At a Convention held at Rochester, N.Y. in June, the Advent Harbinger reports Dr. John Thomas as having said:

“A man may believe the truth with all his heart for twenty years, and yet not be justified—Baptism is essential to this—this is the law of justification; we are immersed into the name of Jesus Christ.”

“We have italicised that part of the remarks which we denominate a bold assumption. The Bible teaches, in no equivocal terms, that the ‘law of justification’ is faith. ‘That he (God) might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.’—Romans 3: 26-27. ‘Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith,’— verse 30. ‘Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ,’—Romans 5: 1. But it is needless to multiply texts of Scripture on this point; nothing is taught more distinctly than that ‘the law of justification’ is ‘faith.’ To affirm that ‘baptism is the law of justification,’ and that ‘a man may believe the truth with all his heart for twenty years,’ or one year, or one hour, ‘and yet not be justified, we regard as unscriptural and a daring assumption. The question is not whether he can continue justified unless he is afterwards baptised; that may be true; and it is equally true that he cannot continue justified if he knowingly disobeys God in any of his commands: but that ‘baptism is essential,’ (i.e., that without it is impossible) to ‘be justified,’ is neither scriptural nor rational; and such an assumption we regard as the very highest development of sectarianism. We express our opinion of the sentiment distinctly, that none need be in doubt as to our position on that question. If men wish to establish a bitter and persecuting sect, the sentiment we have animadverted upon is the very best they can start with. We are determined to have no strife with those who hold and promulgate such sentiments; we have borne our testimony against it, and thus discharged what we believed was a duty.”—Bible Examiner for July, 1853.

Upon the above, the Editor of the Harbinger (from whose paper we quote, not being favoured with an exchange) very properly remarks: —

If we do not misjudge, Bro. Storrs has misapprehended the real sentiment conveyed in the short extract which he has made from the brief report of Dr. Thomas’ discourse as given in our paper of June 18. If so, we presume it will be his pleasure to be corrected when shown his mistake. By looking at that report, it will be seen that it reads—“Baptism is essential to THIS—THIS is the law of justification;” instead of—“baptism is the law of justification”—as Bro. Storrs has worded and quoted it! Here is a mistake in giving the words of the Report, if not its real sentiment.

Bro. Storrs understands the second relative pronoun, “this” to refer to baptism, thereby making “baptism the law of justification;” whereas we think the true construction of the paragraph makes baptism only a part of that law. It does not read that baptism is this justification, nor this law of justification, but that baptism is “ESSENTIAL” to this justification, or law of justification. There is a marked difference between baptism being the law of justification, and being essential to that law.

The first part of the paragraph more than intimates that something besides baptism constitutes the law of justification, for it reads, “A man may believe the truth with all his heart for twenty years, and yet not be justified.” Why not? “Because faith without works is dead.” Faith in the abstract, or mere heart belief, does not constitute the law of justification: the elements of that law are faith and works; baptism is one of those works, therefore baptism is “essential” to, or helps to perfect the law of justification.

This we understand to be the sentiment expressed in the paragraph, which we believe to be in harmony with Dr. Thomas’s faith. He does not believe, according to his teaching while recently in this city, that a man without a true gospel faith would be any more justified should he be baptised every day for twenty years, than he would to live that length of time in the neglect of baptism, and “believe” all that time. He most strenuously holds that true Bible faith, Bible baptism and Bible works are all “essential” to the law of final justification. To show that these are his sentiments as reported in the Harbinger for June 18, and that Bro. Storrs is mistaken, we will give the entire report of Dr. Thomas’ discourse, in which Bro. Storrs finds the (to him) very exceptionable sentiment. Speaking of that discourse, the reporter says:

“He read the scriptural definition of faith from Hebrews 10: 38-39; 11: 1, and remarked on the ‘full assurance of faith.’ We have no miracles to give assurance of faith; but we have what is greater—the prophecies. By an habitual study of them, we acquire the full assurance of faith. This faith grasps the future—‘the things hoped for.’ Hence, faith is not simply ‘the belief of facts;’ historical facts is not sufficient. Promises are to be believed, and commands obeyed; yet faith does also embrace a belief of the facts of the gospel—the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, &c.

“Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God; which, put together, is, faith comes by hearing the Word of God—all the prophets said should come to pass. If we speak not according to this Word—law and testimony—we have no light. ‘Preaching the Word,’ was preaching ‘Moses and the Prophets,’ and embraced two great topics, Acts 8: 4-12, viz., The kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ. Not Jesus first, then the kingdom; but ‘the kingdom first, then God’s righteousness.’ He that believes and is baptised—believes what? What the Samaritans did concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ. Matthew 24: 14—This gospel of the kingdom must be preached in all the world for a testimony to the nations. Compare chapter 4—the kingdom of the heavens. Acts 10: 34-38—God sent a word to the Israelites by Jesus, and the household of Cornelius perfectly understood it: it contemplates the restoration of the kingdom to Israel—all nations are to be blessed through Abraham. To preach the kingdom of God, is to preach the gospel, and vice versa. If either is omitted, the other is. No kingdom, no gospel; no gospel, no kingdom. Parable of the Nobleman illustrates the time of the kingdom. When he comes, energised by the Holy Spirit of his Father, we shall see whether these men will have this man to reign over them. This same gospel was preached of Christ through David and the prophets. God has established the throne of his kingdom in the house of David. David had no desire but the salvation that Christ would bring—we should desire no other. The promises are for the believers only. Caesar would not have been concerned, if Christ’s kingdom was to be ‘beyond the bounds of time and space.’ There are certain conditions to submit to—the law of faith must be conformed to. The world needs two things which it cannot provide itself with, a righteous civil and ecclesiastical code of laws, and righteous rulers to administer them.

“God is preparing from among the nations a body of righteous administrators to administer such a code, when they shall be raised from the dead all prepared.

“Continuing in well-doing implies beginning to do well. A man may believe the truth with all his heart for twenty years, and yet not be justified—baptism is essential to this—this is the law of justification: we are immersed into the name of Jesus Christ.”

Taking this report as a whole, as every man’s discourses should be taken, it surely teaches that something more than baptism constitutes “the law of justification.” Faith most clearly and forcibly is made a very essential part of that law by Dr. Thomas.

* * *

A correspondent, in calling my attention to friend Storrs’ article, says: “ ‘Reprove, rebuke, correct, exhort, &c.’ In the present number of the Bible Examiner I notice a piece captioned ‘Bold Assumption,’ the origin of which is accredited to some pertinent remarks made by you at the Rochester Convention. Now, sir, I, and not myself alone, would heartily rejoice to see brother Storrs so lovingly disciplined, and brought to a bearing on this point, as would produce a stereotyped impression on him, and as far as possible help to a dissipation of that lax and animal sentiment and feeling which disposes of the word—‘the wholesome words of the Lord Jesus Christ,’ by a test so futile, irreligious, and sensual in character. When will people learn that man’s animal feelings are to be subordinate in all respects to the word? How difficult to obey, indeed impossible, so long as a disposition is indulged in meddling, modifying, altering, and with a restless spirit parrying off, lowering down, variously graduating, and tempering a seeming severity to please their testy and unsanctified humours. Surely such things need the double-edged sword of truth to be not only brandished against them, but with a masterly and unsparing hand to be made to enter into their supporters, dividing asunder their souls and spirits, joints and marrow, and laying bare the hidden things of their deceived hearts—Hebrews 4: 12. Brother Thomas, do it!”

Wisconsin, 1853 A.O.

* * *

Friend Storrs is right—“The Bible teaches in no equivocal terms, that ‘the law of justification’ is faith.” I affirm nothing else; and am glad to see that in these words “faith” stands in the sentence for “the law of faith;” for the phrase “the law of justification is faith,” can have no other import than, “the law of justification is the law of faith.” This is evidently Mr. Storrs’ sense of his words; for he quotes Paul to show that justification is by “the law of faith,” and not by “the law of works.”

