope of ages, and is the expectation of every intelligent Christian. Yours truly,

W. H.

BAPTISM-A SCOTCH BAPTIST.

Edinburgh, May 9, 1849.

DEAR SIR-In your reply to my last letter, you promised further remarks upon it. As I am now disposed to think you do not intend to redeem that pledge, I shall now make some remarks on the reply you then made.

You say, as your two former replies had not convinced me, you had little hope of doing it. The truth is that every reply you have made has more firmly convinced me, that the views I held upon baptism before our correspondence commenced, are those taught in the word of God. I think, by the way you speak of baptism, you exalt it to a place far higher than the Scriptures place it. For instance, in your reply to my first letter you affirm that by obedience to baptism, guilty man is restored to the favor of God. Now I think the Scriptures teach that nothing can restore to that favor but faith in the work which Jesus finished upon the cross. Again, in your reply to my second letter, you affirm that baptism is the divinely appointed medium to bring believers into the enjoyment of pardon and peace before God. But I must reject this affirmation until you produce the Scripture where this divine appointment is recorded. You have produced one passage from Rom v. 1, which you have quoted thus-Therefore, being justified by faith, (through baptism) we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Had the words " through baptism," been inserted by the apostle, this single passage would have settled the point you contend for; but as they are thrust into the passage by you, they only show what you think he should have said, and appears to me to look something like a reproof of the apostle for the omission. Although your theory of baptism may need a prop of that kind, it is evident the views the apostle had of baptism were very different from those you hold; for he elsewhere says, every one that believeth is justified from all things from which he could not be justified by the law of Moses, without adding through baptism. The Apostle Peter also declares that to Jesus all the prophets bear witness, and that every one who believes on him shall receive forgiveness of sins by his name, without adding through baptism. But it is quite evident the views of the apostles, and

the views held by you, are very different upon that subject, for they proclaimed pardon and peace to every one who believed their testimony concerning Jesus; but had they believed that baptism was the divinely appointed medium to the enjoyment of pardon and peace before God, they would in no case have omitted giving their hearers this information, so necessary to their happiness, had they entertained the same views that you do respecting baptism. Your reply to my third letter just amounts to this, that there is a time when, and a place where, sins are forgiven; and it is your opinion it is at baptism this takes place. You then adduce the change that took place on the minds of the three thousand who heard Peter's discourse upon the day of Pentecost, as a conclusive proof that baptism is the divinely appointed medium to bring believers into the enjoyment of peace and pardon

before God.

With regard to the time when pardon is obtained, in my opinion it is when the gospel is believed in the heart as the truth of God: at that moment the sinner is pardoned, not through baptism, but by that represented in baptism. The place where sins are pardoned, is the place where the gospel is believed, wherever that may be.

Again, with regard to the wonderful change that took place in the minds of those who were baptized, I presume you will admit that all those who were baptized, were considered to have believed the gospel, as they had no authority to baptize any but such as had done

So.

Now the gospel that Paul proclaimed was, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and was buried and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and affirmed that every one who believed this and held it fast would be saved. And Peter, in the many other words that he spake unto the people after he had convinced them that they had crucified the promised Messiah, although not recorded, must have informed them that through that very person whom they had crucified was proclaimed the forgiveness of sins, and that every one who believed is justified from all things that he could not be justified by the law of Moses. Whether he did so in the same words cannot be affirmed, but in the many words not recorded he must have proclaimed the good tidings, and they must have believed them; but it does not appear they had believed the gospel when the record of Peter's discourse ends, or they would not have cried out in the agony of their soul what they did (as you very properly express it) had they then received the saving truth. I would now ask whether it is more reasonable to ascribe the change that took place in their minds to the gospel which they had believed, which turns from darkness to light, or to ascribe the change, or any part of it, to an institution which is only a figurative representation of that glorious truth by which guilty man is restored to the

