My dear Sir,

REPLY TO R. L.

I DEEM it necessary to request our readers to read again your first article, page 62, and see what the views were which you advanced as worthy of the attention of the brethren. If I do not altogether misconceive them, they are as follows:

1st. That Christian elders are "the representatives of the congregation" which appoints them; and their representatives not in any synod, conference, or convention, but their representatives at home, in the very presence of the congregation in its stated assemblies.

2d. That their duties are simply "presiding to see that all things be done decently and in order, enforcing the doctrine of the Apostles, and exhorting and confuting gainsayers.'

3d. That it is the duty of every disciple to support and honor him, or oppose him whenever he may decide that his elder substitutes his own will, policy, or wisdom for the sound doctrine of the Apostles.

4th. That all the duties of the elders, as such, are to be discharged in the presence of the whole congregation-nothing must be done by private teaching or visiting from house to house. He must feed the whole flock at one time, and in the same pasture, or not at all.

This is the theory, my dear sir, which you introduced; and it was in opposition to this theory that I desired you to examine, not to debate, the few remarks which have called forth your long defence, only a part of which appears in the present number. I have therefore now to request our readers to consider again my first notice of your plan, p. 126, and your communication hereunto prefixed.

In my remarks, page 126, I lay down principles taught in the Bible; not, as you say, of human wisdom, but deduced from the Book itselfsuch as, "Every community or body needs government," &c. You admit that this is true; but make Christ himself the government, and the elders representatives of the congregation! You now say that the issue is, "Whether the elder is not as much under the law as any other disciple." Singular issue!! Is it possible that you do thus understand the matter!! If so, I deem it unnecessary to do more than to request you to read my remarks again. I never made such an issue with any man in substance, form, or meaning. The King is under the law as well as his subjects. The Apostles were under law as well as those whom they converted. How then could I form such an issue as that the elder was not under law as well as every other disciple! The Governor of Virginia is as much under law as any citizen of this commonwealth. The elders or rulers of a Christian community are under

the law equally with the community itself. You have mistaken the whole issue, if issue there be, when you thus reason.

Again-you seem to avail yourself rather of an ambiguity in the word government, than meet the question which I have stated. You say the church is under government, meaning Christ himself! I cannot think that on so grave a subject you would play upon a word. I attribute it rather to inadvertence. Every Christian will say the government of the universe is on his shoulders. By him kings reign and princes decree justice, But who would thence infer that Jesus is governor of any particular state! Authorities, principalities, and powers are under him, and by them he rules. To say we need no presidents, elders, or bishops in the church, with power to preside and rule, because Christ is the archbishop, the chief shepherd, and overseer of souls, King in Zion, &c. is equivalent to saying we need no president, governor, or magistrate in the state, inasmuch as Christ the Lord is king of nations and the governor of all the earth. There is neither point nor relevance to the question in your admitting that the church is under a head or government, because under Christ!

Again-you seem to confound the legislative with the executive office; for you say, If the administration or government of the church be senatorial, of course it is legislative! Had the senate or presbytery of Israel a legislative power, and did I not define the word senatorial as used in the Jewish sense-equivalent to presbyterian? You certainly know that senatorial in Latin is but the representative of presbyterial in Greek. Do you not acknowledge that "the elders of Israel" and "the senate of Israel" were equivalent phrases, and was it not most evident to you that I used them interchangeably!!

The word presbuterion, presbytery, or senate, is used in the New Testament for both the eldership of the Christian church and for the eldership of the commonwealth of Israel. When, then, I spoke of the senatorial government of the church, I spoke as scripturally as when I spoke of the government of the elders or the presbytery. But though a people called Presbyterians may legislate for a church, must it follow that the senate or eldership of a Christian community must also claim or possess such a power!

There is, my dear sir, then no such issue as you have made and on which you have based your letter. You have entirely mistaken or lost sight of the question. Legislation belongs neither to a Jewish nor a Christian elder. Even in our political government we commit not into the same hands the legislative and executive powers. Christ alone is our King, our Lawgiver, and Supreme Judge. The rulers of a Christian community are not legislators, but executors of Christ's

laws; and he that submits not to them as such, rejects the authority of Christ, if so be Christ commanded the Apostles, and the Apostles commanded the churches to select and ordain such persons! Instead of such persons, you have got up a sort of representatives of a congregation, without any place in which, or person to whom, they are to represent the church. Such officers are an anomaly in heaven, earth, or hades. Like the noun and the pronoun, the principal and his attorney, they ought never to appear in the same sentence. In the primary assemblies of the people who ever heard of a representation? No more can an elder be a representative of a congregaion in its own assemblies.

