it nor do it; or that a person may perceive the meaning of an argument in some of its attitudes and bearings, and not be convinced or persuaded by it, I should have admitted it without debate. But that is not my proposition. I speak of fully displaying and fully comprehending alĮ the moral motives of the Bible as essential to the development of all its moral power; and I affirm that no person has ever fully comprehended the motives which the gospel suggests, and remained indisposed to the objects which it presents. It is a remarkable fact that the Saviour, in his exposition of the parable of the sower, when he comes to the very point, uses the word understand as I have applied it. The question is, What is the difference between the man that hears the word to the salva. tion of his soul, and the other three sorts of hearers in the parable? His decision of this all-absorbing question is, "He that received seed into the good ground, is he that heareth the word and UNDERSTANDETH it.” He that understands the word, according to John Mark, “receives it;” and, according to Luke, "keeps" or obeys it.* So I teach. This is farther confirmed by the Saviour's exposition of this most apposite parable: He that received the seed by the way side is the person "who hears the word and understandeth it not. Now, according to my friend Mr. Lynd, the man by the way side might have perfectly understood it, and yet remained an enemy! Again, says Jesus, "I speak to them in parables, lest they should understand and be saved. For thus spoke Isaiah, "They shall hear, but they shall not understand." I trust we shall hear no more of this strange language, that a person may understand or fully comprehend all the moral arguments or motives of the gospel, and still remain an enemy, hard as the rock on which the seed fell, and germinated not.

But, perhaps, he will now say, in all this I agree with Mr. C.; for this understanding of the matter includes my whole theory of divine influence! And yet he will repeat that "the Spirit does not renew men by mere moral power;" still he concedes that the Spirit does use moral power-that he "uses object, motive, moral consideration, adapted to the moral nature of man;" but immediately asks, "Does it follow that he possesses no power to give a peculiar efficiency to these means?" Aye, this is the question: he uses moral power, but superadds what? a physical power!-a supernatural power!-he calls it "a power to give a peculiar efficiency to these means." And yet this nameless power is not moral! for if it were moral, then, according to Mr. Lynd, it would be mere moral power only!!"It is a power above all that I [Mr. Lynd] can conceive"! It is, then, an incomprehensible power; and, consequently, an unintelligible theory; and that nullifies it, as we have

* Matth. xlii. 23. Mark iv. 20. Luke viii, 15.

before shown. Here, then, is that lap of earth on which weary worn out Orthodoxy lays its aching head.

But I am still curious to know what power can be superadded to a motive to give it a peculiar efficiency. It cannot be a motive, for that is moral: it must then be an impulse physical, as when a metallic hammer strikes a nail. But then who can imagine an iron hammer driving arguments home! and yet this is something like a power not moral giving efficiency to a motive or moral argument.

But Mr. Lynd, not satisfied himself with this view of the question, proceeds to enlarge the capacity of the word moral, and to make it equal to the word mental; and alleges that my own references to suggestions, and communications of light, as appeared once in the Jerusalem church, when all spoke by the same Spirit, at the same instant, authorize such a view of the Spirit's operations as to make them extend to all the operations and movements of the human soul.

This is a grand mistake. I never regarded inspiration, suggestion, whether simultaneous as on Pentecost, or in the Jerusalem church in the case alluded to, as of the same nature with moral power. Inspirations and suggestions we may not indeed fully understand; but we may easily perceive that they are not moral influences. Balaam's ass preached to his rider; Balaam himself blessed Israel every time he opened his mouth to curse them; king Saul spoke among the Prophets; and even Caiphas uttered an oracle which he did not comprehend. So of many others. Yet none of these influences were moral in their nature, tendencies, or effects. A whisper or a suggestion under breath is physical so far as the effort is concerned; but that which operates upon the mind to change its moral hue, is not the physical operation upon the tympanum of the ear, nor the image on the retina, nor that inspiration which originates in the mind by its own machinery a new idea; but the motive suggested in the idea, or the moral object presented to the moral nature of man.