But what is a law? While Mr. Storrs defines the law of justification to be the law of faith, he has not favoured us with the sense in which he uses the word “law.” We are left to guess this. Man’s self-glorification, is not excluded by the law of works, though it is by the law of faith. This idea he reproduces from Paul as excluding all idea of justification being consequent on baptism; because baptism with him belongs to the category of “works.” He has not been immersed himself; yet he regards himself as “justified by faith.” We may take his practice therefore as a definition of his sense of the phrase “law of faith” and also of “law,” in default of a verbal explanation. Defined by his practice, then “law,” in the New Testament acceptation of the word, is conviction that what is written is true. Hence law, belief, and faith, are words expressive of the same thing. The “law of faith” is convertible upon this hypothesis into the phrases “the faith of faith,” “the belief of faith,” “the law of law,” &c.; which may all be very intelligible and significative to Mr. Storrs, but to myself who am unusually dull, and perhaps stupid just now, they are mere tautologies without meaning. The faith of justification is faith; or the law of justification is law! I cannot understand this. A law which interdicts, produces, or requires no definite or specified bodily action, is a curiosity. An involuntary assent of the mind a law! There must be something wrong in Mr. Storrs’ theology to admit this; for what is nonsensical cannot be according to truth.

“Law” in Hebrew, Greek, and English, is a rule or standard of acting. It was applied to the Mosaic Code, which was the ecclesiastical, civil, and social rule according to which the Twelve Tribes of Israel and the strangers among them were to regulate their actions as tenant-at-will occupants of the Holy Land. The obedience rendered to this law was called “works,” of which immersion into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was never one. The law of works was the Mosaic Law, and is that to which the apostle refers in Romans, and which Mr. Storrs does not perceive, or he would not number baptism among works of law. If a man were justified by keeping the burdensome ritual of Moses (which none but Jesus ever did, and even he was cursed by that law because of hanging on a tree,) he would have something to boast of; but in being baptised, which baptism belongs to the law of faith, there is no scope for self-glorification, or boasting; for a man does not baptise himself, but is passive, being baptised of another, which to the subject is no “work” at all—no more than the burial of a corpse is the work of the deceased. “We are buried with Christ by baptism into death” to sin, “that we should walk in newness of life.”

Law, then, implies regulated action, or obedience. Law of faith defines the subjects of the law or rule, that is, believers. This law exacts obedience only from believers; none others however willing can obey it; for it is only believers who can render obedience of faith. An unbeliever may perform the act prescribed by a law of faith, but he has not therefore yielded obedience in the sense of the law; because his performance has not resulted from faith in the things propounded for his belief.

“The law of faith,” is a phrase which denotes some particular rule, conformity to which is styled, “obedience of faith.” “The law of works” exacted obedience from all Israelites whether they had faith in the things covenanted to Abraham or not; “the law of faith” is “THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM,” which by the commandment of the everlasting God was made known to all nations “for the obedience of faith”—2 Thessalonians 1: 8-9. That is, the gospel of the Kingdom was made known to the nations that it might be obeyed; hence says Peter, “what shall be the end of them that obey not the gospel of God?”—who believing the gospel become not the subjects of the obedience of faith? They shall be punished, says Paul, with everlasting destruction issuing forth from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power—Daniel 7: 10; Romans 16: 26.

The law of faith, then, and the gospel of the kingdom, are synonymous; and the obedience of faith and the obedience of the gospel, also signify the same thing. I do not mean to say that “gospel” and “law” signify the same thing; but that the gospel comprehending the law of faith, is by synecdoche put for the law. Gospel is glad tidings; and it is a part of that good news that those who believe the things covenanted to Abraham and David by rendering obedience to a certain law, may become joint-heirs with Jesus of what God has promised to these ancients. If the gospel contained no law, believers could render no obedience; but as there is a law connected with it, obedience is of necessity demanded, and indispensable.

If it be enquired, “What is the gospel-law?”—I reply, read Acts 10: 48, where it is written, “And Peter commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord.” His command expressed to the Gentiles—yea, even to Gentiles not behind Mr. Storrs in piety—“what they ought to do”—what it is necessary that thou do, verse 6. There is no avoiding this necessity with impunity. If obedience to this command were not imperative, the Angel would not have said to Cornelius “it is necessary.” It was made necessary by the Divine will, to which friend Storrs has not yet learned submission as a little child. “Repentance unto life,” and remission of sins, are “granted” to believers of the gospel of the kingdom “through the name” of Jesus as the Anointed One; to which name there is no access but through obedience to Peter’s command. I say Peter’s command, which in this matter is identical with that of Jesus Christ’s and the Father’s: for it was not Peter, but the Spirit of the Father in him which spoke—Matthew 10: 20, 40. The Keys of the kingdom of the heavens were committed to him, with the assurance that what he should do in relation to it should be ratified in the heavens—Matthew 16: 19. These testimonies secure for Peter’s command the authority of his Lord, and exhibit it as the law of the gospel to be obeyed.

