the blood of Christ of no more value than the water of baptism, because we affirm that salvation is by baptism as well as by blood. Should any of the brethren charge us with making the locality of the kingdom of equal value with the Lamb, we have only to observe, that the same arguments by which they repel the false accusation of the sects, will also repel the accusation to which we have alluded. "Precious faith"

in the "exceeding great and precious promises " of God, is not opposed to "the precious blood of Christ," no more than obedience to the Lord's word is opposed to faith in the Lord's blood. We can glory in the locality as well as in the Lamb, in the crown as well as in the cross; and, if our glorying be intelligent, the more we glory in the former, the more will we glory in the latter; just as he who has the greatest intelligent faith in the Lord's blood, will have the greatest respect for the Lord's commandments.

It is admitted that primitive christianity can only be fully restored by a full return of primitive faith and obedience. It is evident from Acts viii. 12, 28, 30, 31, that two classes of things were preached in primitive times, by primitive preachers, to convert sinners into saints. It is contended that the preaching of "the Name" gave faith in the Lamb, and that the preaching of the Kingdom gave faith in the locality. Because the name of Jesus could not be fully preached without preaching him as "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world;" and the kingdom of God could not be fully preached without preaching its locality. Brother A. C. and all who have defined the kingdom of God, give its locality as one of its principal items, just as salvation through faith in the blood of the Lamb is a principal item in the things concerning the name of Jesus. As the primitive preachers preached the kingdom of God, and as the locality of the kingdom is one of its chief constituents, it follows that the primitive converts were believers in the locality of the kingdom of God before they were baptized into Christ for the remission of sins. Why should we not follow their example?

In Eph. ii. 12, Paul intimates that they who are strangers to the covenants of promise, have no hope. This clearly implies that the promises which constitute the one hope of our calling, are contained in the covenants made with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David. In these covenants God promised a kingdom, and repeatedly, and emphatically points out its locality. It follows that the locality of the kingdom is a principal item of the one hope. Again, in chap iv. 4, he says "ye are called in one hope of your calling," thus shewing that the hope was not taught to the primitive christians after they were converted, or called, but preached to them before. They were called to inherit a blessing; that blessing is the hope of our calling. As we have seen, a principal item of that hope is the locality of the kingdom. From all which it appears that the locality of the king

dom was preached by the primitive preachers, and believed by the primitive converts before the latter were immersed into Christ for the remission of sins. As it was then, so it should be now.

The brethren justly argue with the sects, that as the Jews were saved by being baptized into Moses, that proves that we are saved by being baptized into Christ. And we argue with the brethren, that as a kingdom, and its locality, was preached unto the Jews before they were baptized into Moses, so the kingdom of heaven, and its locality was, and should be, preached unto sinners before they are baptized into Christ. If our brethren are justified in rejecting the fact that the kingdom and its locality was preached to the Jews previous to their baptism into Moses, Exod. iii. 15, 16, 17, as an evidence that the kingdom and its locality should be preached unto sinners previous to their baptism into Christ; then the sects are also justified in rejecting the fact that Jews were saved by being baptized into Moses, as an evidence that sinners are saved by being baptized into Christ. Because the one fact is as plain and undeniable as the other.

These remarks are written to the brethren in love, and are earnestly recommended to their serious consideration, D. L.

HINTS ON THE REPLIES TO J. MITCHELL'S QUERY.

