TAKING the district in which I have usually laboured as a centre, I have been far more north than south; but in giving even an outline of my experience among our Churches, I must pay some little attention to the south.

For many years I was present at the anniversary services and annual social meeting at Spittal. For many of the members there I have the highest regard; it was a pleasure to know them. Their devotion to the cause of Christ impressed me deeply; though the bulk of those I knew at first have gone over the River, I expect to meet them later on. I dare not begin to mention names lest I might not know the proper place to stop; still I think no one will blame me even at Spittal, if I name one and stop there. I have met many earnest speakers, but James Rutherford of Spittal threw his heart and soul into his singing in a fashion that I have never seen excelled. He sang nicely, but it never occurred to you that he was trying to do so. In him you had an example of the melody of the heart rushing out in a natural song of praise to God. I never knew a preacher who threw his heart and energy into his speaking to more purpose than James Rutherford did into his singing. He has gone, but his singing is with me still. I once asked him, "Do you ever sing a secular song at all, Bro. Rutherford?" "Well, no, Bro. Anderson. I do not say that there is any harm in it, you know, but since the Lord put a 'new song' into my mouth, I have never sung any other."

One year I spent a good part of the bathing season at Spittal. On a Sunday evening, I gave an address on Repentance. After dealing with what it was and how produced, I called attention to the fact that God had made it a condition of pardon, and you must repent or perish. I supported this point with a number of passages, and said, "Some persons are in the habit of telling sinners that they have only to believe and they will be saved. But the passages just quoted prove that God has as certainly connected repentance with remission of sins as He has connected faith with the remission of sins. That being so, if I am addressing any who have been in the habit of telling sinners to 'only believe and they will be saved,' I hope that they will do so no more."

These closing remarks gave offence to a gentleman in the audience, who with his family were at Spittal for the bathing season. He remained in the chapel after the close of the meeting and talked to the elders. He thought I should be called in question for what I had said. He offered to meet me in public debate, and show that I was mistaken. The elders had conversation with me. They thought that it would be advisable that I should accept his challenge. But they added, "We think that you must keep a firm hold of that man; we have spoken to him before, and we think that he is too sure of himself." I was surprised at this advice, for the elders were very quiet men. But I could not but respect their judgment, for they were cautious, intelligent men, and their quiet nature made me sure that they considered the advice needful or they would not have given it. So my friend on the other side had to thank those elders for having to meet a much firmer man than he otherwise would have done.

Our chapel was granted for the debate. We had ten-minute speeches, and I think that two hours was the entire time given to it. My friend had nothing that was really new or hard to meet. The only thing which seemed a little unusual was that once when he rose he devoted nearly the whole of his ten minutes to reading the eleventh chapter of Hebrews. This, of course, was to show what was done by faith. In following him, I also gave the most of my time to the same chapter, and the greater part of that time, like him, I also gave to reading the chapter. But in reading I kept on inserting the word alone so as to make it fit his theory. For example, I read "By faith alone Noah ... prepared an Ark." "By faith alone Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed, and he went out, not knowing whither he went." "By faith alone he sojourned in the land of promise." "By faith alone Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac." "By faith alone Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come." "By faith alone Jacob, when he was dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph." "By faith alone Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones." "By faith alone they passed through the Red Sea as on dry land. "By faith alone the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days."

These are samples of my reading of the eleventh chapter of Hebrews. I need not add that my friend on the other side did anything but enjoy it. I called special attention to the fact that my friend was only losing his time when he was quoting passages to prove that salvation is by faith. We believed that as firmly as he did. It was the alone that was in dispute; and there was nothing in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews about blessings coming by faith alone. It was very evident throughout the evening that our friend had a harder task in hand than he had anticipated. He left the meeting-place not too well pleased with himself.

He called at my lodgings next day. We made him welcome, and when he was seated, he said, "I do not think that it was very nice for one Scotchman to handle another the way you did me last night. Of course, I could have done the same to you, but I did not feel inclined to do it." I said, "You are mistaken, my friend, it was not in your power to handle me as I handled you; you had not the ground to stand upon, the facts were against you." "Anyhow," he said, "I have to admit that I could not make as good a use of my time as you could. The people, I think, understood you better than they understood me. I have to leave Spittal in a day or two, but before I go I would like to take a hall and give a lecture so as to get my mind fairly and fully before the people. But I would like you to be present, lest the people might think that I was doing it behind your back. I have not looked for a hall yet, but I shall try and get one." "Well," I replied, "I see no harm in your doing as you suggest. It is a free country and freedom of speech is allowed to all. I shall attend your lecture, if I can, and if you will permit me, I shall go to our elders and try if I can get our chapel for your lecture; and if you will let me, I shall come and be chairman for you, and then the people will be sure to know that I am there."

