The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

x, and ma 5."...1‘“ >0 barn 2mm. W “NY I“) noes. will 5. l on -‘y “m. P" yer For Sale. ”Yuan t. ’or Sale. for Sale. tar power know. ’ Glenda. falls"), Durban, ( tf. .ots for Sale IAPLES, Edge mu. GEORGE LAID, Daft". flu of Park Lot no. ugh er street. in tho u.‘ ‘or Sale. 'V rarm.".9imatod in a. was cleared and wit.- hinery on. The MI- ush and sup to Is of cnrdw God r post barn on it The '. sh miles from Barlo- t Durham. This fan!) a next £0 days. and at ”her particular: or LLD DAVIDSON, Clerk Divnsion CM Drum]. 01". IGNED orrm RRER, Durham. er street. in 35073:;- the Town 0‘ Dub, 130 03306 of J. P. T‘- :he office of the a“... -particulr3 ‘99., ~ e of same will r this data all veiling Hon.“ ‘ 16 Candle?“ Lg r yams“ tr BCsndb 113 nor ya! strictly 0* TON. Bane...- p' 1!. "135le im run. D TAMW'OBTE )t for Sale. FODQ BULLS FRO! LOT 0.\' QUEEN ATKI tf. file to IYWO IV‘VE r for Service ervice. Us for Sale. \V. CA l. DER. Durham t Notice. ”ARM. KNOWN firth. 1999, brad 1:. Mill Grove. 09!. )gham, 2620 Rm. )'â€"‘.’612â€". (bl‘d h, ville, Out). as- Lily 2nd (in )“ or. St. Ives. ).â€" Holywell KO Iz’ud manâ€"Ba)!- In ”Emma a! r service at L03 an ti a no. Two I“! l (_ ”37).-" H Jackie ( )3 H l'vke (7%).“ )3' Young Snub :ml (128). 23 )y Samson runs mte B RUWNE ervice at L“ f Mrs. J DUR HAM, he was! aid. Lots 10 11. side 01'6".- l 10 G: 11. RD NTER. Durham ildmg lob. new ”338 tographor. so; 1...“: rooms Wili For d point in Wlolcttoro l The 966°“ . . hi ch 1 shall consider in the question ' Visible Church. Hero I my 0f the 97 Reader has thhOd m M ' nition. "hie 1| nrguing vigor. 0091}, {or a Visnble Church. That -here is such a church I did not d... j“ and the Presbytonun ‘Stundnrdll ‘njfi only assume its existence but? ‘ glVd a posmve definition of it consists ofâ€"Chup. xxv. 2, new? '1; will not be Infamy to. in“ space and tune in ufirming «in! both Churches believe in com- 1200- 1: is not a proper subject for itigclhslon in the present connection, ‘ .='-iIcrence however in Bender’s ‘Wflmn of the Visible Church and ‘ rally accepted Protestunt ,‘Eniou will be pointed out further 4.0“. Here it is sufiicient to say that in my letter of April 17th, when 1 W4 these words. ” Surely we con conceive a. unity which does not re- am any visible shupe.” I was arguing for a far higher unity than 3.6;... external correspondence in rit- gal ceremony. From this how- ever Reader assumed that I did not .3 in a. Visible Church. Hi8 Conclusicn does not necessarily fol- The difference between us is 1.. llCl-tl. Reader believes, it I under- “...1 him aright.‘ that there can be «be: 'll'f gene 1'11“; bellev l Sluu't u---- no Unity in the Church unless hued? on outward conformity to the same forms and ceremoniesâ€"thst is s vis- ible external correspondence in the forms of worship and church govern- , 1 hold that therecsn be, that there is a linity of Spirit, of the heart, 0531,11 and purpose, an internsl in- visible unity which is higher, more emiuriug. more in harmony with the essentially Spiritual teaching of the New Testament, than any external unity is or can be. The one is the hen, the other the kernel. the one '; rm. husk, the other the life “ The tile.” It is this higher, holier, more life-giving, more Spiritual unity .VlllL'll Presbyterians believe in and though from a human standpoint it would appear to be very desirable ya: there should be outward con- formity also, yet that is clearly im- ['OSSlbld with the world as it isâ€" with so many difierent nations each with its own peculiar language, cus- toms'. inclinations and hereditary tendencies. It is quite plain, as pointed out by Archbishop Whatoly .cited in letter of Oct. 16). that Christ and His Apostles never intended that outward conformity to forms and symbols was to be the test of disciple- ship, was in other words. to be the Jug). was m Ubucs "usuag .v ..... gum which they held as necessary f; the Church as the body of Christ. ‘- By this shall all men know that. ye my.» my disciples if ye have love one '3 another,” are the words of the Maswr Himself. In this there is not one word as no ourwerd conformity in worhip or in anything else. It is simply Love. which is surely an in- .