that in their administrations, they have not in view to please themselves, but the glory of God and the good of the

church

6th. The Elders of the church, in setting before any one the will of God, as derivable from the general principles before mentioned, have always to endeavor to convince and enlighten him, so that he may then act with understanding and though it is true that it becomes one who does not see the full propriety of what he is exhorted to, to submit to the judgment of the Elderboth on the ground that they are expected to know better than he does, as well as on the ground of being required to submit (Peter) v. 5)—yet, on the other hand, if obedience never goes beyond this, it will come short of being satisfactory to the Elder and to the Chief Shepherd himself.

7th. The preceding observation applies peculiarly to such things as are out of the common; and therefore the Elders have always very properly consulted the elder brethren, before they have publicly admonished the church on any such point.

8th. In laboring, therefore, to convince and persuade, it follows that where there is no perception of the propriety of what they enjoin, it for the most part arises from a fleshly state of mind, incapable of discerning right from wrong.

In these observations the brethren generally acquiesced.

NOTES OF LECTURES,

BY A. CAMPBELL.

X.

NO. XV.—JESUS, SON OF MAN & SON OF GOD, THE ONLY BOND OF UNION.

We have before stated that this book is a book of narrations, biographies, histories, and epistles, and that it was the work of eight authors. There are four independent narratives of Christ, and they all record the same great facts, the birth, life, and death of Christ; and are adapted to the persons for whom they were written. Luke was the travelling companion of Paul, and Mark of Peter. The grand idea developed in these narratives, is that of redemption. Christianity is a personal matter, it has

He was

a person for its subject and for its object. It was necessary that it should be propounded and written with great clearness and precision in these narrations. As we said in a former lecture, Jesus began at the seat of government to ask his followers the opinions of other men concerning himself, and proceeds without comment to ask their own opinion. Jesus gives himself a name in the question he propounds: Who do you say that I, the Son of Man, am? It is strange that he should tell who he was, and ask who he was at the same time. When he called himself the Son of Man, he had respect to his particular relations to man. Peter, anticipating his associates, promptly answers, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." He gave his character in two points, first: his office (the Messiah ;) second, which was still higher, Son of God. Jesus approved of this answer, for he said to him, Peter, thou art a happy man, on this foundation I will build my church. not to lay a foundation, for God had said by Isaiah, 700 years before, that he would lay in Zion a foundation stone; but Messiah says, I will build on it. Hence on the recognition of this proposition he will build his church. The great misfortune in the Christian world, and the cause of all their schisms, is, that they take as their central idea, some of the subordinate ideas of Christianity. Some take the politics of Christianity, others its metaphysics, as their great central idea. In former times the error was metaphysics. They had their subslapsarians and their superlapsarians-subsequently Arianism, Arminianism, and Calvinism. Their great bond of union was metaphysical, their love was purely platonic. They loved and hated according to rule, and out of pure charity handed one another over to the Satan. But nowa-day, the don or fashion among sectarians is, church politics. Hence we have a new category of terms. Presbyterianism has nothing to do with faith - its grand object is church polity. Different forms of it are legalized in different parts of the British empire. So of Catholicism. Even Paganism is more or less legalized by Great Britain, in some of her colonies. From the days of Origen down to the present time, other theories have been substituted for the one now before us. These

schisms have prevented the propagation of Christianity among the heathen, for the heathen say, you disagree among yourselves, and are handing one another over to Satan. In Peter's confession there are two ideas, or at most three. First, his personal character; second, his official relations; third, the homogeniety of his character with both of these relations. These are the only points from which we can view any character or community. Jesus, in his person, was the Son of Man and Son of God. He had these in perfection, and is the only person who ever did have them. This is the reason why he stands out alone. There is no other being like him in the universe. He united in his person all human nature, and all of the divine nature. This makes him what he is, Son of Man and Son of God. All the ideas of Pagans, Persians, Egyptians, &c. on the subject of Divinity, are but corruptions of this one. Now, he who believes this confession of Peter, that Jesus is the Son of Man and the Son of God, has all the faith necessary to save him. There are some persons who think that Jesus is a personal name, and that Christ is a family name; but this is not true. Christ means anointed. But under the former dispensation, there were three classes of persons anointed, viz.: the priest, the prophet, and the king. What is meant, then, by calling him anointed? That he is Prophet, Priest, and King, and that he has all power in heaven and on earth. Now I trust you can see the wisdom of Messiah, in making this proposition, the base on which he would build his church. Any person who can believe this proposition with proper faith-not an educational faith —that is, I believe so and so, because my father did; or that which is attached to any man-but that which results from his own investigations, will be saved. If the world would but unite on this proposition, they would find themselves disenthralled from the traditions of ages. His character was congruous with both his natures-for he spoke as no other man ever did, and his character, drawn by illiterate fishermen, agrees with his functions.