He thanked me for taking so liberal a view of matters, but he hardly expected that I would manage to get the chapel for him. However, I agreed to try, and would let him know that evening. I got the chapel for his lecture, and, an evening or two after, I took the chair at his lecture and introduced him to a good audience. He could not begin his lecture without making some remarks on the circumstances in which he was placed. He said, "I consider this the most gentlemanly treatment ever I received in my life. I came into this place as a hearer on Sunday evening, I found fault with their preacher and challenged him to debate. We met in debate. I did not think that I managed to put my position fairly and clearly before you, and I wished a lecture all to myself to put my mind more fully before you. They offer me their meeting-place, my opponent takes the chair, and I am here with full liberty to say what I please, and they do not even ask to be allowed to reply. I may differ from what these people believe, but I must say that this is very fair treatment." He delivered his lecture and I closed the meeting without a word of criticism. But our friend could not leave the platform without again thanking us for the manner in which we had treated him.

I fear I cannot give any more space to my visits to Spittal, though many things occur to me that I would like to mention. But when I have the subject of repentance in hand I had better say a little more in regard to that, apart from my visits to Spittal.

That repentance is a prominent theme in the New Testament is beyond question. Very few people entirely miss its meaning, but very many fail to fully and clearly grasp it. It is associated with sorrow, but sorrow does not exhaust it. You may have sorrow and you may not have repentance. "Godly sorrow worketh repentance;" here sorrow is a cause and repentance an effect. "Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance." Here you have repentance as a cause and reformation of life as an effect. Repentance then comes after sorrow for sin and goes before reformation of life. Repentance, therefore, can be nothing less and nothing else than a resolution to be done with all that is wrong and to devote yourself to all that - it is a making up your mind to be done with sin and to serve God. To be a child of God without this is inconceivable. Hence the uniform teaching of the Bible is that you must repent or perish.

But when you thus give repentance its scriptural place, you get into conflict with those who teach that salvation is by faith alone. If repentance is needful, then salvation is not by faith alone. I was at one time staying in a room containing a bookcase with a good many books in it. I took a commentary out of it, and turned to Luke xiii. 3, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." The author said, "You would think that this and some other passages teach that repentance is needful for salvation, but that would never do, for it would contradict the great Protestant principle of justification by faith alone." When a passage of Scripture and the great Protestant principle came into conflict, that author did not hesitate as to which would have to give way. The passage must die or confess that it did not really mean that. That author is only a sample from a very large stock.

Our Methodist friends try to modify the difficulty by placing repentance before faith. If they place repentance before faith, they may then, according to their theory, preach that you are saved "the moment you believe." But so long as they hold that you must repent or perish, they are not free to preach salvation by faith alone. If God has made repentance a condition of pardon, then, no matter whether repentance goes before or after faith, salvation is not by faith alone.

But is it true that repentance must go before faith? "Faith comes by hearing." Where there is no testimony there can be no reasonable faith. But I cannot think of anything which must go before faith except testimony or evidence. To say that we cannot believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God until we repent is to contradict what we know to be true. Some of us were as sure about the main facts of the Gospel before we repented as we are today. On the other hand, I cannot think of anything which I repented of until I had believed something about it.

All this is so self-evident that some of those who teach that repentance goes before faith, admit that "there is a kind of faith which goes before repentance." These same people sometimes tell you that "saving faith is not the effect of evidence." The faith which comes apart from evidence has more delusion connected with it than you could rehearse in a long summer day. The faith which God approves of comes by hearing, and "hearing by the Word of God." The faith which some people call saving faith does not come by believing anything about Christ at all, but by believing something about themselves. Let me illustrate. I once delivered a discourse on repentance in the open air at a mining village.

A Methodist entered into conversation with me at the close of the meeting. He said, "I rather think that you are right, Mr. Anderson. Most Scotchmen believe, and they will be condemned because they do not repent." "That is my conviction," I said; "but if they believe and are not saved, why do you teach that they have only to believe in order to be saved?" He saw that what he had admitted did not fit in with what he was in the habit of teaching, and then he began to draw back. He replied, "They do not really believe - they do not believe that they are saved." "No," I said, "they do not believe that they are saved, and it is best so. Why should they believe that they are saved when they are not?" "But," he said, "that is what you ought to teach them, you should teach them to believe that they are saved."

