of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." Again, Jno. chap. v., "If I [alone] bear testimony of myself, my testimony is not to be regarded. There is another that beareth witness of me"-viz., John the Immerser. "But," continues he, "I have greater witness than that of John, for the works which the Father hath given me to accomplish bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Have ye never heard his voice at any time nor seen his shape?" Here he evidently refers to the announcement, "This is my beloved Son," made by the Father at his baptism, and to the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, which abode upon him. He further adds respecting the ancient Scriptures: "These are they that testify of me. . . Had you believed Moses, you would have believed me, for he wrote of me."

We have here, then, a brief summary of the testimony at that time before the Jews, all of which has relation to the great fundamental truth that "Jesus is the Christ the Son of God," which though variously, is yet substantially attested by all the witnesses appealed to. To their testimony was afterwards added that of the Holy Spirit and the apostles. Jno. xv. 26-27. And now, to believe unreservedly, in all its amplitude, the great truth or fact thus proven, whether as declared by Moses, by John, by the Father, by Jesus himself, by the Holy Spirit, or by the apostles, is, indeed, to believe each of these witnesses; but it is also to believe on Christ, and to believe on Christ is to believe on Him that sent him. This is the Christian Faith; a sincere personal and official trust; a belief (5) ON, or in relation to Christ, with which alone salvation is connected. He that is "born of God" and "overcomes the world," is he that "believeth that Jesus is the Son of God." He that thus "believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself." He that thus "hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

It is remarkable how constantly we, accordingly, find the preposi tion es, signifying into, on, unto, connected with GTsvw, to believe. Wherever we have "Christ," or "His name," accompanied by a verb signifying to believe or trust, we have always Es interposed to establish the relation between them. We have: "His disciples believed [s] on him." "Many believed [s] on his name." "God gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth [s] on him should not perish." "He that believeth [s] on him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed [s] in the name of the only begotten Son of God." The question which Jesus himself puts to the convert is: "Dost thou believe [5] on the Son of God?" and the terms propounded by the

apostles are, "Believe [s] on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Never have we in the language of inspiration, believe Christ,' unless where, as before remarked, the declaration of his Messiahship is the matter to be believed, and where Christ is himself a witness.* Men are censured because they did not 'believe John,' or 'believe Moses,' or "believe the Scriptures," and they are called upon to believe the gospel, but no where is the Christian faith made to consist in simply believing Christ as a teacher, or, in other words, believing the teachings of Christ. These, indeed, constitute the Christian doctrine. And it is not the belief of these, but belief on Christ, that constitutes the Christian faith. Belief of Christ's teachings is a consequence of the Christian faith, and not its substance.

It is just here that theologians have failed to make the proper distinction between the Christian faith and the Christian doctrine. Overlooking the obvious fact, that the Christian faith has respect to Christ himself, in his personal and official relations, they have supposed it to consist in various doctrinal propositions or tenets, deducible from his teachings and those of the apostles. Hence they reverse the order of things in Christianity, and instead of a suffering Saviour, present to the unconverted person, for his acceptance and belief, a system of religious opinions. In Christianity, however, the Christian faith precedes the Christian doctrine in order of time; and not only so, but addresses itself to the unconverted, while, what is truly called the Christian doctrine, appertains exclusively to those who are already in possession of the Christian faith.

The objection to doctrinal creeds, then, is based on a grand fundamental principle, and not upon mere expediency. We reject them, not because they are in themselves false, but because they are a false basis of faith; we deny their authority, not because the propositions they contain may not be found in Scripture, but because they substitute these for gospel facts, and virtually make a reliance on mere intellectual conceptions an equivalent for a trust in a living Saviour.† Since doctrinal creeds are a false basis of faith, they are no less a false basis of Christian union. True Christian faith can be the only real basis of Christian union. Creeds, indeed, are designed merely to detect heresy. They have no tendency to prevent it, or to secure

Jno. iv. 48; x. 26, 27; xii. 47.

† I have noticed, with regret, a disposition on the part of some disciples to depart from this great principle. From an undue anxiety to promote what they regard as Christian union, they have gone so far even as to draw up various articles embracing doctrinal questions, and to propose these as a basis of union, or an exponent of our orthodoxy, by way, as it would appear, of propitiating the religious parties, and accommodating matters somewhat to suit the taste of creed-mongers. This is an entire departure from the reformation ground we

permanent unity of sentiment. In fear of heretics, these sentinels on the outposts of each beleagured camp demand the watch-word. They ask, "What do you believe?" But the watchman on the walls of the true Zion inquires, "In whom do you believe?" The former makes a real or supposed knowledge of the "mystery of Christ," the test of fealty; the latter demands a heart-felt trust in the great Captain of salvation. But progress in knowledge is one thing, and the possession of faith another. Men may have the same faith, while they differ greatly in the amount and accuracy of their religious knowledge. Hence doctrines, or knowledge of Christian mysteries, can never be a basis of Christian union. Each sect, however, seeks to base union upon unity of knowledge. In Christianity, on the other hand, Christian union is based alone upon oneness with Christ. We must have this Christian unity, or oneness with Christ, before we can have true Christian union, or fellowship with each other. Hence our Lord prayed for those who should believe on him, that they might be “one”—not that they might be united, as the expression is commonly understood, but that they might be "one." Christian union, as commonly understood, and the oneness or unity here spoken of, are different things. The former is the fellowship of Christians with each other-a congregational or ecclesiastical concord and fraternization; the latter is the fellowship of believers "with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ"-a spiritual oneness in God, which does not necessarily involve a formal or ecclesiastical union among Christians, though it tends to produce it, and may be followed by it, and, indeed, is, as already stated, the only true basis of a real Christian union. Hence it is in vain for men to construct platforms; to prescribe articles of belief, or erect ecclesiastical establishments, in order to secure Christian union. Yet how many vain attempts have been made to effect an apparent union and co-operation of professing Christians, where, instead of oneness with Christ, the basis proposed has been a mere intellectual assent to a few religious dogmas!

