servient to the reformation of society. The subjects embraced in these questions will come up in our essays under this head.

SOME POINTS IN CHRISTIAN CONDUCT.

A. C.

Dear brother Campbell-I have some inquiries relating to Christian conduct to present to you, which, for the sake of others, I wish you to answer at length through the pages of the Harbinger. I am satisfied about them myself; but I think there are such general and growing evils arising from misunderstandings and perversions about them, that it is time these points were settled as they should be. How any person, pretending to be a Christian, to clearly understand that revelation we have in the gospel, can reconcile them to his conscience, I cannot see. But that something called conscience, as some people possess it, reminds me more of gum elastic than any thing else. They can stretch it or let it contract to suit almost any thing!

1st. Does our holy religion permit a brother or a sister, to attend balls and dancing parties, and dance themselves?

2d. Does it suffer them to permit their children to attend such places, and dance? and can this be made to consist with "bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?"

3d. What kind of reasoning is that which says that children will commit more sin in desiring to attend these "sinks of vice and infidel. ity," than in actually attending them? Has it any foundation in sound religion or philosophy? And on the same parity of reasoning, must we not permit our children to visit the race-course and grocery, and to get drunk, and curse, and swear, and fight, and cheat, and defraud, &c. &c. because they will commit more sin in desiring to do these things than in doing them?!!

4th. Is it not the same kind of reasoning that says we must let our children attend balls and dancing parties, that they may see the evil of them and become disgusted with them?!! On the same parity of reasoning, must we not also let them attend races, and groceries, and get drunk, and curse, swear, fight, &c. &c. to disgust them with all these?!! But we find, on trial, that this disgust becomes so agreeable, that they are constantly desiring it!!

5th. Does Christianity permit a sister or brother to attend theatres or Thespian performances, or suffer their children to do so?

6th. Does it permit a brother or sister who keeps a tavern, or house of public or private entertainment, to "keep a bar," as generally termed? 7th. Does it permit him or her to give suppers for balls and such parties, and allow dancing in their house?

I think the times, at least here, demand replies from you on the above points, and that you should make your voice known upon them.

Yours in the Lord,

H.

ers.

For the Millennial Harbinger.

"A PERFECT MAN IN CHRIST JESUS." THE most of us were educated under the present order of things; consequently, we have imbibed the views and principles of our teachThe doctrine of sinless perfection in thought, word, and deed, has been advocated as attainable in this life: while, on the other hand, it has been denied that any man could be perfect in any other way than by the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Thus the contending parties have, according to their influence and circumstances, made disciples to their respective views of perfection. This state of things, like many others, has caused both teachers and hearers to neglect the teaching of the Holy Spirit, which alone can teach them how a man could be perfect in Christ Jesus Believing this to be a subject of great importance to all the disciples of Christ, I have concluded to write a few essays on being a perfect man in Christ Jesus, as taught in the New Testament.

The first lesson taught us on perfection will be found in the discourse of our Lord to his disciples on the mountain. It is obvious that the Saviour was correcting the errors taught that people, and was teaching them how to conduct themselves towards their enemies. They were taught by him to love their enemies: "Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven" that is, that we may act as children of our heavenly Father. To love them that love us, or to salute our brethren only, was doing no more than wicked men did to each other. To present every man perfect in Christ Jesus, was the supreme object of the labors of the Apostle Paul. It follows of course, before we can be perfect in practice we must be perfect in knowledge-—we must have a perfect knowledge of the character of our heavenly Father as revealed to us in the scriptures: for unless we know what is his will, how shall we do it? Hence Jesus Christ taught his hearers that our heavenly Father makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth his rain on the just and on the unjust. Thus to resemble our heavenly Father is the perfection Jesus Christ taught his disciples. To love a man because he loves me, or salute my brethren only, is nothing more than the religion of a publican. To do good to a man because he does good to me, is the religion of the Pharisee. To do evil to a man that does good to me, is the religion of the wicked one. To do good to a man that hates me, curses me, despitefully uses and persecutes me, is the religion of our heavenly Father. To do evil to him that doth evil to me, is brutish.

The next lesson upon perfection which we find, was spoken to a young man that had great possessions. He inquired what he should do that he might have eternal life. Jesus taught him, If he would enter into life, keep the commandments. Now it is evident, in order to his keeping the commandments of God, he must know what are his commandments. Jesus therefore taught him what commands God had given. The young man says, "All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?" What a lovely character this youth had maintained! One of the historians says Jesus looked upon him and

loved him. A more perfect knowledge of God's way of saving sinners he lacked. Therefore Jesus tells him, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come and follow me. Thus to be perfect was to become a follower of Christ. There was nothing written of the acts and deeds of Jesus Christ at that time. Therefore if one wished to be perfect, he must follow him in order to know his will: none could cling to the world and at the same time be a follower of Christ, or have a perfect knowledge of his sayings and doings. Some have supposed from this young man's going away sorrowful, that he could not be saved. If none but a perfect man in Christ Jesus can be saved, this may be so.