"That is what you do teach them," I replied, "but I question if it is what you ought to teach them. To convince you that I understand your position, I shall make a brief statement of it. You preach to men that they are lost; that they are on their way to everlasting destruction; that should they die as they are living, they would find themselves on the wrong side for ever. When men believe this, and become anxious about salvation, then you begin to tell them that Jesus came to seek and to save the lost; and that He finished the work which He came to do. And then you begin to reason with them after this fashion: 'Now, if Jesus came to seek and to save the lost, and He finished the work which He came to do, then He must have sought and saved you. So you must be saved. Can you not see that?' In like manner you sometimes quote from Isa. liii. 6, 'The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' And then you reason, 'Now, if the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all, there can be no iniquity left on you - you must be free.' This is how you often deal with anxious souls in trying to get them to find peace."

When I had given this brief statement, I asked him if I had stated his case fairly. He answered that I had. "Then," I said, "you admit that in dealing with the anxious your main object is to get them to believe that they are saved. Now, while you are thus urging them to believe that they are saved, do you yourself believe that they are saved, at the moment at which you are urging them to believe that they are saved?" He answered, "No, I do not believe that they are saved at that moment; I believe that they are only in an anxious state." "And though you believe that they are only in an anxious state, you are urging them to believe that they are saved. That is, you are urging them to believe what you do not believe yourself. Let me put it another way. You are urging a person to believe that he is saved when he is not saved in order to get saved. You are thus teaching that a person comes to a knowledge of the truth by believing what is not true." I pressed my friend on this point, but he had no clear way out.

Before leaving this subject, I again pressed the point, that those who find peace in this way, find peace not by believing anything about Christ but by believing that they are saved. If you can persuade a man that he is saved, he will, of course, find peace. But there is such a thing as false peace, and every one should be careful that in regard to remission of sins he finds peace on reasonable and scriptural grounds.

When preachers are telling us of the love of God or what Christ by His life and death has gone for us, they are generally sound and easily followed. But when they begin to tell the sinner what he has to do to be saved there is no end of error and confusion in the world.

Year by year at the Anniversary Services at Spittal I used to met friends from Newcastle-on-Tyne. This led to me being invited to Newcastle. The Annual Conference of the North-Eastern Division is held at Newcastle on Good Friday. For quite a number of years I was at Newcastle on Good Friday, took part in the social meeting in the evening, preached in Newcastle on Easter Sunday, returning to Scotland early in the week. In this way I made the acquaintance of many highly esteemed brethren in the North-Eastern Division. Though unable now to keep up the acquaintance, it adds to the pleasure of life to keep them in memory. A considerable number of them have gone where I must soon follow, but I have not so much the impression that I once knew them, as I have the sweet impression that I know them still. We were co-workers in a work that had eternity rather than time in view, and we formed an acquaintance that will never grow old. Though it is very pleasant for me to think about my visits to Newcastle, nothing occurs to me that calls for special mention, still I feel that I cannot give even an outline of my life and leave my visits to Newcastle altogether out of it. I could fill the space that remains to me in writing things which were very pleasant to me in connection with my visits to Newcastle and Gateshead, for I have had very pleasant visits to both places.

Chapter XX
Preaching in the Midlands

I HAVE not made frequent visits to any of our Churches south of Newcastle-on-Tyne. Our Annual Meeting was held in Edinburgh in 1902. At that meeting I was appointed to read the Conference paper at the following Annual Meeting to be held in Birmingham in August, 1903. Subject of the paper - "The Scriptural Basis of Christian Unity." It was suggested, as I was a comparative stranger to our Churches in the Midlands, that I be asked to spend some time in the Midlands before the Annual Meeting of 1903. As all concerned seemed to be agreeable to this, it was arranged that Bro. T. K. Thomson go north and fill my place and that I go south some time before the Annual Meeting. I do not think that there was any reason to regret this arrangement. Bro. T. K. Thomson's visit to our district was very much enjoyed by our churches, and I enjoyed my visit to the Midlands. It increased my knowledge of our Churches and our brethren considerably, and my profit and pleasure were increased in proportion.

I began my labour in the Midlands in Nottingham. I think I spent about a month there. In connection with the three churches in Nottingham, I visited the Church in the neighbouring town of Bulwell. I had good meetings in all the places. I had also a considerable amount of conversation with a good many of the brethren. By request some special subjects were dealt with. I left Nottingham with the impression that a profitable and pleasant month had been spent there.

From Nottingham I went to Leicester. With a number of the leading men in our Churches in Leicester I was to some extent acquainted, having met them at annual meetings in one place and another. This made me feel at home there from the very first. The time was too short for me to get to know the Churches in Leicester well, but I left myself in their hands and they spread my work over the churches as best they could. My visit to Leicester was an interesting, refreshing, and pleasant time. They planned enough work to keep me from looking upon it as an idle time; but in addition to that their planning for my comfort and entertainment left nothing to be desired. Their kindness and hospitality were model lessons in regard to these virtues. Some people look best at a distance, our Leicester friends took a higher place in my mind after opportunities for close inspection. Though I was not idle when there, yet I left with the impression that I have perhaps received more than I had given in Leicester. Still they seemed to enjoy my company, and I certainly enjoyed theirs.