‘isxble bond of Unity in the Church as in the family no mstter how dif- ferent the component. members msy My reference (letter of April 17th) to the alliances compacts. etc.. made new-a days between States and Gov- ernments. very difierent in their con- .stltutious. in order to illustrate the possibility of Unity without outward conformity to any set forms did not please my friend Reader. I am sorry, for the comparison was suggested by ' reading the works of his own friends, culeflx‘ Chillingworth, Hooker and especmlly Whatelyâ€"all Anglicans O“ the vlearest intellect and of the high-j est character. These great men did rm hesitate to reason by analogy. from r'ne kingdoms_of this world to {.10 Kingdom of Christ as aSociety upon this earth. Does not the Old 'f‘es'amen: frequently connect them in Tln’ Same way '3 When ChriSt beâ€" fore Pilate "refused to acknowledge seal: a comparison ” He was speaking of llls Kingdom not as aSociety here on earth but of dis Kingdom as com- prellending all the Saints from the time of Adam to the end of time, and leader would. it seems to me. know that much but for his fatal determin atlon not to admit any evidence on the other side. Had he read his text-books better. he would not con. (1011)!) my use of the comparison O8 an illustration. m A... :zai L'nity in His Church, it was left fur God‘s people guided by the Holy 8pm: to Seek such forms as best suit- ed the paiticular ago. nationolity. environment, etc. in which they found themselvesâ€"DH“ adhering in every age to the Unity of ion and faith and hop. which '38 alwoya to be characteristic at tho choun 900910. I: is abhorrent. to tho common Icon 01 any free man that ho ohoold be compelled to conlonn outwardly to fOl'ms againu which hic spirir rchola because he finds no sanction for thoml in the Word of God. and no help to a hiilher spiritnnl life in :hoir an. 1‘ is rank hypocrioy to do .0 had any one who argue. along that lino ho. 10088 to a bygone on. when tolera- tion was unknown and true I“ any Of conscience was not understood. This idea of the Spiritual unity 0‘ the (Thnrph a. atronnlv confirm“! _by This: idea of the S iritunl unity 0! ~ vtse n anus-v ---. â€"â€" . - me Church is strongly confirmed by I? pnyo ” (Short Hut. p. 69? 610.) Ax-t:h1..,hop \\ huqy (Lo ‘ -, ’ this was written some ofiorts . ‘ Church IS ONE, 2 after reform” hove been nude but to 3199. vet. as consisting 0 ‘0““t3. 'tut because Societies or Churches were then ii modelled. and ought still ‘ ° . $0. on the .63ng principlej; , . proceed to erumnno Pecause thay enjoy common p ' Reader’s clum thtt the Scriptures lif‘gea‘wâ€"one Lord. one Spirit. ; Dana's-owl)“ Prot’e’st- b‘Ptism. Accordingly, the Holy ant: call the “lnusnblo Church: ~- 9 tuo Apol- l On this point I ahall not down plunly GhOSt. through His agent ”es. has: not left any dotnilod mount the tench Chrintinn °f fhe formation of OI! 8°C““37; but He has my distinctly tho «mo. marked the great. principles on a hicb all were to be founded. whatever dis- ringions may exist among them. * * The above account is sufiiciently established even by the mere nega- tive circumstance of the absence of all mention in the Sacred Writings of any ONE Society on earth. having a Government and officers of its own and recognized as the Catholic or Universal Church: especially when it is considered that the frequent mention of the particular Churches at Jerusalem. Antioch. Rome. Cor- inth, etc.â€"-of the seven Churches in Asia,â€"-and of the ‘care of all the Churches’ which Paul had founded. would have rendered unavoidable the notice of the One Church (had there been any such) which bore rule over all the rest, either as its subjects, or as provincial departments of it.” Again the EncycIOp. MetrOp. p. 744 has these words, “ The Church (viz. the Universal or Catholic Church) is undoubtedly ONE, and so is the Hu- an organized Corpor: history unites in aese experiment, if such it was a lamentable fail the failure was so ob\ sale to predict that m such a union be consu earth until the happv " the Kingdoms of thi: come the Kingdoms of of His Christ.” (Rev. Sect. 1 reads as follows: “The Cath- ft olic or Universal Church, which is ti invisible consists of the whole num- tl ber of the elect that have been.