We find there were many in the days of the Apostles of whom he complained that "all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's." Shall we therefore say they were not saved? This would be prying into things which we know nothing about. But more of this again.

THOMAS M. HENLEY.

SENATORIAL GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH.

My dear Sir,

ALTHOUGH I might agree in the two or three axioms which you lay down in the commencement of your article styled "the Senatorial Government of the Church," I confess I do not see their applicability to the point in question; and I would even feel more confidence in their abstract truth, if they had been proved from the Bible in order to test the wisdom of man's views, rather than premised by human wisdom to try the injunctious of the sacred volume. But true or false, they do not meet the issue. Have I said that the Christian community are without government? Surely not! I contend that they have a government so perfect in the laws given through the Apostles, that it is impossible to take from or add to it, without injury to the community and offence to the King. Have I stated that this community has no head? Far from it! I hold with Paul that Jesus is "head over all things to the congregation which is his body;" but I insist that this body is not such a "monster" as to have as many heads as Elders. Neither have I denied the office or authority of the Elders: see page 63, where I state that they are to exercise the office "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," &c. &c. The true issue then between us is, whether the Elder is not as much under the law as any other disciple. I maintain the affirmative, whilst you contend that he has authority be yond the law-has a right to require of the congregation things not found in the apostolie laws; that he can add to, if not diminish from them, or that there is a senatorial (of course a legislative) government in the congregation. If you can only establish this fact from God's word, I think, my dear sir, that Bishop Purcell will smile at all you have said against the Pope.

Having now stated fairly the controversy between us, I proceed to establish my propo. sition, premising also one axiomatic truth. It is recorded in Jeremiah xvii. 5., "Cursed is man that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arm," &c. In conformity with it, Moses in Deuteronomy iv. 12. tells the people, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it," &c. A disregard of it caused God's wrath to be poured out on Israel, as declared in Isaiah xxix. 13. "that their fear towards me VOL. II.-N. 8. 30

[God] is taught by the precept of men," quoted and confirmed by the Master himself, Matth. xv. 9.; Mark vii. 7. And under the influence of the same axiom, Paul charges 2 Tim. ii. 2. "And what things you heard from me by many witnesses, these commit in trust to faithful men, who shall be fit also to teach others." All agreeing that God has no where authorized any man to add to, or to diminish from his revealed will; no where constituted a senatorial government for his people. But you say that the Apostles gave rules for the selection of Elders, (have they been attended to in the Reformation?) and one branch of their duty was "ruling well: if they ruled, others obeyed." But does this prove that they had a right to legislate? The President of the United States is our ruler, and each magistrate is a ruler over us; but if he or they command us to do any thing not prescribed by the law, you and I, sir, would smile at their ignorance or presumption. And here I will so far anticipate as to notice the singular argument with which you close at page 189: "Whenever we divest the office of this temptation we have got a new office unknown to Peter." The President's right you will acknowledge has been correctly stated above; yet temptation has not only assailed, but it is generally believed, has but too frequently prevailed on him to usurp power that did not belong to him; and of all logic that to me is the strangest, which would prove his right by his own violation of all right. That the Elders have similar temptations I freely acknowledge; but that their yielding to such temptations should convert wrong into right, I cannot admit.

But further concerning this ruling well: The new version is no doubt most correct in its phraseology, and it says, 1 Tim. vii. 17., “Let the seniors who preside well;" and 1 Thess. v. 12. "Acknowledge them who labor among you, and who preside over you;" thus literally laying down the Elder's duty as contended for by me.

I request your readers to peruse again my observations, p. 42, on the "pillar and support of the truth;" and as we are not always the best judges of our own arguments, let them compare mine with yours, and decide which is most forced and unnatural. Indeed about this text I can hardly perceive where we differ; I will therefore pass it by, simply remarking that the oracles of God can no where by scripture be shown to be committed to the church a whit more than they are to every individual Christian: for they must be the "lamp to his feet and the light to his path," and "if he speak he must speak as the oracles of God."

