clear immutable conviction that his sins were forgiven, and how he could rejoice in the assurance that he was a child of God. Being profoundly read in the Living Oracles, he shows and proves that the Saviour has appointed a principle and institution for the remission of sins, namely, faith and baptism. But Pius unfortunately regards Evangelicus as a Bigot, because he announces that those are the only means which Christ has appointed for pardon. And this is true, Jesus having said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Yet Pius affirms such teaching to be Bigotry. Hence he will never hear Evangelicus expound his tenets, though he often proclaims the gospel in his neighbourhood, and as a consequence he lives on in doubt and uncertainty.

This is but one out of many instances which might be given, to shew the fearful consequences of applying the obnoxious terms, Bigot and Bigotry, to those who do not deserve them. The question now arises, What is this detested principle? Here an hundred voices are heard affirming in harmony, It is a maintaining that we are right, and all others are wrong; or in other words, that our doctrines alone are true, and all those differing from them are false.

This definition.of Bigotry is almost universally given. Yet it is egregiously inaccurate. According to it, a Christian is guilty of Bigotry, when he maintains that the doctrine of there being a one living invisible God, is alone true, of all the numerous tenets respecting a Deity. He, in fact, declares, that he is right, and all who differ from him are wrong. It would also be Bigotry to affirm that the doctrine of the Bible being an inspired volume, is alone correct, amid all the manifold notions respecting it.

In short, were the above a sound definition, then he would manifest the hated principle who maintained in its purity any one of the most awful and essential of God's truths. For there is not one concerning which there are not numberless erroneous tenets. He, then, who should teach it as God has revealed it, and declare all other expoundings to be dangerous notions, would, according to that exhibit Bigotry in its fulness. Indeed that definition makes Bigots of the most noble and philanthropic of the ambassadors of Heaven, and pronounces the doctrines of the holy reformers in every age, to be Bigotry. For all these men of God did in effect affirm, that they, or their tenets alone, were right, and all others heretical. And, fiually, if it were an accurate one, then were Christ and his Apostles the truest Bigots that ever disturbed society. For they proclaimed that their doctrines alone were the paths of peace and pardon, and all others to be those of error and damnation.

What, then, is Bigotry? that moral thunder-cloud which so heavily depresses our souls when it appears in our atmosphere. We thus define it,-A maintaining that the doctrines we advocate, and they

alone, are essential to salvation, although they are not so declared to be by God's word. We are persuaded that this definition will, when considered, be pronounced correct.

That the Scriptures are the tribunal by which must be decided what doctrines are Bigotry, is lucidly demonstrable. This is a characteristic applied to certain religious sentiments. But it may be ascribed to true and essential, as well as to erroneous and valueless, doctrines, and hence be applied very wrongly and dangerously. There needs, then, a test by which it may be known what tenets deserve the appellation. This test must be the standard of religion, containing a full description of all its laws and ordinances, so that when any new doctrines are proclaimed as essentials, it may be examined to see whether they are named by it as laws of the Great King, and thus to decide whether or not they be Bigotry. Now man himself is not that test. He intuitively knows nought of God's will. His ideas of it have been poured into his mind. What, then, is the fount of religious truth-the oracle of religion-the ordeal which unerringly tests every doctrine, and shows with lucid decision if it can rightly be spurned at as Bigotry, or received as a portion of the Word of Life? The answer is, THE BIBLE. It describes all the parts and principles of religion. All the essentials of this it enumerates and expounds with the infallibility of inspiration. Assuredly then it is the crucibles for doctrines. And on reflection it will be discovered that mankind in fact regard the Scriptures as the test of Bigotry; for they decide by the knowledge they have obtained from it, what tenets come under the appellation; and in proportion to their scriptural knowledge are the decisions respecting it correct. Thus he who has learned no more from the Bible, than the truth that there is one God makes, this doctrine, and it alone, essential to be believed. He does not consider so solemn a proclamation of it to be Bigotry; but all other doctrines that are announced as requisite to be believed, in order to salvation, he brands with the epithet. But he whose Bible-knowledge is more extensive, discerns that it is not only requisite to believe in God, but also in Christ as the Saviour. Hence he announces these two doctrines as the only essential ones to be believed, and asserts that the proclamation of any other as means of salvation is Bigotry. In short every man's religious knowledge is his test of Bigotry. Hence mankind virtually confess the Bible as the ordeal, and so pronounce our definition to be true. It is however in this as in many other instances, that men acknowledge a standard, and are guided by it in their decisions, so far as their knowledge of it extends, without being fully conscious of the fact. It requires therefore to be clearly shown and fully understood, that the standard is actually one, and is the only judge in all those cases in which men

are unconsciously governed by it. Now we have before proved the fact, and let all remember it, that the Scriptures alone are to decide what doctrines are, and what are not, Bigotry.

Another article upon this subject next moon, (D.v.)

WHAT IS FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST ?

R'S. REPLY TO BROTHER SYMONDS.

EDITOR.

MR. EDITOR.-Sir.-One ground of difference between the views held by Brother Symonds and myself, is, that he makes a distinction between belief, faith, and trust. Now I have shown that there exists no distinction in the original, where they are all represented by the same word.

Brother S. seems to me to be arguing on this point only about words. as what I have written involves all that he is contending for. I hold that he who does not believe in, have faith in, and trust in Christ, is not a believer, according to the scripture acceptation d that term; and consequently, I consider that trust in Christ necessary in order to salvation.