I do not wonder, then, that your system of a representative powerless eldership led you to seek a new solution for Hebrews xiii. 17., converting elders into heathen magistrates, men's souls into men's lives, and watching into the government of the sword.

I have, perhaps, already said too much. It is only necessary that with these hints, rather than a defence of my views, (for indeed my views are not at all assailed,) the pieces already published be again read with care.

The remainder in our next number. Meanwhile, I think it expedient that the elder's official duties and obligations be more carefully and scripturally examined; and it is under this conviction that I encourage the pro and the con to a reasonable extent on the necessity and utility of such an institution in the Christian church.

A. C.

344

MR. LYND'S THIRD ATTEMPT.

From the Cross & Baptist Journal.

REPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL.

[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 314.]

But this case may be made still clearer by varying the statement. The fact of an instrumental agency in renewing and sanctifying sinners, Mr. C. admits. He has never been charged with denying it. That, however, is not a point in controversy. But be does not hold the fact of an efficient agency in renewing and sanctifying sinners. Let me illustrate. A saw is an instrument. Here is a small stick to be sawed into two parts, and a little boy takes up the saw to do this work. He succeeds. The saw is the instrumental agency, his muscular power the efficient agency. But the same boy attempts to saw a large log of hickory wood, and after penetrating a little distance, he can move the saw neither one way nor the other. After repeated attempts he abandons it in despair. The saw is still the instrumental agency, and in the hands of a man could be made to perform the work; but the boy who used it in this case is not the efficient agency, because he failed to execute. Where was the difficulty? It was either in the nature of the wood itself, in the difficulty of penetrating it, or, in the want of sufficient power to penetrate. The instrument itself was suited to the work. The wood presented no obstruction to the efficient agency of the man; the difficulty of penetrating it did not cause the failure, because the man overcame it. The whole difficulty lay in the want of sufficient power,

Now be it understood that this illustration is not designed to show the manner in which the Holy Spirit renews the hearts of men. I forewarn every reader on this point, so that he may not pervert the meaning, or confound things that are distinct. I use it merely to illustrate the difference between instrumental and efficient agency. The extent to which I apply it, will now be stated as clearly as possible, so as to binder any misconception. The word of God is the instrumental agency in renewing and sanctifying sinners. The Holy Spirit is the efficient agency. The word is preached to a sinner who regards it not. Again, and again the motives contained in the word are impressed upon his mind; but he does not appreciate them, he does not feel their power, and of course his heart remains unchanged. Where is the difficulty? Is it in the nature of the subject-in other words, is it in the nature of moral agency? That cannot be, for the Holy Spirit has overcome that difficulty in many sinners. Is it in the work itself which is to be done? Certainly not; for the Holy Spirit has, in numerous instances, accomplished the work. The whole difficulty then must be in the want of sufficient power in the Holy Spirit, to use the instrumentality effectually.

I hope that we shall hear no more charges about misunderstanding the views of Mr. Campbell. They are now before the public so clearly, that, not to perceive them, is to be wilfully blind. All he has now to do is either to defend them with a Christian spirit, or to give them up.

We will now proceed to the arguments of Mr. Campbell, prefacing the whole with a short synopsis. The first part of his reply, which wus published in the July number of the Harbinger, does not profess to contain any argument, and hence it must be laid aside. The second part of his first reply, in the August number, contains an explanation of the passage, "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power." This explanation does not affect the question at issue, because I do not use the passage to mean that the people of God are made willing by any other motives than those which the word of God supplies. Because I have not, since his reply, referred to this explanation, he seems disposed to triumph. But why should I refer to it? It proved just what I designed to prove, and Mr. Campbell says that it does not prove something else. He informs us that it does not prove that men are made willing by any other power than that of motive, or, in other words, that men are not forced into willinguess. Now I believe that men are made willing through the instrumentality of the truth, without any constraint upon their free agency; but at the same time, I believe that the power of God through the truth is determining and decisive. And I repeat the incomprehensible fact-“Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power."

The same number contains an objection to one of my illustrations; but the fact to which it applies, i. e., the entire want of relish for spiritual objects in every unrenewed heart, is untouched. There is but one assertion in that number which calls for any attention, and that is the philosophy, "TO BE FULLY CONVINCED IS TO BE FULEY DISPOSED."