Your only argument against the plain reading of Hebrews xiii. 17., is, that "the civil magistrates in those days were rather watching for the lives of the Christians in another sense than that of our correspondent," &c. Here you and Paul differ: for he does say of the civil magistrates, Rom. xiii. 3. "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil; and "do that which is good and you shall have praise of the same." Thus Paul does assert that they watched for the lives of Christians in the sense that I stated, and your argument falls to the ground. Paul further says in the succeeding (14th) chapter, 12th verse, "Every one of us shall give an account of himself to God:" this flatly contradiets the idea of Elders giving account for any hut themselves; and if Paul had intended to imply the contrary, he would, I think, have found some stronger word than ‘unprofitable, to express everlasting banishment from the presence of God into the abode of the devil and his angels," the inevitable consequence of the account being given "with mourning instead of joy." That "every man must bear his own burden" is the plain language of scripture, and whilst we are warned against ensnaring or causing to stumble any of those who believe in Jesus, (a risk we run only when we attempt to guide them by human wisdom,) there is nothing more foreign to the whole system than that one man shall give in an account for another. But you do not even attempt to explain the evident discrepancy between the two charges in the 7th and 17th of 13th Hebrews, sufficient in itself to show that Paul could not allude to the same parties in both verses. Please read again my argument on this point at page 62, and let us more particularly examine these passages. It reads at the 7th verse, "Remember your rulers who have spoken to you the word of God." Now it must be ad mitted that the latter clause designates the character of the rulers, and placing it there is sufficient proof that the Apostle thought it necessary for that purpose. At the 17th verse trends, "Obey your rulers" (who have not spoken to you the word of God;) for if the presence of the clause was necessary in the first verse to designate their character, its

absence in the latter is by every rule of language equivalent to the above parenthetical declaration. Therefore, without dwelling on the singular tautology, in addition to the other inconsistencies, of which your view accuses Paul, I hold that "the plain and most obvious interpretations of the Apostle's precepts" is precisely the point for which I am contending.

I cannot myself perceive why you have introduced into this discussion "Popery and a fierce Democracy," "Louis XIV. and the Reign of Terror." It might have some bearing if we were contending for an established Hierarchy, a system to be supported by earthly pains and penalties: but they seem strange and out of place in a kingdom where there can be no subjects but willing ones, and of which the heaviest earthly sanction is, "Now we command you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." Do you mean to say that a rigid adherence to the apostolic laws, and to them only, savors of a "fierce democracy," or that those laws are not sufficient without the "senate's" aid to make a man wise unto salvation? If they are sufficient, why add to them? And if they are not, why, my dear sir, contend for the Reformation, for a return to a pure speech, and literal obedience unmingled with man's devices? "It is the first step which costs," is the language of the proverb and of all experience; and if your senatorial government has the right to add one iota to the apostolic command, it ean only be in virtue of their own wisdom, and of course they must have the same right to follow the same light as far as it shall lead them, whether it be to Papacy, Episcopacy, or any other of the errors of the Man of Sin. Another inconsistency is pretended: You say to those without, that the law is imperative; the form cannot be changed in the slightest degree, and precisely as the Apostles have appointed you must enter into the kingdom: but to those who are within, who have vowed allegiance, who have received the King's bounty, and are by the strongest obligations bound to render the most exact homage, you say, You must not be satisfied with serving the Great King according to his own appointments—you must also attend to the behests of the senate,' and if you find them clashing with the King's laws, 'submit' and avoid a 'fierce democracy.'

I once had the pleasure, and it was no small one, to hear you speak of the Types exhibit ed in the Tabernacle; one type is peculiarly striking and illustrative of the question before us: it is that in the Sanctuary, the type of the congregation on earth, there were no windows, and the many folded curtains effectually excluded all light from without; the party entering must find within all the light, as well as all the material for worship, thus indicating that in Christ's kingdom on earth the party entering must find in his institutions and his laws all the material and all the light; must leave his own wisdom outside, and, in the expressive language of the Apostle, "become a fool in order that he may be wise." Nadab and Abihu fell, not for neglecting to do what the Lord commanded, but for doing what he commanded them not:' they offered strange fire. Paul says, Rom. vii. 17. 'Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves servants by obedience, his servants you are whom you obey.' Under this axiom how can any disciple obey your senate, if they speak any thing but the Master's law, without transferring his allegiance to them? Again Paul says, Rom. xiv. 23., 'For what is not from faith is sin.' The disciple whose conscience acknowledges any Christian obligation merely because your senate has decreed it, surely falls under this sentence; for faith in man is no part of the faith which Paul preached. But methinks I hear exultingly quoted, 'Whatever things are true, venerable, just, pure, benevolent, and of good fame,' &c. to all this I freely aesent; but it cannot be construed to mean that I am to learn from man what these praiseworthy things are. I am diligently to study and obey the truth, which will first make the tree good, and then the fruit: and whatever I learn from the truth to be praiseworthy, I must perform, as I value the emile, or fear the frown of the Great Giver of the Truth.

[TO BE CONTINUED.]

R. L.