\ are C or shall be gathered into one under in Christ the Head thereof : and is the E Spouse, the body, the fullness of Him 0' that filleth all in' all.” This isa sq clear statement made under the auth- it ority of the Westminster Assembly cl which as Philip Schaff says stands tl first among Protestant Councils and u even if it had no other authority, we dl should be slow to cast it aside. But 91 the Westminster Assembly based C every statement on Holy Scripture. "When we read in Scripture that )6 the Church of Christ’s body, the ful- a ness of Him that filleth all in all (Col. V I 18-24); that He loved the Church and gave Himself for it that He might present it to Himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing (Eph. 5: 27): When we read of the General As- sembly of the first-born whose names u are written in heaven (Heb. 12: 23) i. â€"We cannot doubt that here the 11 word Church is employed as descrip- a tive “of the Whole number of the c elect that have been, are now, or I shall be gathered into one under V {Christ the Head thereof ;” and fur- c ther in the passages referred to none t but those who have been chosen by t God to Salvation through Christ and ‘ also are all in consequence saved are a regarded as comprehended in the \ Church. There is, then, aChurch e spoken of in Scripture which consists ( s i 1 H006: of the whole body of the elect, the believing, the saved,â€"of those who are chosen through Christ to faith and Salvation, and who in due time attain to them, and of none others.” The fact that there is sucha body 1 must be believed by every person I ceived Christ and experienced the ‘ power of His redemption are to be saved, and that all who reject Him will be lost. Protestant divines us- ually call this church invisible “ be- cause (a) the portions of it at any a time or place visible are immeasur- ' ably small in comparison with the . body as a whole in its full comple- ': ment of saints of all nations and gen- I erations, and (b) because even in the i sections of this body visible to us its - outlines are very uncertain. Many ' who appear as parts of it do not real- 3 1y belong to it, and many may very t really belong to it whose union with it r is not manifest. The lines are not 1 to human eye drawn with any degree - of accuracy between the Church and 3 the world. I l the meantime, the 1 true Church, not yet perfectly de- 1 veloped and manifested, lurks in the f phenomenal Church, as the grain of 0 the growing corn lurks in the ear, and in this sense it is invisible. For ;. that which constitutes the essence of a this Church is not the visible profes- .t sion or fruitfulneas, but that indwel- e ling divine life, from which the pro- ,.. fession and fruitfulness proceed.” From the passages of Scripture‘ above referred to it is surely a just: conclusion that the Scripture does set before us an aniSlblO Churchâ€" the whole number of the elect in all time and in all places viewed as one body. Presbyterian and most Pro- testant divines, afiirm with equal certainty that the Scripture sets be. fore us a Visible Church. but they deny 'that visibility in the Romish sense (the sense used by Reader) is an essential prOperty of the Church so that if it be wanting there is no Church. Reader and all Romanists make visibility an essential property of the Church because visibility is absolutely necessary to the validity of their pet theory of Apostolical Successionâ€"a purely popish theoryâ€"~ Most Protestants believe with Chil- lingworth (Works p. 354) that the true preaching of the Word and due administration ol the Sacraments are the notes not of THE visible Church l but of A visible Church and these are very different things Indeed, non- ‘conlormists need no other arguments glicans to secede from Ro.me without being chargeable witib schtsm. Were -11 -___1‘____A Cbillingworth for use here. It would serve my purpose admirably and I commend it to Reader as a full and sutficient answer to all his positive assertions