favor of God? I am disposed to think that the articles which appear in the HARBINGER, which I consider opposite to scripture, are in consequence of understanding baptism to be something else than a figurative institution. The meaning of baptism, or Christian immersion, is no where explained in all the scriptures, but in Rom. v. where the Apostle says, As many as have been baptized into Christ, have been baptized into his death." The whole passage shows that believers, when baptized, are said to have died with Christ, to have been buried with him, and have risen with him. Now I presume no sane person will affirm that this is literally true; but it must be true in some sense or other, and the Apostle says that baptism is the likeness of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. All these must be understood of baptism as the likeness. Now a likeness is just the resemblance or representation of any thing by some means or other. Now Jesus Christ has appointed immersion in water as the proper means of representing his death, burial, and resurrection, in which institution he is figuratively represented as being present in it: so that believers are said figuratively, in baptism, to have died with him, to have been buried with him, and to have risen with him, in order that they should walk in newness of life.

But how those who deny baptism to be a figurative institution understand all this, I am at a loss to comprehend. I often observe in the HARBINGER notices that such and such persons have been buried with Christ in baptism, and added to the church. Now I have no doubt that such persons are buried when baptized: but the question is, how they can be buried with Christ by baptism, if Christ is not in the institution. That he is not so personally, all will admit; and if the figurative view be denied, to say that such an one has been buried with Christ by baptism, is just using words without ideas. It further appears, from this passage of scripture, that Christ designed by baptism, that all his followers should enter his visible kingdom | by passing through an institution which figuratively represented that which he passed through in reality to his heavenly kingdom; for it was because he humbled himself, and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross, therefore God highly exalted him, &c. This view of the subject evidently corresponds with the words of the Apostle when he says, have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall then also certainly be in the likeness of his resurrection"-when all his followers shall be planted together in his heavenly kingdom, in the likeness of his glorified bodywhen figure shall have no place, and all will be reality.

"If we

To conclude, I consider it is as proper to deny that baptism can wash away sins, as it is to deny that the bread and wine at the supper are the body and blood of Christ. Both baptism and the supper are figurative institutions, and

both should be explained upon the same principle. To explain the one figuratively, and the other literally, is a most absurd mode of explaining the scriptures.

As you have expressed a wish of convincing me that your theory of baptism is the correct one, the way to obtain this wish is to meet my arguments fairly, and refute them; and if you do so, I shall thank you for your kindness: but if you do not, in reply, fairly meet my objections, but adopt some mode of reply to evade their force, you will more and more confirm me in my present views of baptism.

By giving this a place in your next, you will much oblige me, and also show your readers how our correspondence at present stands. I am, dear sir, yours very respectfully,

A SCOTCH BAPTIST.

NOTE.The Scotch Baptist contends that baptism is only a figurative institution-an outward sign of inward grace; that it imparts no satisfaction to any one, inasmuch as the enjoyment of peace, pardon, and salvation are effected by FAITH ALONE. On the other hand, the Scriptures say nothing regarding faith alone, nor of baptism, or any other institution of Christianity, being an outward sign of inward good. We believe that baptism is both a sign and seal; but the sign or model of doctrine must be observed before the seal of pardon can be enjoyed. Had the Pentecostian believers, Saul of Tarsus, or any other penitent believer, refused to obey the gospel-the law of faith excluding all boasting-they could not have obtained a good conscience, or realized the enjoyment of pardon, other than what might be derived from their own delusive imagination. To rest upon the command of Jehovah put into action, "the obedience of faith" proclaimed among all nations - by which act the believer is figuratively washed in the blood of Christ-alone constitutes true baptism into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We shall now leave our Scotch Baptist friend in the enjoyment of his still firmer conviction, that baptism is not for the remission of sins-although it is clearly attested in the Word of

God.-ED.

QUERIES AND REPLIES.