2. Brother S. makes a distinction between believing in Christ al believing in the testimony concerning Christ. This is also only ex tending about words, for no practical difference exists. Brother S must know that it is impossible to believe in Christ without believing the Gospel: and that it is impossible to believe the Gospel withou believing in Christ.

3. Our Brother says faith, though based upon, is not identical with belief in the testimony of God." Here we have another hair breadth distinction! Every body knows that it is impossible believe the testimony of God without having faith based upon that is also impossible to have faith based upon the testimony of Gr without believing it. Seriously, it is beyond the powers of mental vision, to discover what practical bearing these microscop observations on the Gospel, have upon Christianity.

Since I object to Brother Symonds's propositions, I shall not refe to the examples he has offered, further than by remarking, that faith is now only communicated through testimony, the examples be has offered are not applicable to our present circumstances.

As to Abraham, he did not believe that God would raise Isar from the dead; if he thought so, it was merely inference, not faith for he had no testimony to that effect. Abraham's faith consisted in believing that God "was able," and feeling confident, that rather than allow his testimony concerning Isaac to fail, he would raise hi from the dead.

1. B, R

J. W. SYMONDS, IN REPLY TO I. B. R.

MR. EDITOR.-Dear Sir.-Our Brother's last reply calls for a few additional remarks from me. I can assure Brother R. that the principle for which I have been contending, appears to me, a most important one, and that it has been discovered-not by "microscopic observations on the gospel"-but, by the patient and diligent examination of a "cloud of witnesses," as to what is revealed in the gospel, viz., the "righteousness which is by faith."

The question between us is not, what is faith? or belief?-simply, and unqualified, but, what is "faith in Jesus Christ?"-the faith by which a sinner is justified, and "has peace with God?"

My statement that "faith in Christ," though based upon, was not identical with."belief in the testimony concerning Christ," was supported by several examples from the "New Testament," which, in my estimation, were most conclusive. Brother R. does not however receive them as proof. How is this? Their faith came, as ours come, though the testimony they heard, it had the same object as ours, the Lord Jesus, and the word which denotes their faith denotes ours also. The difference between them and us is involved in the answer to this question, How can the believer now make his submission to Jesus, and receive the assurance of pardon?

66

Brother R's. remarks on Abraham's case, are pertinent and just, and moreover, completely sustain my proposition. If God had given Abraham a promise that Isaac should be "raised up" from the dead, there would have been no scope for the "trial of his faith," when commanded to surrender his son, his only son." This was a memorable example of "faith in God," founded on "belief of testimony." There is another recorded, of David's faith, in 1 Sam. xvii. 32—37, and 45-47, which I commend to Brother R.'s most serious consideration.

It is true, "no one can believe in Christ," without having believed the gospel, but the converse of this,-that no one can believe the gospel without "believing in Christ," I cannot admit as truth. The parable of the sower, Matt. xiii. 1-23, exemplifies this. Jesus told the Jews, "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to me." We know that Satan, the world, and the flesh, draw the opposite way. with but too much success, and frequently against the strongest convictions.

"Ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I have delivered unto you; unless you have believed in vain."-Some, "when they knew God, glorified him not as God."-"My little children, of whom I travail in birth again, till Christ be formed in you."―That "Christ may dwell, in your hearts by faith."-"Your faith groweth exceedingly." These and many similar expressions which occur in scripture, shew that

"faith in Jesus Christ" is something higher, broader, and deeper, than the belief of the testimony, from which it springs; and is no more to be identified with it than is the "green blade" of corn with the grain which gave it birth. The expression "believing in testimony," is generally used in the sense of believing in the "Being" who is testified of: hence the distinction between them is overlooked. A reference to the query by Brother Mitchell, on the "locality of the kingdom of God" will afford a clue to the reason, why it is necessary to understand the difference, and will evince its practical importance.

In prayer, we address ourselves to God, "in whom we live, and move, and have our being" we do not say, Hear us, O testimony, but "Hear us, O God." Faith in that Being whom we thus address, is the faith by which we are justified.

I am, dear sir, yours in Jesus,

J. W. SYMONDS.

WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?

NOTE. In accordance with our request, brother J. M. has written an article upon the gospel. Our brother has taken very startling and important positions, and positions which need powerful arguments for their establishment. We have not space nor time for further remarks, but the brethren can examine and decide upon its merits.

EDITOR.

MR. EDITOR.-Dear Sir,-It may appear strange, that an article should be required, to show what the Gospel is. And many may think it unnecesary; but as the learned have fallen out about it, I deem it my duty to write for the good of the people, one of whom I have the honour to be. I will not waste time in referring to the parties who have fallen out on this subject, nor to the manner in which they have treated it, and each other. But this we learn from what we have seen and heard, that those occupying the highest places in the churches of the Reformation, have little of the knowledge, and far less of the spirit, of the gospel.

The "gospel of our salvation," is nothing more or less than this, that God will deliver us from the consequences of sin, and place us in a state of blessedness far beyond its evil influence. Those who, feeling their need of deliverance rely on God that he will do it, have embraced the Gospel, however limited their knowledge may be. Those who are insensible to their fallen state, have not embraced it, however great their attainments.

As some of our brethren seem to think, that the preaching of Peter on the day of Pentecost was the first announcement of the Gospel, being the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, then made known for the first time, it may be as well to observe, that the means employed by God to communicate that great blessing to mankind, form no part of the blessing itself, any more than an almoner forms part of his Lord's bounty. Neither is it absolutely