MR. EDITOR. From the last Banner I am happy to learn that there is a great improvement in the spirit of the articles upon the "kingdom of God." J. D. has, in my judgment, done well in referring to the terms "personal" and "spiritual." I have long regarded such terms as the ground of controversy upon those subjects, and if they were abandoned we would have nothing to dispute about. May I be allowed to drop a hint to all the three who write in the last Banner on the kingdom of God, as I do not intend now to interfere further in discussing the point, so long as they continue to write in the spirit manifested at present. I would suggest, then, to the first, (J.D.) to serve the "Millennial Reign" as he has done the personal and spiritual. And I would suggest to (0.) to conclude not too hastily, as when he says "we have no mention of the locality of the inheritance," because this is the old resort of "Calvinists," and the advocates of every system opposed to the truth-when they find that we are said to be saved by faith, nothing more is necessary. Let him keep in mind four words used by the Apostle, which I think the greater part of mankind overlook. The words are, " According to the Scriptures." So that Paul would seem to intimate that we must learn from the Scriptures, which were before the death of Jesus, how it became necessary that Jesus should die, and be buried, and rise again. To the third, (A. M.) I would say examine your premises before you conclude-for if you have proved your position, I can prove that there is no need to be baptized, as not a word is said concerning it in the quotations you have given. And to all I would say, let it never be forgotten, that if we would understand what is required of us, in order to justification, we must look at commands given to those who are not justified; for to look at what is said to the justified, in order to learn the duty of the unjustified, is not to divide aright the word of truth. Leaving these Brethren to follow up the discussion,

I remain, affectionately yours,

ROBERT MILL.

THE MELCHIZEDEKIAN PRIESTHOOD.

MR. EDITOR,-John Thomas asserts but does not reason in regard to J. Ferguson's short note, arguing the present kingly dignity of Jesus, from his being at present a priest after the order of Melchizedek. If John Thomas be right in denying that Jesus is A priest after that order, then Paul is wrong in affirming that as such Jesus has entered into the heavenly holy places. Heb. vi. 20. Is Paul wrong? Certainly the reverse. But still, though Christ be at present a priest after the order of Melchizedek, that does NOT prove he is a KING, unless it be first shewn that that order is a kingly order. The proof that will make that good, will lead directly to Dr Thomas' view that to be priest after the order of Melchizedek, is to be "priest of the Most High God AND King of Salem!" From that view the Apostle precludes me, as Jesus is presently a priest after that order although he is not reigning in Salem;-but both he and David appear to represent the priestly order of Melchizedek to be neither more nor less than "priest for ever, priest continually,' a priest after the power of an endless life." Heb. v. 8, Ps. cx. Thus I understand "the order or similitude of Melchizedek," and respectfully submit to yourself and readers that the Bible says no more. This therefore furnishes no proof of the present nor future kingly dignity of the Messiah.

THINGS NEW AND OLD.

99.66

J. D.

a

MR. EDITOR, The enclosed manuscript was put into my hands a few days since by a particular acquaintance, whom I shall at present designate by the letter L. He stoutly maintains that he, being a young man, has as good a right to see visions, as his seniors, the literalists, have to fulfil prophecy by dreaming dreams while they are endeavoring to explain it. If you think it will be of service to others, it is at yours. E.

A VISION OF THE PAST.

INTRODUCTION.

CALLING to see my friend Dr. G. the other evening, I found that he was absent upon a professional visit to a poor widow five miles in the country. Upon further inquiry I learned that this unfortunate woman had been left, by the death of her husband, in poor circumstances, with several small children. She struggled, however, to earn, by her wheel and occasional jobs of work, a scanty support, until about four weeks since, when she was taken ill with an affection of the chest, by which she was now confined to bed. Her dwellingplace is an open log-cabin in the woods upon the outskirts of a farm belonging to one of her rich neighbours. During her long-continued sickness, little or no attention, I was informed, had been paid to her by the neighbours; and her only nurse, by night or by day, was her

little daughter, about eight years of age, upon whom she had to depend for all the little comforts she enjoyed, and even for the giving of her medicine.

I could not but feel affected by this recital, upon reflecting that the fitful blasts of cold December were keeping their melancholy vigils around the couch of the poor widow and her orphans, instead of human Sympathy and Affection. Nor was I less surprised at the neglect she suffered, upon hearing that her neighbours had had the address to accomplish the difficult task of uniting the service of God and Mammon, and had succeeded in combining with much of this world's goods, a very large portion of religion.