I repeat that “a man may believe the truth with all his heart,” not “for twenty years” only, but all his life, “and yet not be justified,” if he submit not to Peter’s command. It is hardly supposable that a man would believe with all his heart “the truth,” and not obey it; for where a sincere believer lives in disobedience, it is no “bold assumption” to say that, granting his sincerity, his knowledge of that truth is not enough to save him. An enlightened man whose faith works by love and purifies his heart, needs no exhortation to obey Peter’s command. All he desires is to know what that command is, and to do it heartily, readily, and gladly. What I have said that is deemed by friend Storrs so bold an assumption, is this—that no believer is justified in disobedience. So long as he refuses to do what Peter commanded the benevolent and devout Cornelius and his house to do, so long he is in disobedience, in a state of rebellion, an unpardoned insurgent against Israel’s King. Friend Storrs may think this severe. But what have I to do with that? I have to do with truth, testimony and fact, and not with the severity of their pressure on the rebellious. If he would take off the edge of the word with respect to himself, let him do as Cornelius did, and he will be astonished how mild the severity will become; how “bold” indeed, but unassuming is the truth in the hands of babes.

But if Mr. Storrs is determined to justify himself in disobedience, let him point out a single case of such a justification subsequently to the ascension of Jesus. Let him answer this, Was Paul in his sins, or purified from his sins, before he was baptised? I repeat, friend Storrs has not been baptised, yet he says he is a Christian, a justified man, a saint. Judging then from his position with which, I suppose, he is satisfied, he can only answer the question by saying, “my own position indicates my reply”—Paul was not in his sins though unbaptised! This reply then is irrational, which friend Storrs will not admit. According to his position it is most reasonable; to maintain which, is to charge Ananias with speaking nonsense. He said, “Brother Saul arise, and be baptised and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord.” Had Mr. Storrs been in Saul’s place, he would have exclaimed (supposing he had no more light than at this present) “Bro. Ananias, what bold assumption! Do I not believe with all my heart, and have I not been praying to Jesus for three days past? How sayest thou then, ‘be baptised and wash away thy sins’; am I not already ‘justified by faith’ and at peace with God? Ananias, my friend, what is thine ambition? Desirest thou to establish a bitter and persecuting sect, that thou comest to me, a believer in Jesus, with an exhortation to wash away my sins in baptism? I am a hearty and firm believer of three days old, and to affirm or insinuate that a man may believe the truth with all his heart one year, or one hour, and yet not be justified, or have sins to wash away, is an unscriptural and daring assumption. I have determined to have no strife with thee, Ananias, but have just borne my testimony against your sentiment, and so discharged what I believe to be my duty.”

Poor brother Ananias, how blank he would have looked had “the chief of sinners” replied to his exhortation in the words of our friend Storrs’ article and position! But Saul had become like a little child, and meekly arose, and obeyed the truth. He was well skilled in all the questions and customs of the Jews, and when convinced that Jesus was the Christ and that he was alive forever more, he acknowledged him as the Son of David and of God covenanted to Israel for their redemption out of the hand of all their enemies. His dogmatism was exploded and his exceeding madness totally subdued, so that at last he was dispossessed and clothed in his right mind. It takes “the unadulterated milk of the word” to develop these results. When friend Storrs shall come to feed upon this congenial, unirritating, and growth-promoting diet, he will no doubt become more like Paul. The Gentiles have very proud hearts, and are puffed up by theologies whose dogmas are nowhere found in scripture. Methodism is a form of Gentilism but little promotive of a Saul-like or godlike disposition. When friend Storrs purges himself from this by a childlike study of the word, how sorry he will be for having written such vain words as are now before the reader. He will then see our “bold and daring assumption” in another and more favourable light; at present we must bear with his Gentile manner of discharging his duty and bearing his testimony. I wish him deliverance from bondage, and trust that ere long he may be found in his right mind like Paul, and zealously preaching the faith which now he would willingly and effectually destroy.