From Leicester I went to Birmingham. At Birmingham I had a repetition of the pleasant experiences which had fallen to my lot in Nottingham and Leicester. Besides visiting the Churches in Birmingham, I spent an enjoyable Lord's Day with the Church in Burslem. I am thankful to all those who had a hand in arranging for my three months' sojourn in the Midlands. It extended my knowledge of the heart and backbone of the British Brotherhood in a considerable degree, and I went back to Scotland thankful that my increased knowledge gave me increased confidence in the faithfulness and piety of the Brotherhood with which I was connected.

I enjoyed the Annual Meeting in Birmingham. My conference paper was well received; as was also an address which I delivered at one of the public meetings in connection with the conference. At each Annual Meeting, we elect the chairman for the next year's meeting. At the Birmingham meeting I was elected chairman for the next Annual Conference, Wigan being the placed fixed upon for the conference. I have no doubt that the honour thus conferred upon me was to a considerable extent due to my visit to the Midlands. This, of course, put me in, not only for the duties of the chair, but also for the chairman's address at Wigan, in 1904. Discharging the duties of the chair caused me some anxious thought. But I had wise and willing helpers and every one seemed kind, and I got through about as well as could have been expected. Thus my visit to the Midlands and the Wigan meeting of 1904 did not only enable me to know the Brotherhood better, it also allowed the Brotherhood to know more about me, and as far as I could judge the pleasure was mutual. In regard to the extent of the field which I have covered during my evangelistic life, this brings me to the end of my outline. It is only an outline; I have made no attempt at naming all the places where I have preached the Gospel. I have only touched the points and places which seemed to me of most importance. I am not at all satisfied that I have always made the best selections as to either places or incidents, but I think that I have given enough of each to give some idea of my life. I now feel inclined to fill up the space which I have left with remarks of a more general character.

Chapter XXI
General impressions after more than fifty years' connection with churches of Christ

IT is within a few days of 52 years, as I am writing this page, since I became a member of the Church of Christ at Whitehaven. At the close of over fifty years' experience, a few general remarks may not be out of place. I have not only had a long experience, it has been varied. If there is any weak spot in the position that we as Churches have taken up, I have had as good opportunities as any man I know for finding that out. I have had conversation with a great variety of persons. I have never refused to have conversation on religious subjects with any one. I have not sought opposition, but I have never shunned it. I have taken part in over twenty public debates, and in smaller onsets almost unnumerable. The result of all this is that I am certain of the truth and therefore of the strength of our position. I put stress upon this for the simple reason that if a thing is not true, it does not matter what else it is. At bottom, no honest man desires to have anything to do with what is not true. Of the truth of our position I have not a particle of doubt. I have never fought a battle for it that I was not prepared to fight again, feeling sure that I could do it better the next time. I have often felt the imperfection of my defence of our position, but I have never felt that the position itself was weak. I have always felt the truth, strength, and reasonableness of our position, as compared with anything in the religious world which I have had the opportunity of comparing it with. I can hardly tell how much comfort this gives at the close of life's active day.

As a religious body we accept the motto, "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent." I have acted on this rule for over fifty years. It has given satisfaction all the time. Unity and peace must come in this way, or they will never come at all. There must be a test of truth in religion somewhere, or there can be no certainty, no unity, no peace. We have no complete test of truth within ourselves. Our intuitive and axiomatic knowledge do not take us far. They cover but a small field. Where we have nothing but the light within, we are very soon all at sixes and sevens. When we look from within to without for a test in religion, it is not hard to come to the conclusion that the Bible is that test or we have not got one. And if the Scriptures are the test, then the reasonable thing is, "To speak where the Scriptures speak, and be silent where the Scriptures are silent." Over fifty years of active religious life have only tended to confirm me that this is the only safe guide.

The Bible has had enemies all the time, but it is God's book, and it has been overcoming its enemies all the time. No weapon forged against that book can prosper. God is behind the book, and in spite of all that has been said against it, its influence is on the increase. More copies are printed and read today than ever before. My lifetime has seen the heat of the worst battle that has ever been fought against the Bible, but at its worst it did not hinder the influence and circulation of the Bible. So long as the truth of the Bible was only called in question by its avowed enemies, there was at least a certain degree of consistency about it.