Take the hand of the friendless, smile on the sad and dejected, sympathise with those in trouble, and strive everywhere to diffuse around you sunshine and joy.

CORRESPONDENCE.

OBSERVATIONS ON JOHN III. 5.

DEAR SIR, A Correspondent" in the November number of your Magazine, addresses a paper "To the Advoof the Current Reformation," on the import of John iii. 5, and makes certain queries on the subject of it.

I do not know that I shall be held as one of the class addressed by your correspondent, but I feel the urgency of the call upon all who profess Christianity, "Onward," and I shall, perhaps, be allowed to make a few remarks on the matter addressed by your correspondent. I don't know that the writer of the paper referred to would object to that exposition of the text in question, which, instead of making the word "water" to signify baptism, as Mr. Craps seems to do, makes the phrase "born of water," to signify baptism. From the strain in which he writes, I think he would, since his difficulty or objection, as appears in his queries, would lie as much against the one as against the other. He says, "There are some serious objections to the supposition, that our Lord means baptism" in the passage. Now if your correspondent will join issue with me on the phrase, and not merely on the word, I will endeavor to convince him and all who doubt it, that it can mean nothing else than baptism. The word "water here can have no other literal meaning than the water which is used in baptism, because there is no other case in which a believer is commanded literally to go into water; and for this reason it never could be considered necessary to any relation sustained by him, that he came out of water. But it is implied here as necessary to his standing in complete obedience to the will of God, that he come out of, or be "born out of water.' In addition to this consideration, it is altogether inadmissible that the word "water" here can have a figurative meaning, because there can be no sense of this sort put on it which would not be expressed by the phrase "born of the Spirit," in the succeeding clause.

But I go on to remark, that your correspondent's chief objection (I take it to be his chief objection, since he does not condescend on any other) to the passage having any relation to baptism is, that that supposition would contra

dict "the order" in which baptism is mentioned elsewhere. in connection with "believing" and "repenting. repenting." But if "the order" of the things is observed in this verse- - that is, if we account that we must have "the order" in every place where those things are spoken of, then we should have part of " the order" in one passage and part of it in another. Thus: faith and repentance in the first place, baptism in the second place, and being "born of the Spirit" in the third place. But if these things do not correspond with other passages of Scripture, we arrive at the conclusion in this way, that it is not the order in which the things take place in experience and practice that is denoted here, but the order occurring here is for some other reason. To arrive at the knowledge of this reason will perhaps be best acquired by a short exposition of the entire text. I go on, then, to remark, that while the phrases born of water," and "born of the Spirit," are figurative, the word "water" is to be taken in the literal sense, just because the word "Spirit" denotes the person of the Godhead who is known by that name, directly and literally. The word originally meant wind-that is the word which we have translated Spirit; but as the breath or wind known by that name was the evidence not only of life, but of that life being spirit, it came at last to denote the spirit, not only of intelligent and moral creatures. but of the Great Creator Himself—and | to denote the Spirit of God directly and literally; and thus it might be properly described as a figuratively-literal word. Literal, then, it has become, and this work being literal in the one clause of this verse, the word water in the other clause, in order to correspond, must be literal also.