respecting the Visible Church and nonconformity in general. I cannot expect however that he will make the proper application of one to! his favorite authors. VI 00“ -â€"vâ€"â€"_ It would be easy to quote writer after writer of soundest theology to show their belief in an invisible Church but one or two must sufice. And first let John Calvin speak and no one but an ignoramus will ques- tion his right to speak with some authority. “I have observed that the Scriptures speak of the Church in two ways. Sometimes when they speak of the Church they mean the Church as it really is before God... the Church into which none are ad- mitted but those who by the gift of adoption are sons of God. and by the sanctification of the Spirit true memr bers of Christ. In this case it not only comprehends the saints who dwell on the earth. but all the elect who have existed from the beginning of the world. " 'l' ‘ Hence as it is necessary to believe the invisible Church which is manifest to the eye .of God only.’f etc. (inst. Iv I 7.) Again, Turretin. speaking of the or- igiu of the cantroversv as to the vis- ible Church says, "The true origin of the cmtroversy must be sought in this that when in the early stages of the Reformation. the papists were disputing from the Scriptures against Luther end others regarding indulg. enoes. justification and humnn antis- faction, and had dificnlty in extrica- ting themselves. they wished to drag them before the tribunal of the Church in order that these questions might be decided by their own dictum. Because in sooth they recognized no other Church than the visible as- semblage of those outwardly profess- ing the faith. composed of bishops, clergy and Others who acknowledged the Pope as their head. This Luther not only refused to admit but even denied that such either were or should be called a church; that the Church could not be marked out as true by outward profession. or sub- jection to Rome. but only by faith and true piety. (Loc. Dri. quae VII.) .--., Readers’s unfair methods of argu- ment are again exhibited in connec- tion with this questionâ€"In his letter of Sept. 11 he gives a series of Con. cordance-gathered texts from the New Testament to show the Scripture uses of the word Church that were favorable to his theory. But he does not once refer to the texts quoted above because he well knew they could not be made by any satisfactory Biblical interpretation to refer to a visible Church, much less to his idea of THE visible Church. In view of this how can we interpret his atti- tude when he penned these sentences: “ What is particularly noticeable about the New Testament use of the l word Church is that not in a single. solitary inStance does it refer to the Church as invisible. * * In no in- stance. I repeat is the Church de- scribed in the New Testament as invisible.” He should have examin- ed every instance before writing with such positive assurance. It is true the word “invisible” is not used. But with equal force and with exactly the same amount of truth I might say in no instance is the Church described in the New Testa- ment as VISIBLE. The one word is not applied to the Church any more than the other hence the dogmatic positiveness of his assertion is so much theatrical thunder. That the Scriptures speak of an in- visible Church as well as of a visible Church I must continue to believe until some one explains away the ob- vious meaning of the texts quoted above. This Reader has not at- tempted to do hence he leaves the question just as he found itâ€"clear enough for those who have no pet theory to sustain which depends for its acceptance and validity upon the rejection or the perversion of ‘Scripture. I shall close the discus- sion of this question by a quotation from an Anglican clergyman, Rev. S. A. Walker. Bristol. who is not led away as Reader is by any prelatic or popish notions of the supremacy of his Church. Denying the Romish claim that their Church is the one Church which in God’s sight is su- perior to all others, and which is spoken of by Christ and His Apostles: as THE Church, he says. “ The Church ‘ thus spoken of is very difierent from what we