But now the truth of the Bible is assailed by professed friends of the Bible, some of them professing to preach the Gospel of Christ. The inconsistency of this is enough to shock any honest Christian. At first the Old Testament got the most of their attention. But it was evident from the first, to any thoughtful person that when confidence in the Old Testament was shaken the New Testament would have to go with it. We were sometimes told that this was a discussion that scholars alone could take part in; that the ordinary man would have to stand aside and let the scholars settle it. It was as clear to me when I was a young man as it is today, that this is not altogether true. Christ lived and died in a clearly historical period. There is no doubt about when or where or how He lived or died. His historical existence, His character and claims, can be examined by any man of ordinary attainments.

Jesus said, "My teaching is not Mine, but His that sent Me. If any man willeth to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from myself." This test is open to any ordinary, honest man. It does not require a man to be a scholar in any high sense of that word, before he can be certain that Jesus is "The Christ, the Son of the living God." And when a man is certain that Jesus is "The Christ, the Son of the living God," he can be certain of a great many other things. If Jesus was what He claimed to be, then he knew more about the Old Testament than all the critics that have ever lived before or since His day. The attitude of Jesus towards the Old Testament is altogether beyond dispute. He treated it as the word of God all the time. Before and after His resurrection he continued to do this. The Apostles guided by the Holy Spirit did the same thing. When a man believes in the Deity of Christ, that settles the question of the truth of the Old Testament so far as that man is concerned. No man can believe in the claims of Christ and at the same time doubt the truth of a book which Christ endorsed. If the Old Testament cannot be trusted, Christ cannot be trusted, for He endorsed it as the word of God.

Though I am not what men would call a scholar, I have never doubted that the Old Testament can be trusted. I knew that as certainly as Christ was "The Son of God," the Old Testament was true and the "Critics" were mistaken; and that God would, sooner or later, make that manifest. That is now being done. The heat of the battle is over. The thing is now being driven back, and its friends and well-wishers do not talk as confidently about the "assured results" of these, so-called, scholars as they used to do. I am as confident still as a man can be about anything, that the only safe guide in religion is to "speak where the Scriptures speak, and be silent where the Scriptures are silent." For a man to profess to believe in the Deity of Christ and then tamper with what He endorsed, shows a blasphemous presumption that Satan himself could not excel.

Among these "scholars" you have smaller exhibitions of audacity in abundance. They do not hesitate to tell us that the Jews do not know their own history; and they proceed to reconstruct the Jews' history for them. The Jews believe that their forefathers made a Tabernacle in the Wilderness. That Tabernacle was connected with a considerable portion of Jewish history. The Jews believe this story about the Tabernacle. But our friends the "Critics" inform us that the story of the Tabernacle cannot be trusted, that it is not much better than finely detailed fiction. The Jews know about one Isaiah, but, so far as their information goes, they never knew of anything but one Isaiah. But our friends the "Critics" come along and inform the Jews that they had more than one Isaiah. How the Jews lost trace of the other Isaiahs the Jews themselves do not know, nor can the "Critics" explain to us how the Jews managed to do a thing like this. Still we must believe that there were more Isaiahs than one, because the "Critics" say so. That the Jews were sometimes wicked and foolish, the Jews themselves will admit. But before we can believe what the "Critics" tell us about the Jews we shall have to believe that the Jews were practically a nation of idiots, and they never were that.

Our Higher Critics are often on good terms with those who hold to the doctrine of evolution. The one theory has no real connection with the other, so that cannot be the reason of the general friendship. Both theories tend to shake confidence in the Bible, and perhaps their mutual friendship springs from this common result. If evolution be true, the story of creation as told in the Bible is not true. Jesus and Paul endorse the story of creation. The evolutionist is therefore against Jesus and Paul. You may choose between, but you cannot hold with both. There have been many attempts to escape this conclusion, but it is only raising dust. My lifetime has also seen the evolution craze come to its height. It is now on the wane. There could be no better illustration of the possibility of educated people being carried away by a speculation which had no solid foundation to rest upon. What a number of people who thought themselves something above the common were quite sure about evolution! Many of them are more modest now. The weight of opposition against it is steadily on the increase. How could it be otherwise? It had no foundation in fact. It was only a theory at its best. That of itself might have kept some people from being as sure of it as they were. Had it been a theory in harmony with our experience there would have been more excuse for it; but it is a theory in direct opposition to the constant experience of mankind.