The Editor of the Harbinger has truly said that Mr. Storrs has misrepresented my saying in the short extract of his brief report of my discourse at Rochester. I neither said, nor intended to say that “baptism is the law of justification.” I never uttered such nonsense. Baptism is not a law, but an action commanded to be submitted to by believers of the gospel of the kingdom, and by none else. It is the act by which the obedience of faith is rendered. Baptism is essential to justification by the law of faith; for without baptism a believer cannot obey the gospel, because the immersion of a true believer is the obedience of the gospel. Till that action is intelligently submitted to a believer is to that same instant in his sins, or unjustified, which is the same thing. Justification by faith is through the name of Jesus; and immersion into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is the act of union to that name. It is the only formality, rite, or ceremony, by which a believer of the gospel of the kingdom can be married to the name of the Lord Jesus. If such a believer refuse to be thus united to his name, in so doing he refuses repentance, remission of sins, and eternal life through that name, for these blessings come to the justified by faith only through his name. A believer is no more united to Christ’s name without true baptism than a woman is united to the name of a man without the legal marriage ceremony. This simple rite gives her a share in all that pertains to her husband’s name, be they riches, or honour, or both; so after a like manner does baptism into the name of the Lord give the true believer all spiritual blessings communicable through his name, and a title to share with him in his glory.

If it be asked, then, “At what instant is a believer of the gospel of the kingdom justified by faith in the kingdom and name?”—the answer is in the words of Peter, “Having purified your souls in the obeying of the truth through the Spirit,” which is synonymous with in the being baptised, in the being united to the name, &c. When a believer goes into the water, he becomes passive in the hands of the administrator, who pronounces the formula divinely prescribed, and having ended them, he buries him in the watery grave, from which he raises him to walk in newness of life. In being buried in the water, his renewedness of heart is granted to him for repentance, and his belief of the promise made to the fathers, and in Jesus as Lord and Christ, is counted to him for righteousness or remission of sins; for he is then introduced into the name of Christ, through which name repentance and remission of sins are conveyed to him. An unimmersed believer is not united to the name; he is therefore not in it, but exterior to it; and can no more have the things contained in the name, than a man can have access to things in a house when he is in the street without its door.

Baptism, then, is essential to justification. This is both scriptural and rational, friend Storrs to the contrary notwithstanding. “Baptism saves us,” says Peter, “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” as Noah and his family were saved by water by the resurrection of the earth. This testimony sufficiently establishes the scripturality of baptism being essential to salvation from all past sins, which being remitted in Jesus’ name, the believer is transferred from under a sentence of death to a sentence of life; for “the wages of sin is death,” but sin being forgiven and obeyed no more, the penalty is abolished, and the sins and iniquities remembered no more.

The essentiality of baptism, or the obedience of faith to justification of life, is also rational as well as scriptural. What more reasonable than that as condemnation to death was incurred by the disobedience of unbelief, so deliverance from that condemnation or justification of life, should be consequent upon the opposite, which is the obedience of faith? The simplicity of the action is no argument against its essentiality. No action can be more simple than the stretching forth of the hand, and plucking fruit from a tree. It is more simple or easily performed than baptism. It was a little thing in itself to pluck; but that plucking was expressive of unbelief of God’s word; and behold in the world’s history, the awful consequences that have ensued. It is indeed no great thing in itself to be dipped; but then that dipping is expressive of faith in what God has promised. The wonderful results of this simple act of faith will be fully manifested in the Age to Come. All God’s institutions are simple, but potent and effectual; and essential to the end proposed. Friend Storrs would probably march up to the cannon’s mouth for justification, if ordered of God. This would be a great thing to boast of. But God has laid no such burden upon him, but on the supposition that he believes the truth, he says to him, “Wash, and be clean.” If the washing of Peter’s feet, who had been baptised of John, was essential to his having part with Jesus, how much more scriptural, rational, and necessary, that the unwashed, and therefore unclean, Mr. Storrs, should be bathed from head to heel, that he may have part and lot with the Lord. Let friend Storrs ponder on this. If Jesus would make no exception in Peter’s case, Mr. Storrs has no right to presume.

I have heard that Mr. Storrs has expressed his willingness to be immersed to please his friends, but that he considers it unnecessary. This is certainly a very accommodating disposition! But Mr. Storrs should remember that “what is not of faith is sin.” He has no right to trifle with God’s institutions to maintain his popularity with those who believe in the essentiality of baptism. He ought on no account to presume to be immersed in the name of the Holy Ones, unless he heartily believes in the gospel of the kingdom of God. Believers are “justified by faith” in being baptised, and not by immersion without faith; for “he that believes not (the gospel of the kingdom) shall be condemned.”