But your correspondent's difficulty still remains. Well, then, I come now to that. We have seen that the words cannot denote "the order" of the occurrence of the things. The order of the words in this verse must then have been arranged for some other reason. The question naturally arises here, Will any of the two words "water" and "spirit" admit of pre-eminent attention? Is there one of them that requires pre-eminent attention? I answer, that in the circumstances in which these words were first spoken, there was one of the things noticed demanding pre

eminent attention. Nicodemus was a Pharisee. It is well known that the Pharisees were scrupulously attentive to outward things-more attentive to these than to the more weighty things. Nicodemus was in danger of carrying this error with him when he began to look after the things of Christ. It was to meet him in this danger, when he he came to Jesus, saying, "We know that thou art a teacher come from God"-that Jesus teaches him the paramount, the absolute necessity of every person being "born of the Spirit," in order to his entering into the kingdom of God. The Pharisees knew, and no doubt Nicodemus among the rest, that Jesus "made and baptized" disciples; and, in accordance with his prepossessions, he would naturally think that to be baptized, and observe certain outward things, was all that was necessary to become a hopeful candidate for "the kingdom of God." Before going on to speak, however, as we find Christ doing farther down in the chapter, of the manner or means by which we should obtain "everlasting life," He first teaches him the necessity of possessing a certain character, ("that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,") which should be induced through believing on the only begotten Son of God-insisting, while there was a reference to baptism, on the paramount importance of being born of the Spirit. If, then, we make the word " 'Spirit" emphatic, we shall have the doctrine which Christ taught in the passage brought out—thus: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

In this exposition, then, we have the reason of the deviation in the order of words here employed, from the order of the things commanded by Christ, and required by other passages of Scripture; and I doubt not but your correspondent will, by adopting it, find a ready and satisfactory answer to all his other queries.

I beg to close these remarks by calling attention to the remarkable fact, that the very thing which Christ had given as an exposition of the 3rd verse of this chapter, should now, after so long a time, stand so much in need of being expounded to us. Surely there has been a great departure from the simplicity that is in Christ. Let us "Repent, and do the first works," growing in "grace and in

WHAT is the Scriptural designation of that community which had its origin in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost? "At present," says the Editor of the Harbinger, we understand it to be "the kingdom of God's dear Son." He admits, however, that his conclusions may be erroneous. I reply that, at present, I do not understand this to be the Scriptural designation of such community and making the same allowance for my conclusions being erroneous, I merely state, that having been unable to find it so designated in the Scriptures, is the cause of my concluding thus. As to throwing any new light upon such a subject, is what I will not attempt. I prefer the "old light," which has shone since the origin of that community, to all the new lights which have since emanated from that darkness by which the true light has been, and is still, obscured. And I shall endeavor to avail myself of the illumination which it sheds over the sacred history of that community, while enquiring what is its Scriptural designation. In Acts ii. 47, it is said that the "Lord added to the church daily, such as should be saved;" and as "church" in this place has always been applied to such community, I shall take it for granted that it is correct. Should it be questioned, if I am not able to sustain such application, I will abandon it for a "better way." In the case of the two individuals who "agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord" (Acts v. 11,) it is said, that "Great fear came upon all the church." Again, by the same "old light,” we are enabled to read, in the 8th chapter of the Acts, that there was a great persecution against the church, and that Saul made havoc of "the church." Now whatever may be said concerning the term church, in some places where it occurs, it must be admitted that, in this instance, the church, and that community with Jesus as its head, are identical; and it would be but a waste of time to go over the numerous passages where the term occurs, seeing that in the singular

and plural, the term "church" appears upwards of an hundred times in the New Testament. I conclude, until better instructed, that "the church" is a Scriptnral designation of that community referred too, and if not the Scriptural designation, I suspect it will be a hard matter to find it. I would here suggest the necessity of our resting satisfied with the names and designations given by the Spirit to this community; and, instead of seeking after new light, try to learn more perfectly how we ought to behave ourselves in this house of God, which is the "church of the living God"-that it may appear the pillar and ground of the truth.

For the benefit of those who are ever and anon seeking after new light, I would suggest that "the old is better." The new is certainly not a safe guide; and that they may fully appreciate its real value, and witness its practical results, I refer them to the conclusion of that article in the December Harbinger, headed " The Kingdom of Christ," where they will read "Having been introduced into a kingdom," &c.; and, I think, upon a little reflection, that they will perceive-that when it thus leads us ahead of the Apostles, we might well dispense with it. I conclude by stating, that when any one shall attempt to justify the above rendering of that portion of Paul's Letter to the Hebrews, I undertake to show, that the reasoning of Paul in that Epistle is of a very unintelligible nature, and that his exhortations are of no practical value. Wishing that the eyes of our understanding may be enlightened, I remain,

ROBERT MILL.

REMARKS BY THE EDITOR.