That there are lower and higher forms of life is a fact. But we have no evidence that the higher came from the lower. Not only is there no positive evidence for it, but we accept it as an axiom that the greater cannot come from the less. Evolution is in conflict with that axiom all the time. But we are as confident about the truth of that axiom as we ever were, evolution to the contrary notwithstanding. We are just as satisfied that the greater cannot come from the less, as we are that "Out of nothing, nothing comes." These two axioms are closely related to each other, and no rational being can doubt either of them. But until we can doubt them, manly honesty should compel us to doubt evolution. The friends of evolution sometimes throw in a few extra thousands or millions of years so as to give plenty of time for the greater to come from the less. This is not reasoning, it is only raising confusion. Time has practically nothing to do with it. A shilling cannot come from a sixpence suppose you give it the whole of the coming eternity to do it in. What is not in a thing cannot come out, no matter what time you give.

Just as my faith in Christ prevented me from accepting the teaching of the Higher Critics, it also prevented me from accepting the doctrine of evolution. Christ accepted the Bible account of man's creation. I was satisfied that the Son of God could not be deceived, and that He was too good to mislead us. I was, therefore, certain that the doctrine of evolution was a mistake. That did not prevent me from paying some attention to what the other side had got to say. But it would have prevented me from accepting the theory of evolution until the last stone bearing upon its evidence had been turned. Had the evolutionist been able to demonstrate the truth of his theory I would, of course, have been compelled to accept it. But on the day that I accepted the theory of evolution, I would have ceased to accept the claim of Deity which the Scriptures make for Christ. And when I give up faith in the Deity of Christ, my faith in Christianity as a whole will be shattered. So far as I am concerned I can see no escape from this conclusion. Right along I have clung to my faith in Christ, and today I am exceedingly pleased that I have done so.

The Higher Critic and the evolutionist sometimes say that the scholars are with them, and what the scholars believe today the common people will believe after a while. That prediction has very little likelihood of being fulfilled. The scholars rejected Christ, but the common people heard him gladly. That is largely true today. Great numbers of the common people are giving themselves over to folly and pleasure, but only a small minority even of these have gone over to infidelity; and as a general rule it is only those who have gone over to infidelity who are delighted with the Higher Critic or the evolutionist. Pleasure is working ruin among the common people, but the common people are not much inclined to go over to infidelity. This, at least, has been my experience at any place I have been.

I have sometimes been told that I make too much of the silence of Scripture. The silence of the Bible has always been as sacred to me as its positive enactments. Where God has not spoken to me on religious matters, I shall permit no man to speak. Where God has not spoken I am free. It is a God-given freedom; and I fight for that freedom on the one hand as keenly as I would defend God's clearly revealed will on the other hand. In connection with the Christian religion God has been pleased to give us the greatest possible amount of freedom compatible with faithful service. Let us see to it that we guard that freedom. As a rule, wherever man has tampered with the religion of Christ he has curtailed that freedom.

I have been a total abstainer for fifty-four years. I am very pleased that the Bible leaves me free to be an abstainer. That the drink traffic is a great evil in our country is beyond dispute. That the influence of the Christian should be against it cannot be questioned. But when it is moved, as it sometimes is, that we make total abstinence a condition of fellowship, we cry, "Hands off, there." It has not pleased God to make that a condition, and we cannot allow you to do it. The man that is too good is often responsible for a good deal of harm. God in His goodness has taken our different natures and circumstance into consideration and has kindly granted us time to grow, but it is sometimes hard for us to show that consideration for one another. It is not only in religion that we are apt to show want of caution and toleration.

The same thing appears in our politics every now and again. No man can possess the Spirit of Christ in any degree without wishing to good to his country. But how to set about doing good as citizens is in a great measure left to ourselves. One cannot see why all Christians are not Socialists. Another is certain that he can serve God and his country better by being Liberal, while a third is certain that to be a Conservative is better than either of the foregoing. Here again we are free, and the Church as a Church has no right to bring pressure to bear upon its members. It is well that it should be so; our different natures and circumstances often make it hard for us all to see alike in these matters. God knew this and gave us freedom, but it is hard for some men to be God-like just here. They will speak where then Scriptures are silent. And from this it is quite an easy step to contradict the Apostles where they have spoken. We have a few men who know better than the Apostles about a number of things, but these men as a rule know a little too much for their own safety. Pride goes before a fall.

We have grasped more clearly that any other religious party that I have come in contact with, the great importance of Peter's confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." It is a matter of great satisfaction to me that my attention was called to this early in my religious life. To miss the importance of this central proposition is in a considerable degree to miss the meaning of the New Testament. It is in a very marked degree a foundation proposition. The four Gospels are devoted to the proof of it. The main object in Gospel discourses is to convince the hearers that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. The whole Christian religion gathers round that as a centre and rests upon it as a foundation. With that foundation firmly laid every other thing is likely to fall into its place. The man who is shaky there, his Christianity is not worth regarding; it may fall to pieces any time.