Baptism once scripturally received, ought on no account to be repeated. Let Mr. Storrs see well to his faith of what sort it is. The article before us proves that at present he is not fit for immersion either in faith or disposition. I hope it will not be long before he is; for certainly the Lord is at hand to come quickly; and if he find him in his nakedness, Mr. S. well knows what the consequence will be. This is the law of justification which he cannot evade—“Repent and believe the gospel,” “be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ into remission of sins,” and thenceforth continue patiently in well doing to the end, and a crown of life shall be yours. I am glad to see that Mr. Storrs is ill at ease in the disobedience of unbelief. In what I said I had no special reference to him. But it seems the cap fits, he feels his position impugned; hence his recent sally to bear his testimony against what I honestly and heartily believe to be unvanquishable truth. Well, I am contented calmly to await the Lord’s decision when he comes. If Mr. Storrs be accepted in his sins, I have no right to complain though I find no such doctrine in the scriptures of truth. If Mr. S. be Christ’s, he has a right to do what he likes with his own; so there I leave it for the present.

* * *

Friend Storrs believes in justification by faith, and that he himself is justified, and therefore a child of God. If justified, we would respectfully inquire, at what instant his justification occurred; and how he ascertained the fact? Besides this, we would like to be informed by what faith he was justified? Was it by the Methodistic faith? Or by the Millerite faith when he denied the restoration of Israel, and preached all or most of the vagaries of that sincere, but mistaken theorist? Or by the faith he embraced when he renounced Millerism? Here are three different faiths—the Methodistic, the Millerite, and his present, all condemnatory of each other! If he were justified by the Methodistic he should have remained a Methodist; if by the Millerite, a Millerite he should have continued; for that system that can impart justification, or make a man a child of God, must be God’s own. We should like to be informed upon divine testimony concerning these questions relating to Mr. Storrs’ justification, that we may be justified upon the true principle. God has but “one faith” for justification, but Mr. Storrs has had at least three incompatible, antagonistic, and mutually destructive faiths. Which of these is the “one faith?” In the absence of light we lightly esteem them all. Perhaps we may err in this, though at present we are sure we do not. Will Mr. Storrs enlighten our darkness, or what he considers our darkness? In the meanwhile we will show him a more excellent way of proving divine sonship than that of rummaging over the old gentile crotchets of the past to discover some happy frame or feeling of the brain upon which he may vaticinate a hope of acceptance in the day of the Lord Jesus.

As Mr. Storrs professes to recognise Paul’s authority, we will hear what he has to say on the subject. To the Galatians the apostle observes, “Ye are all sons of God IN Christ Jesus, through THE faith.” Thus far Mr. Storrs might say “amen!” Now suppose Mr. Storrs had stood at Paul’s elbow when he wrote these words, he might have inquired, saying, “But Paul, how do they know that they are God’s sons through the faith; and at what instant did they become sons? The apostle having overcome the surprise created by such a question proceeding from one who professes to be a son of God, and a guide of the blind, would reply, “Why, Mr. Storrs, they are the sons of God by the faith, because as many of them as have been baptised (or immersed) into Christ, have put on Christ; and though before Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, male and female, yet now having been baptised into Christ, they are all one IN Christ Jesus;” and therefore “sons of God in him.” Have you been baptised into Christ, Mr. Storrs?” Paul had been so baptised by Ananias, but Mr. Storrs by no one. Paul and his brethren of Galatia knew they were sons by faith because they had been baptised into Christ. And this is the only way it can be known; because since the faith came, all God’s sons have emerged from or been born of water into Christ. Unborn believers are in embryo, and may prove abortions not having vitality enough to come to the birth. We hope this will not prove to be Mr. Storrs’ case; but that he may become Christ’s as Paul did, and in the only way possible. If thus he do, “then is he Abraham’s seed,” being in THE Seed constitutionally and scripturally; and if a seed of Abraham, then “an heir according to the promise,” covenanted with God; and not else. We hope sincerely that Mr. Storrs will soon be able to give like evidence with Paul of his being a son of God by faith; for we should rejoice in being able conscientiously to recognise him as a christian and fellow labourer for the kingdom of God. He will then be able to advocate the Immortality in Christ on Bible and gospel principles; which at present we regret to be under the necessity of testifying that he is not. —EDITOR.

* * *