It is to be remembered that, in the Saviour's prayer, those only are embraced who should "believe on Him" through the testimony of the apostles. It is through this belief on Him; this Christian faith; this reception of Christ in his whole character and in his entire work of salvation, that any one can partake of that spiritual oneness for

occupy, and a yielding up of the whole matter in controversy. The Christian doctrine is for Christian practice, and not for unchristian debate and strife. To divorce this doctrine from the simple obedience which it teaches, and, with the aid of abstractions and theory, to erect it into a standard of faith, and make it a substitute for a personal trust in Christ, is, however true the proposed doctrines may be in themselves, to sanction religious partyism and build again the things we have been laboring to destroy.

which he prays. This oneness is clearly defined in the following verse: "As thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us," and it is effected by the indwelling of that Holy Spirit, for whose impartation to his disciples Christ had promised to pray the Father. As the Father dwelt in the Son by his Spirit given at his baptism, so Christ dwells in his people by that same Spirit which he received of the Father. Hence verse 23: "I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one;" and 1 Jno. iii. 24: "Hereby we know that he abideth in us by the Spirit which he hath given us." And the promise of this Spirit is "through faith," and its fulfilment is to be sought as the great end or purpose of the Christian profession, and as the completion of that salvation in this life contemplated in the gospel, which consists in the "washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit," received "through Jesus Christ our Saviour." Thus it is not a unity or uniformity of doctrine, that constitutes Christian unity, or can become a basis of Christian union, but it is a unity of Spirit. "He that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit." And this consummation of the Christian faith, or belief on Christ; this indwelling Divine Nature received by all who receive Christ as he is presented in the gospel, is the authentication of that faith, the seal of spiritual oneness, the means of Christian union, the source of spiritual life, and the earnest of a future inheritance. R. R.

"THY KINGDOM COME."-No. 11.

THE petition, "Thy kingdom come," if we may judge from what we hear from the pulpits throughout the length and breadth of the land, has never yet reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. Or, if it has been the special design, object, or purport of any lecture, discourse, or sermon, from any one of the Pedobaptist pulpits any where, to show how, when, and where, the above petition was answered, or the kingdom of the Messiah began, or was established, we have not been advised of the fact.

The reader will remember that this is the year of grace 1856. But if it be intended to mean that 1856 years since, the Kingdom or Reign of Heaven began, we hesitate not to say, that the computation is a grand anachronism. The birth of a prince, and his actual coronation as king of the real.n, are very different events. Both are important events to a nation. But if we look into its archives, we shall find the atter event to mark a new chronological period-an epoch from which SERIES IV.-VOL. VI.

29

records are dated. And especially may the latter event be hailed as marking a period from which important changes in the government are to be made.

If there be, therefore, any proper analogy between the kingdoms of of this world and the Kingdom of the Lord Messiah—if great and important blessings, temporal, spiritual and eternal, were to be secured to mankind at the establishment of the latter kingdom, then its origin must be an historic fact of the greatest interest to our race.

Marvelous and strange would that position be which would assume, that though we may certainly know the time and place, and other circumstauces connected with the setting up of the petty kingdoms of earth and time, yet we cannot know or ascertain the manner, time, and place of the setting up of that kingdom, once proclaimed as the Reign of Heaven at hand, and which, when established, is to endure throughout all time. This would, indeed, be an extraordinary position.

I, indeed, hesitate not to hazard the opinion, that, if all the gospels, religious doctrines, and ecclesiastic isms of the last three centuries, were tried by a question of fact, and let that question be, When and where was the Kingdom of Heaven established on earth? ninetenths of such teachings would be found to be innovations, and foreign to the constitution, laws, and institutions of the kingdom or church of Christ. This kind of test would, in our humble opinion, be to the masses the most satisfactory; which would be to resolve, as it were, their religious isms, or systems, into a question of chronology and geography.

Now, as there is a proper season and time for every purpose under heaven, and as every thing must have a beginning, so the Reign of Heaven must have a beginning. And it must have begun some where, and in some one particular place.

But we are, perhaps, too far in advance of those for whom we write. We have been latterly speaking as though the kingdom was in actual existence.

If men pray for the Reign of Heaven to come, then to them assuredly it has not come, else why so petition? If they use the language in the same sense in which Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "Thy kingdom come," then it is to them yet future; for to the disciples it was yet to come.

But they were to proclaim, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." And still we pray, Thy kingdom come! Strange, surpassing strange! a kingdom at hand, at the door, and after eighteen centuries not come yet to come!!

But this cannot be, for Jesus said there were some present who