The closing part of the first reply in the September number, has but one argament, and that in reference to the subject of prayer, which has been fully answered. An effort is made to illustrate that kind of influence, which the Holy Spirit exerts, in keeping up the remembrance of God's word, in the minds of his people, and bringing the word written seasonably to their view. This is a SIGNAL FAILURE, and makes his theory look worse and worse. The proof is easy, but I shall have occasion to use it in another part of the reply, to which the reader is referred.

The first part of his second reply, in the December number, consists of a synopsis of nine pages made out upon a single sentence of mine. But as it does not profess to contain any argument in relation to spiritual influence, we may lay it out of the case. We may review this synopsis at some future time.

The second part of the second reply, published in the January number of the present year, contains no argument connected with the question before us. It professes to contain argument, and does contain argument against some opponent, but who he is I am unable to discern. I shall show that it has no relation to any thing which I have written.

The third part of his second reply, in the February number, has a repetition of the phi

losophy-TO BE FULLY CONVINCED 18 TO BE FULLY DISPOSED;" and a long article on the affirmation that the incomprehensibility of a theory always nullifies it I shall show that this has nothing to do with the argument.

The fourth part of his reply, in the March number, does not pretend to touch one of the arguments quoted in that number. It contains some errors which it may be useful to

correct.

The same may be said of the closing part of the reply in the April number. The arguments have as yet met with no opponent.

Upon a review of the whole reply, it appears that there is but one point relevant to the question, and that is the naked assertion, that "YO BE FULLY CONVINCED IS TO BE FULLY DISPOSED." This I have reason to think will be satisfactorily settled in the present rejoinder. As there is considerable, however, that is calculated to draw away the mind from the true question, the whole will be carefully examined.

Arguing from Mr. Campbell's view, I stated this as the inevitable result:-WHEN THE

GOSPEL IS ONCE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF MEN, IT THEN DEPENDS UPON THEMSELVES

WHETHER THEY ARE RENEWED OR NOT. Upon this statement he uses a little sophistry, but a mere child could detect it. He says that upon this plan, his representation of converting influence leaves SOMETHING depending upon one's self. Afterwards he observes, "There IS SOMETHING depending upon ourselves; Mr. Lynd thinks there is NOTHING depending upon ourselves." And then he lays down my argument thus: "Whatever view of converting power leaves SOMETHING depending upon one's self is not of God." I have marked with emphasis the words “something" and "nothing," because they entirely alter the position. Why did not Mr. C. meet it fully, and just as it stands? It is the inevitable result of his system, that when the gospel is once brought to the attention of men, the work of reucwing their hearts is entirely of themselves. Whenever Mr. C. will take such notice of this statement as its impression upon all his readers fairly demands, then I will reply; but until that time he must bear its whole weight.

As to his giving my theory of conversion from the Baptist Confession of Faith, it is really enough to overthrow the gravity of a Job in the ashes. I neither affirm nor deny, because it is unnecessary. Mr. C. already has before him my faith in the renewing of sinners. If he can overthrow that, I have done. It would be quite competent to me, I conceive, to show the design and the force of those articles quoted from the Confession, and then to prove their agreement with the word of God; but it would be unsafe to adopt any sentiment upon which Mr. C. should put the construction.

As to the dialogue which 1 am supposed to hold with one of my hearers, I have only to say that if I were poor Austin, I might be silly enough to place myself in such a predica ment. If on this point we stood upon common ground, I might without much danger adopt the dialogue, and then put the right conclusion to it. But we do not occupy common ground, because Mr. C. either does not or will not see the difference between a canuot or an inability, the result of aversion and wickedness, and an inability, the result of physical deticiency. This distinction sweeps away with one brush all he has said on the subject, together with his whole illustration of the eye balls and the eye-lids. This belongs to another subject, which I propose to examine at some future time.

Mr. Campbell asserts the following propositions:

1. "The scriptures no where intimate that the Spirit of God does or must accompany the word, to make it either intelligible or credible, or to enable any person to believe it."

2. "The scriptures no where teach that any person, in order to his salvation, is operated upon by the Spirit without the word, or antecedent to his believing it."

3. "The Saviour affirmed that he who heard him speak and saw his miracles, had no exeuse for his sin; whereas, now, inany say, We have an excuse for our unbelief, because the Spirit has not helped us."

Now says Mr. C, "I have never yet found the antagonist that could successfully impugn any one of the three." Very good, I am sure I shall not attempt it. But, Mr. C, the reader who has ever thought upon the subject, will not be deceived by these propositions With respect to the first, he will concede that the word is intelligible, because many have