We have neither the time nor the space at our disposal, to do more on the present occasion than glance at the communication from Brother Robert Mill. Perhaps he will allow us to recommend to him an impartial perusal of the essay on the " Kingdom of Heaven," the commencement of which will be found on the 10th page of this number; and also to suggest a more comprehensive examination of the Bible, and not the selection of isolated words or passages, as though each alone contained the true idea respecting the kingdom of Christ. Such a course is as unwise as it is unprofitable, and can hardly result in improvement to any one.

દ

Brother Mill seems to intimate that we are seeking new light," or additional information on the subject of Christ's kingdom, not to be found in the Bible; while, as a wise man, he abides closely by the “old light" therein revealed. Now all that we desire from any contributor, is, that the views he puts forward on the subject selected for discussion, harmonize with Scripture. In soliciting, therefore, the “scriptural designation of that community which had its origin in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, with Jesus as its head, the Apostles with a new code of laws to give them, and the Holy Spirit as the promised guest of all who should be really joined thereto," we were warranted in anticipating something more, in reply, than the simple answer, "the church"for to this designation is given due prominence in the article against which his objections were urged. We are informed that "church is a scriptural designation, and if not the scriptural designation, it will be a hard matter to find it." Who denied that the term church is a scriptural designation of the community referred to ? But is it not equally obvious that the "called ones" who confessed the name of Jesus, are designated in the aggregate" the one body of Christ"- "the temple of the living God"— a habitation of God through the Spirit" "the kingdom of God's dear Son" - a holy nation, a royal priesthood, a peculiar people""the church or congregation of God, purchased with his own blood," &c.? Now from this array of testimony, as appears to us, we are taught that a church, or the church, is as much the kingdom of Christ now, as the Jewish people constituted the kingdom of God, when traversing the wilderness or located in Palestine. He who possesses all authority in heaven and upon earth, must surely exercise dominion over men as well as angels. This supremacy will doubtless be exhibited to all in His own proper time—to the unbeliever and scoffer, as well as to His own faithful children. It is true, when referring to the future state of this kingdom, the inspired penmen inform us that flesh and blood cannot inherit it-there must be a resurrection from the dead; and that unless the righteousness of Christ's disciples exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, they shall not inherit that kingdom: the reference undoubtedly being to the state of heavenly rest, and not to our sojourn here in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, in the hope of its inheritance.

66

IS JESUS A KING, AND HAS HE A KINGDOM?

DEAR BROTHER,-I wish to say a few words to R. Mill, if he will allow me, and to any other brother who does not believe that the kingdom of heaven is Daniel says, commenced on earth. (chap. ii. 44) " And in the days of these kings, the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed." In the days of what kings? First, the Chaldeans (the head of gold); second, the Medes (the breast of silver); third, the Grecians (thighs and legs of brass); fourth, the Romans (feet and toes of iron and clay.) Where are these kingdoms now? Have they, or have they not, become like the chaff of the Summer thrashing floor? In the days of the last of these kings, came John the Immerser preaching, saying, "Reform, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Jesus Christ sent twelve apostles and seventy disciples to proclaim, that the kingdom of heaven was then at hand. All I ask R. Mill is, was it true? The last time Jesus visited Jerusalem before his death, the Jews thought he would, if he were the longpromised Messiah, set up an earthly kingdom, but he said that the kingdom would not immediately appear; i. e. that it would not appear at that time. But he rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. He had a spiritual body, a temple filled and animated with His divine nature. Now the Lord is that

Spirit: and on the day of Pentecost, He came by his Spirit to Jerusalem, and set up a spiritual kingdom, the church, to which he gave laws. But laws that have not the authority of a king, are worth nothing.

I will now inform Robert Mill from whence I received this information; Jesus, after his resurrection from the dead, and just before he ascended up into heaven, came to his Apostles and spake unto them, saying, “ALL POWER IS GIVEN UNTO ME IN HEAVEN AND IN EARTH" (Matt. xxviii. 18); and, in heaven, "HE HATH ON HIS VESTURE

KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS" (Rev. xix. 16.) Surely this is sufficient to satisfy every teachable mind, that our Lord Jesus Christ has been crowned king of the universe. But a king without a kingdom, assuredly could not be. Jesus has had a kingdom 1800 years,

AND ON HIS THIGH, A NAME WRITTEN,