I do not "make disposition to mean nothing more than an exercise:" I do not believe in Mr. John Harris' analogy between the retina of a dead eye and a living soul. I am sorry to see a great man, whose Great Teacher I so greatly admire, so weak and puerile on so ordinary an oceasion. The passage he quotes from Jesus is misapplied. It was spoken to the disciples, and not to sinners. Mr. Lynd's remarks upon Judas disposition to suicide, and upon David's convictions in regard to his conduct in the case of Bathsheba, and to Peter's denial of his Master, and to him that "shall be beaten with many stripes," if not intended for effect, are certainly no way creditable to his good sense and generai intelligence. I leave the scriptures quoted to another opportunity.

But really I was prepared to expect better things than the criticism upon disposition, light, and the understanding. To understand the gospel, is to be enlightened; and this is never independent of the heart. No man can separate the light of the sun from the vital heat which accompanies it. Gospel love and light are two names for the same thing. And when Jesus describes the man who understands the word, says his is a good and an honest heart.

he

Indeed, after many and various efforts to make me most heterodox on this subject, my friend Mr. Lynd himself comes to my own conclusions. He says, "As to any physical agency which implies force, or which implies an operation upon the heart independently of what are called moral means, I do repudiate." And so do I most cordially; and this is almost, if not altogether, as far as I wish to go upon this subject.— "But," continues he, "whether the power by which God changes the heart is physical in another sense, or moral, I have not determined. Very candid. Well, if Mr. Lynd should never determine this matter, I think it will not exclude him from the people of God hereafter, and it should not here. I am sorry after all this candor and concurrence with me in theory, that my orthodox friend should, to save appearances or his credit, or to place a brand upon me, immediately add that "we are at issue upon the thing itself, not upon the word." We agree in the word, but not in the thing! What it is to have the gift of discerning spirits! Well says he, "The thing itself, according to the position of Mr. C., is, that no other power is exerted upon the mind of a sinner in his sanctification than that of the written word." This I solemnly affirm is no I have rever taught such a theory, though some of the kingdom of the clergy have sought so to misrepresent and pervert my words. One single word before power would have made the above sentence true. As it now stands it is positively a false charge: "The position of Mr. Campbell is, that no other instrumental power is exerted upon the mind of a sinner in his sanctification than that of the written word." I might add, preached or read. Some other assertions of this sort in the portions of this essay already before our readers, we shall review hereafter. In the meantime we examine the strongest points. We hope, Deo volente, before the end of this review, to make the ground we occupy, and the doctrine we teach on this subject, stand out in bold relief before all men, and contrast it with the old Baptist doctrine-now greatly modified and much improved within a few years.

so.

VOL. II.-N. S.

A. C.

THE ROCK, THE KEYS, THE GATES OF HADES. [CONTINUED FROM PAGE 42.]