IN answer to the query, "Have we, in these latter days, any authority in the Old or New Testament to pray for another outpouring of the Holy Spirit?" your correspondent, E. M. (p. 235) says, "certainly." His first argument is, that the "better days" include the present age and the age to come: that, (in proof of which,

I presume,) both are ages of spiritual gifts and operations"- --now it should be shown in what sense they are so and also, that "the one to come is more so than the present." We are then told to pray to the Spirit, for "God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and in truth." That we are to pray for the Spirit, Luke xi. 13 is quoted. On this passage I remark, that when the Great Teacher spoke to his disciples on this occasion of the gift of the Spirit, we are not to suppose, that they knew aught of the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary operations, that being a modern and unscriptural distinction. Again, if the disciples, to whom he was now addressing himself, were those whom he had sent to preach and heal the sick, (Luke ix. 2,) they had received the Spirit in the one sense in which that gift was then understood. And if they were not of the twelve, but of the seventy, (Luke x. 1,) although the Spirit was not yet fully given (John vii. 39,)-given to all flesh (Acts ii. 17,)—they knew full well that some had received this gift. The encouragement to pray for it then was most appropriate, and could only be understood in the sense in which some received it. This passage, therefore, does not afford us authority to pray for another outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

"The more full and copious effusion of the Spirit is promised," it is said "in Ezek. xxxvi. 24-37" that it is "perfectly clear that the promise of the Spirit by Ezekiel remains yet to be realized, for it is to be when the faithful seed are gathered out of all countries," &c. "The faithful seed," I presume, are the Jews denominated by Ezekiel, the house of Israel. This promise, made to the seed of the faithful, that they should be gathered from all countries, and brought again to their own land, has been fulfilled, as may be seen by referring to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The New Testament contains no prediction or promise of their return. The Old Testament contains no unfulfilled prediction of this event.

I do not expect that this will be admitted by all your readers. And if the important question whether "we have any authority to pray for another outpouring of the Spirit ?" depend upon the conclusion we arrive at, after an examination of the question of the return of the Jews to Palestine, then is it additionally important to entertain the latter question. In the apostolic age the Holy Spirit influenced, or operated upon the minds of believers directly, or immediately so. Is that direct influence realized in the present day? I ask this question, in order that it may be considered, should anything more be written on another outpouring of the Spirit." M. D. H. May 8, 1849. QUERY." Had the Apostles any authority from the Lord, or from the Prophets, to elect one to fill the place of Judas, the apostate;

and can Matthias be considered an Apostle, seeing that he was chosen in the absence of the Messiah, and the only one chosen by men?" E. E. The Lord, after his resurrection from the dead, explained to his Apostles all the things written in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning himself; then he opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures. It is reasonable to conclude that the character and office of Judas (Psalm cix.) would form a part of that expository discourse; and if so, the eleven Apostles, in choosing Matthias, obeyed only the directions of the Lord. Besides, on the day of Pentecost, the Lord, from the throne of his glory, fully recognized the appointment. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit; and Peter stood up with the ELEVEN, &c. (Acts ii. 14); and the twelve Apostles called the multitude of the disciples together (Acts vi. 2.) From these facts we conclude that Matthias, by the direction and approbation of the Lord, was numbered with the eleven Apostles. The Apostle Paul says that he was born out of due time, and that he was not worthy to be called an Apostle; yet he who wrought effectually in Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision, also wrought effectually in Paul for the apostleship of the Gentiles; and the wisdom of this arrangement may not be questioned by any one. J. W.

QUERIES." In what way are we to understand 1 Cor. iii. 12-15, if the work of any one shall be burned, he will suffer loss; himself, however, shall be saved, yet so as by fire ?" E. E.

"What are the gold, silver, precious stones, hay, stubble, which the apostle speaks of, and of which he warns us to take heed not to build upon the foundation?" A. H.-It appears to us, that the Apostle, in this connection, is not, as some suppose, referring to doctrines, but to persons and moral duties. The church is styled a building, a temple; and in no passage of Scripture is this temple, or church of God, said to consist of doctrines, but of disciples of Christ, who are termed living stones, built up a spiritual house or temple. Now in a great intellectual or spiritual house, there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earth-some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man, therefore, purge himself from these, (dishonourable members, with their deeds) he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, meet for the master's use, and perfect unto every good work. With regard to being saved as through fire, we may remark that it was so with the Lord and his Apostles. Peter, James, and John, and not Judas, were the most intimate associates of the Lord. He and his Apostles were saved as through fire, while many of their pretended friends and followers were consuined as nothing better than wood, hay, and stubble. Let every one take heed how, and with whom, he builds for eternity. The fire is