Our Lord informed the disciples that he would build His Church upon the great confession which we have just referred to. I cannot close this outline without a few remarks upon the Church of God. That the New Testament speaks about such a Church is beyond all dispute. The assurance of Christ that "the gates of Hades" would not prevail against His Church makes us certain that God cares for His Church, and that it will remain here as long as man in his mortal state requires the blessings which the Church of God brings to him. It is the one God-given society on earth. Christ is Head over all things to the Church: it is His body. The close relationship between husband and wife is taken to illustrate the connection between Christ and His church. In view of the foregoing facts, one would suppose that no professing Christian would or could talk lightly about the Church.

But the fact remains that it is not hard to find professed followers of Jesus who consider that it does not matter much what Church they belong to, or whether they belong to any. You can easily find people who will tell you that if they belong to Christ it makes little or no matter whether they belong to any Church or not. I have no doubt that sectarianism has helped to bring about this state of mind. Still, after you have made all the allowance you can for the circumstances in which people are placed, it is passing strange that, when God has appointed a Church, His professed should consider that they are just as well out of it as in it; or that something else will just do as well as what God has appointed. Ignorance of what the New Testament says about the Church, has no doubt a good deal to do with this state of things.

There are very few, even among religious people who have carefully considered the New Testament teaching about the Church. The single fact that Christ spoke about the Church as "My Church," should prevent any believer in Christ from thinking that it is a matter of no moment whether a person is a member of the Church or not. When you settle the question of the importance of the church, you are then more likely to inquire into the question: What was the Church of the New Testament like? When we look at the variety of the professing Christian Churches we are apt to be led to the conclusion that it must be very hard to find out what the Church of the New Testament was like. This, however, is not the case. About quite a number of important points there can be no real dispute. It is certain that there was one church, just one, in New Testament times. When the Corinthians showed signs of division, they were rebuked for it. And Jesus prayed that we all might be one. That being so, there cannot be two Churches on the earth today possessed of Divine authority. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that there is one such Church. Nor can there be any doubt that it is the duty of every true follower of the Lord Jesus Christ to find out where that Church is and be a member of it. If Christ is "Head over all things to the Church," we should see to it that nothing but what has His sanction has a place in it.

That there were Apostles and Prophets and supernatural gifts in the Church at the first is denied by no one who believes the New Testament. There are some who claim that these are with us still, but the claims are so badly supported that no one need be deceived by them.

Leaving the supernatural and temporary, let us look at some of the permanent things in connection with the Church. And, in the first place, we might inquire what were the ordinary members of the Church like in New Testament times? There could be no Church without members; what were the qualifications of those members? That the members of the churches in different places were spoken of as disciples of Christ, saints, saved persons, etc., there is and there can be no dispute. The Church of Christ was not in existence till after Christ's death. The Church at Jerusalem was the first Church we have on record. That began on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ. The second chapter of Acts informs us as to what kind of members were added to it. Those who heard the Gospel, were convicted of sin, repented and were baptised, were added to the Church.

There is abundance of proof that members of the same kind were added to other Churches. Again, this is not in dispute. I have never heard any intelligent person deny that the first Churches had members of this kind.

On the other hand, so far as I know, there is no certain evidence that any other kind of members were admitted into the New Testament Churches. After long and careful reading, I am unable to prove that any one sat in fellowship in the New Testament Churches who had not believed in Christ, repented and been baptised. We have no right to practise anything that is doubtful in the Church of God. We are not free to do in the Church what may be right, we are only free to do there what must be right. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." We are in duty bound to keep clear of not only what is forbidden, but as far as possible we must keep clear of what is doubtful.

No society can exist without leaders of some kind, and the Church of Christ is no exception to that rule. The word "elder" may simply mean "an old man," but it is also used as a name for an office-bearer in the Church. This is also a matter about which there is no dispute. Nor does any one call in question the fact that these same office-bearers are sometimes called "bishops" or "overseers." "Bishop" in the New Testament is, of course not used in its popular sense. "Bishop" then did not mean a great man who bore rule over a number of Churches. There were then a number of bishops in one Church. That it was the duty of the elders to see to the spiritual welfare of the Churches can be doubted by no one who carefully reads the New Testament. There was no office-bearer above an elder in the first Churches. Each Church then had power to conduct its own affairs, nor had any other Church or combination of Churches the right to interfere with it. When the Apostles and Prophets were removed, there was no office-bearer above an elder. God has given spiritual oversight to the elders, and the man or body of men who interfere with that interfere with a Divine arrangement.