But, thought I to myself, when, upon my return home, I threw myself into my easy chair and trimmed my little fire, can this be really religion? Or is it possible that this can be the religion of the Bible? This, I exclaimed, may be after all, a species of religion; yet as I thought of that beautiful scripture, "Pure religion, and undefiled, with God, even the Father, is this: To take care of orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep one's self unspotted from the world," I added with emphasis, This is not the religion of the Bible.

What then! said I, (I love to talk to myself about religion, for I am then in little danger of getting into a quarrel, and I detest all quarrels, let them be ever so religious,) have men committed a mistake in supposing that true religion consists in those peculiar forms and modes of worship which they so carefully observe, or in the passionate zeal for which they contend for them? And if the various manners and customs, modes and ceremonies, called religious, do not really constitute that religion which is acceptable to God, what is the use of them, and by what rule is their value to be ascertained?

On the one hand, we have those who glory in the convenience of written prayers and responses, by which they are enabled to know their wants without the trouble of feeling them; or those who delight in the vehemence of extempore prayers and involuntary exclamations and responses by which alone they can attain to a feeling of what they do not know. On the other hand, we have those who love expressive silence, and the sublimated emotions of a mysterious abstract, and uncertain spiritualism which disdains all external form, or is of too ethereal a nature to be embodied. Here we have lovefeasts, at which each member partakes of a loaf of bread and a cup of water; and there fasts of forty days, which are kept most religiously upon fish. Here we have a song converted into a sermon, and there a sermon converted into a song. In a word, we have every variety of form and spirit; of rites and ceremonies; of manners and customs; of opinions and practices, sustained by the most ardent zeal, and regarded as the very essence of religion.

AND BIBLICAL TREASURY.

Yet what are these to true religion, but as the regalia to the monarch; the canvass to the painting; the body to the spirit; the means to the end? And what better standard can we have by which to ascertain their comparative merits than their adaptation to the purposes for which they were instituted, and their influence in promoting the proper objects of religion? A form without a spirit is but a cold and lifeless statue; while a spirit without a form is but a church-yard spectre. That system must certainly be the best which accomplishes the best purposes; and all forms of religion are equally valueless if they are esteemed its beau ideal. The form is created for the religion; not the religion for its form. Yet as a perfect body is necessary to the perfect action of the soul, and even to its reception; so a complete and suitable system is necessary to display fully the excellencies of religion.

Why then, said I, can we not have the true form of religion and the true religion also? Why should men deceive themselves any longer with imperfect systems? Why should one party content themselves with one or two of the ordinances of ancient Christianity: another with a few of its doctrines: a third with the primitive zeal : a fourth with the ancient simplicity of dress and manners? Why not unite the various parts of the Christian system, so as to form a fit abode for that true and undefiled religion which seems to have been the spirit and genius of ancient Christianity?

Oh! could I see unveiled the perfect, heaven-born religion of the apostolic age, how different it would probably be from all that now bears the name of Christianity! Could I witness the simple customs; the purity of behaviour; the love; the zeal; the joy; the good works, by which the first converts are said to have been characterized, how singular might be the contrast with the corruptions of a degenerate and apostate age!

Upon this, I fell into a reverie, and influenced by a strong desire to know what was really the state of things in the beginning, I could not but wish that it were possible to leap over the chasm which separated me from ancient scenes; or that I could obtain "through the dark postern of time long elapsed" even a glimpse of things that In the midst of my cogitations and conjectures

were.

belongs to another chapter.

A VISION OF THE PAST.-No. II.

JERUSALEM.

-but this

L.

In the midst of my cogitations and conjectures respecting ancient Christianity, my mind became confused, and I felt oppressed by a thousand vague and uncertain images. At length, when I was about sinking into total abstraction, I was suddenly refreshed by a gentle breath of air issuing from the casement which I now perceived to be partly open, and it occurred to me that a moon-light walk