call national or denomina- tional Churches here on earth. They have for the most part a human or- igin, they are based often upon hu- man laws. they are composed of men and women, good bad and indifierent. and they are subject like those who : compose them to dissolution and de- cay. The Churches of Antiquity have generally ceased to exist. They were called Churches by our Lord and His Apostles but they were not the Church of the living God for we know that death shall not prevail against that." * * * “The Church means those who believe in Jesus, and who belong to Him, being His by purchase, by creation, and by His Father’s gift, and He says of that Church what cannot be said of any visible community. He is the hue- band of it. He loves it as a husband loves his bride and He gave Himself for it that He might eanctify and cleanse it. with washing of water by the Word,” etc. (Through Priestly Coils. Pt. II chap. VIII.) This An- glican Minister does not believe AL_L -_ _- -nn‘A-‘A an-“ Reader’s assertion that in no instance is the Church described in the New Testament as invisible. I thinkI have fully shown that Reader’s claims and assertions regarding the visibility and invisibility of the Church are not in accordance with Scripturepr with enlightened Protest- ant opinion. There are many other statements in the same letter which even a slight consideration would entirely overthrow but I have already overstepped my limit hence they must pass unnoticed. Next week I hope to notice the third and last point in these letters that call for reply namely the Historic EpiscOpate. In concluding this letter I cannot resist the temptation to call Reader's attention to Canon J B. Hosley’s book on ‘° The Primitive Doctrine of BaptismalzRegeneration " pp. 18 and 19 when he will find one of his own beloved Churchman use the phrase " change of heart " to which he took such objection. Here are two of the sentences and Reader can in the sil- ence of his own retirement consider how degenerate the worthy Canon must be to use so “ unscriptural ” a phrase :-â€"“ Certain conditions are ac- cording to Scripture, required for re- generationâ€"viz. repentance and faith that is to say. change of heart and life,” etc... and again, “ Conversion is change of heart for the time being, regeneration is this change fixed and secured,” etc. I dissent entirely trom the abominable theOIOgy here set forth in reversing the natural or- der of conversion and regeneration, but reproduce it to show that my use of the phrase “change of heart" is not so abhorrent to some eminent Anglican theologians of his own School as it is to my esteemed friend ; Reader. Yours truly, HA TS AND CAPS. TWEEDS AND SUITINGSa BOOTS AND SHOES. WARM UNDERWEAR. GLOVES AND HOSIERYu We believe in giving the best possible value for your money .. This 1 mode of doing business keeps customers and we know it. H. w. MOCKLER] Our new fall stock of up-to-dste Suitings hes srrived for both Indies and gent’s suits. Stylish Tweeds and Worsteds for men. New shades in Homespuns. Sex-gas. Brosdcloths and Costume Cloths for ladies. Our stock is complete now as it alweye is in than goods, but more so than ever in Cups. Men’s and Boys’ Heavy Winter Cepe in Blue Blue]: and Grey, also in Tweed: and Checks and “in Sages, 25c. 35c, 50c. 60c, 75c and $1.00“: ”3 Outlepeoiol ofier this week is Ithe “ Poorlou Shoo." leothor lined. os good u my 85.00 shoo on tho morkot in both oppooranoo ond uctusl voluo, for only 33.50. Other lino. oorroopondingly chap. Soo our South window. All the latootLotylol. Men's Hosvy Ping All-1001 Ungleywou', $1.00 pot garment. Ilen'e Extre Henry All-wool Underweer. 81.00 per germent. Xen’e Feney Striped All-wool Underwear. 75c per germent. Ilen’e Fancy Striped Fleece-lined Underweer. silk heed end bound. the beet line in the trede for the money. 50¢ per .ernent. Men’s Wool Linod Glovu ot 50¢. “.00. 81.26, 81.60, 81.75 3nd 82.00 per pair. Hon’o Unlinod Glove. u 81.00 cud 81.25. lion’s Silk Linod Glovu ot 81.60. Lodiea’ Silk Linod Gloves at 81.50. Hon’o Cool-u Working Luther Mitt. ot 25c. Our flock in tho complete in :11 lino: of Ploin ond Fonoy notion. . MOCKLER.