The word "deacon" means "servant." Used in this general sense, every Christian is a deacon. But I Tim. iii 8-13 proves that it was also used in an official capacity. A careful reading of these verses shows that the office was an important one. The elders and deacons between them had complete oversight of the Church, the spiritual oversight more particularly falling upon the elders, and the more secular concerns of the Church falling upon the deacons. Thus between the two all things pertaining to the church were looked after.

The Church has always had many useful members whose qualifications fell short of those of elders or deacons, but who under the directions of elders and deacons have been able to do good work. It is the clearly expressed will of God that all the gifts of the Church should, as far as possible, be used by the Church for the upbuilding of the Church and for the spread of the Gospel. The following passages bear upon this point:- "As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any men speak, let him speak as the oracles of God: if any minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth, that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen" (I Peter iv. 10, 11). "For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we being many are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts, differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith: or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching: or he that exhorteth, on exhortation; he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness" (Rom. xii 4-8).

Enough has now been said to show that God has provided for the oversight of the church, and it is His will that every member of the Church should be living and active, according to ability and opportunity. The will of God and our ability, to be constantly kept in view, and all things to be done decently and in order. God has not only informed us how the Church should be organised, but the New Testament organisation of the Church has proved itself suitable to any country where converts to Christ can be gathered together. This being so, I have often been surprised to find professed followers of the Lord declaring that Church organisation is not taught in the New Testament. This is a long way from the truth; the points which I have brought forward cannot be successfully contested.

"Evangelist" means "preacher of the Gospel." We read of Philip the Evangelist. Timothy was exhorted to do the work of an evangelist. Timothy, Titus, Silas and others were evangelists. An evangelist is not a permanent essential of a complete Church in any particular place. His field is wider than any particular Church and includes the world. He may be at work in connection with one Church today and duty may call him somewhere else tomorrow, perhaps to labour where there is no Church. It is always an evangelist's duty to teach a Church to aim at being self-supporting in every way. It is the duty of an evangelist to help in planting Churches where there are none, and he may often be called upon to help Churches, but he should never be looked upon as an essential part of any one Church.

"Minister" means "servant." In this sense every Christian is or should be a minister. But "minister" in our day is often used in connection with religion in a sense in which it is not used in the New Testament. It is common to speak of a man as "The Minister" of a certain Church. That means that the man is the Pastor of that Church. It does not mean that he is one of the elders or pastors of the Church; it means more than that. There is no other man in the Church upon a par with the "Minister." He belongs to a class above the elders. There is no trace of this class in the New Testament. There was no such man as "The Minister" in the New Testament Churches. The minister is a human invention, and we have no faith in man being able to improve upon God's arrangements.

The Churches of Christ in Great Britain and Ireland, co-operating for evangelistic purposes, have, so far, kept clear of this error: none of our churches have adopted "The Minister." We profess to go back to New Testament Christianity, and on this point we are consistent. In America and Australia there are a great many Churches professing, as we do, to go back to the religion of Christ and the Apostles as found in the New Testament, but a number of these Churches have adopted "The Minister." In this they are, of course, inconsistent. Against the preaching of these brethren we have seldom anything to say. I have often been obliged to brethren in America, to a less extent I can say the same about our friends in Australia; but at a few points we have to draw the line at their practice. We regret this, for in so far as we depart from the God-given model we shall have to do our work over again. My brief statements about the Church must end here.

My outline has now reached the limit of the space I have been aiming at, and I must draw to a close. I am ending as I began, with doubts as to the wisdom of my attempting to write a book of even this size. I suppose that others will settle that question for me. If what I have written helps or confirms any one in regard to the cause to which I have devoted the greater part of my life, I shall not regret that I have written. Were my life to begin again, that same cause would have what help I could give to it. I do not only believe that that cause is the cause of God and of truth, but I feel it impossible to doubt. When a man has been preaching the Gospel of Christ as long as I have been; taking what chances of opposition come your way and meeting them as best you can, so many lines of evidence converge in proving that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God," that you cannot help believing - doubt becomes impossible. That God is all good and all powerful no one doubts. Therefore those who oppose God and His truth must do it to their ultimate disadvantage; and those who stand for God and His truth must find themselves upon the right side in the end. I have often been anything but pleased with my efforts, but I am as certain as any mortal can be about anything that I have been fighting upon the side that must win.

It is over a year since I commenced this outline. Changes have come since then. Shortly after I started Mrs. Murrie, the eldest of my family, died in America. On the last day of 1911 I lost my partner in life. We had been married for over 52 years. I thank God that they were spared to me so long, and may he help me to be ready to follow.

I have a great many friends in this "vale of tears" that I shall not be able to visit again during the days which remain to me here. To all such who may read this book I take this opportunity of saying goodbye, but I do so in hope of meeting where we do not grow old.