It may be here interesting to inquire if within this congregation, which thus appears merely authorized to exhibit, in their own obedience, the laws of the Master, there is a class vested with higher authority in virtue of their office: or what are the duties of the eldership? There is one deviation observable in the present era from the Apostles practice: they addressed their letters to the congregations; now letters are generally addressed to the elders; they called on the congregations to execute the laws of the Master; now that duty seems almost exclusively devolved on the elders. It may be said that in apostolic times the churches generally had not elders over them: this, to my mind, is at least questionable: but from the Apostle Paul himself we learn that the congregation at Philippi possessed them; and if this was the only one of all he had written to, thus favored, he had a strong reason to manifest in this letter any pre-eminence to which they might be entitled. He manifests none; it is to the congregation with the bishops and deacons, not to the bishops and deacons with the congregation that he addresses himself. But perhaps I am here reminded of Hebrews xiii. 17: "Obey your rulers and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls as those that must give account: that they may do this with joy and not with mourning, for that would be unprofitable for you." Let us then examine this chapter. There are in it two admonitions with respect to rulers, materially dissimilar. Can they, then, refer to the same rulers? At the 7th verse we are admonished thus: "Remember your rulers who have spoken to you the word of God; observing carefully the issue of their conduct, imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever." Here beyond all doubt he speaks of the elders, but does he say Obey and submit yourselves? Nay, verily! He says Remember them, regard them with affection and respect; but watch them carefully also; and as you see, and only as you see that they cleave to the truth, do you imitate them; bearing ever in mind the great fact that Jesus Christ never changes, his truth cannot be moulded to suit times or seasons. This seems to savor strongly of the warnings to which I have alluded in the commencement of this disquisition, but bears no analogy to the command, "Obey and submit." If in the 17th verse the word which is translated souls be rendered lives, in which sense it is as often rendered, I believe, both in the scriptures and other works, as in the former, the whole difficulty vanishes, and we find that Paul is here exhorting the Hebrews, as he does the Romans, (xiii. 1.) "to be subject to the higher powers," even the rulers of this world, rendering to all their dues; and we remember the turbulent and rebellious disposition which the Hebrews were so prone to evince under Gentile rulers, the propriety, not to say the necessity of such an exhortation, is very apparent. What, then, is the elder's or bishop's office according to holy writ? It is an excellent work. His qualifications as described by Paul ought to be possessed by every disciple, except the fitness to teach, the analogous one of knowing how to take care of the congregation of God, and being the father of a family. I presume, therefore, that the most exemplary disciples, having these requisites, should be selected

by the congregation to fill the office; which office they are to exercise as the representatives of the congregation; presiding to see that all things be done decently and in order, enforcing the doctrine of the Apostles, and exhorting and confuting gainsayers. If the elder does these things in conformity with the Master's law, then that disciple who fails to support and honor him, violates his positive obligation; but if abandoning the Master's law, he should substitute his own will, his own policy, his own wisdom, then that disciple who fails to oppose such usurpation, and the congregation which acquiesces in it, are recreants to the honor of King Jesus: they are bound to deprive him of the office when he shows himself unworthy to fill it: he must be a pattern to the flock; and alas for th it flock whose pattern is self willed, prone to anger, &c. But these functions, it appears to me, must all be exercised in the face of the congregation. I have looked in vain through God's word to find any warrant for private teaching and visiting as part of an elder's duty. He is to feed the flock-to teach the congregation. And when are we a flock-a congregation? Not surely when scattered in the pursuit of our respective avocations: and how can we observe the issue of our elder's conduct when engaged in these private lectures? Was it not through assumptions and practices of this sort, that the clergy first obtained and still exercise their baleful influence over their deluded followers? Of what scandal-nay, of what contaminating evil have they not been the cause? It avails not to say that Paul taught from house to house: he was divinely inspired and commissioned for the purpose, and even what he testified in this manner, both to Jews and Greeks, was not an elder's teaching, but the glad tidings-"reformation to God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." Moreover, in the good providence of our God, every disciple is, or can now be furniseed with the teachings of Paul himself and his brother Apostles, so as to have them ever at their side; and if the weekly exhibition of their Saviour's dying love, and the exhortations of the congregation cannot induce them to study and obey those teachers, I feel assured that all other influences will be exerted in vain. Those private teachings may form parties, produce sects, afford much scope for religious gossip, and establish a goodly portion of human influence in the congregations; but they cannot, as far as I am able to perceive, conduce to the purity and meekness of the disciple or to the honor of King Jesus. There is but one private duty that I can see required of an elder: We are the flock-he the overseer; he is of course bound to know all the flock; and if any are missing from the fold, the very titles they respectively bear imply that it is his duty to look after the absent; that if their absence arises from sickness, poverty, or transgression, they may be properly cared for according to the laws of the Master.

If, then, I rightly apprehend the word of God, it is to his institutions, to his Apostles alone, Jesus refers every believer "for the means of grace and the hope of glory." That no human policy or human influence can be mingled therewith without derogating from his honor: that in the participation of the appointments of his house, in the teachings of his Apostles, every disciple must for himself and herself obtain strength and direction whereby they may let their light shine before men, that they seeing their integrity, meekness, patience, and love, may glorify their heavenly Father; thus the glory is given not to the exhibition, but