solicitation, of sympathetic feeling, of the melting harmony of music, and all the favorable circumstances within their command? Is it not because they know that without these influences the word will fail to effect conversion? And are not these influences a means distinct from the word, thus made to accompany it in order to render it effective in conversion? How inconsistent men are! They who preach the spirit alone as necessary to conversion, fail not to preach the word also, and to add the influence of persuasion in every mode in which it can be made to operate; while they who preach the word alone are just as careful to add to it their prayers for divine aid, and all the means usually employed to move the feelings and induce to action, as though they believed these mainly to be depended upon in the affair. So perfectly agreed, in fact, are all parties in this respect, that a stranger to their theories would perceive but little, if any difference, in their mode of conducting religious meetings for the purpose of conversion. They are always the most successful in making converts to any party who are the most eloquent, or who can manage with the greatest address the various agencies, external and collateral, appertaining to what are termed "revivals." In the use of these agencies, to a greater or less extent, (and the use of them at all is an admission of the principle,) all agree; but all at the same time, while thus substantially agreed in practice, reserve and guard with care the privilege of contending with each other about the theory of conversion ! "But," you will say, "it is the word after all which converts. The influences of which you speak are employed only to engage men in the consideration of the subject. I do not expect the word to act until it is fully presented to the mind. Preaching, teaching, and exhortation are designed for this end-to call the attention of mankind to the gospel; this, when clearly perceived, will act by its own power." You expect then these special influences and agencies to accomplish the same thing in effect as the direct influence of the spirit, which is supposed to bring the gospel or word of God home to the hearts and minds of men. For I believe it is now admitted by all parties that it is only necessary to have the word properly impressed upon the heart, and that the special office of the spirit is to bring the gospel thus home to the heart and affections, by giving to it an increased efficiency, so as to overcome all obstacles arising from human inattention, obduracy, and impenitency. This, I repeat, is the general sentiment of those who believe in special spiritual agency: for as to those who hold that some are converted by the spirit alone, without the word, they are so few as scarcely to deserve mention: indeed, they retain this doctrine rather to secure the election of infants than as one of general application. The great majority, both in theory and practice, exhibit their belief that the gospel is to be preached, and that the spirit must give a saving efficiency to the word announced by the preacher. The special influences you approve accomplish the same end in fixing the attention, and presenting the gospel clearly and forcibly to the mind. The gospel, then, upon either hypothesis, acts by its own power. Let it then be clearly stated, as a point generally conceded by all parties, that WHENEVER THE GOSPEL IS BROUGHT HOME TO THE HEART OF A The controversy is, in regard to the means by which it is thus savingly impressed upon the heart. You employ a variety of influences which may be designated as providential, to give to the word sufficient power. Others employ the same influences, spiritual, and are just as little under indeed, but suppose them to be inadequate without the additional agency of the spirit. Both, therefore, believe in special agency-in a power or influence out of or distinct from the word, and in the incompetency (absolute or relative) of the word alone to produce saving faith. For, certainly, the influences you would employ are as distinct from the word, and as plainly superadded, in order to give efficiency to it, or in other words, to enable it to reach the heart, and convert the soul, as are the spiritual influences you oppose. How happily, then, we are all agreed in reference to this important matter! How sincerely we all believe in a power out of the word! Let no one, therefore, henceforth presume to doubt the doctrine of special influence to conversion. Nor is the nature of this special influence a matter of such importance that the religious community should suffer itself to be disturbed or divided on account of it. We call certain agencies providential; but we have, perhaps, very imperfect conceptions of the true nature of the various influences so denominated. Many of them may spring from impressions made upon the mind by a secret, divine, or angelic agency, or so special an arrangement of circumstances as requires the exercise of the wisdom and power of God in a manner as admirable as when Ahasuerus was prepared to say to Haman, "What shall be done to the man whom the king delighteth to honor ?" and the latter, prepared in like manner, to suppose the honor designed for himself, was made to devise and execute the plan of a triumph for the very man whose death he came to demand. No one can presume to circumscribe the workings of Him who knows the secret springs of every heart; and who, in answer to prayer, may turn the hearts of man"whithersoever he will." Other agencies are termed stood. Many influences and excitements are regarded as spiritual, which are purely animal, the natural effect of attendant circumstances. Many influences, again, which might truly be called spiritual, are unnoticed or contemned. How much better it were for all to agree to preach the gospel to sinners, for their conversion; and in the use of all the means and measures dictated in the scriptures for the purpose of arresting the attention of men and bringing the truth clearly to the minds of sinners, to co-operate together, leaving the result to God, without presuming to debate and dogmatize with each other about theories of conversion ! FAMILY CULTURE. CONVERSATIONS AT THE CARLTON HOUSE.-No. XXVII. LUKE, CHAPTER III. Olympas. In the conclusion of chapter ii. we learn that Jesus went down with his parents from Jerusalem to Nazareth, and was subject to them. What precept of the Jews' law required this, Susan? Susan. The fifth says, "Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." Olympas. He honored this precept, and was subject to them. How long was he subject to them, William? William. During thirty years: for such is the age assigned to him when he commenced his own work. Olpmpas. Then he worked for his earthly parents and honored them till he was thirty, and to his heavenly father he exclusively devoted the remainder of his life. True, he glorified God in honoring his parents; but a portion of that time he labored for the family, as the phrase "being subject" intimates; and therefore, the fair presumption is that he wrought at the carpenter's trade. The Jews required their children to assist them, if need required, till they were thirty, and sometimes longer. Besides, they all taught their sons a useful trade, whatever their future prospects might be. All the presumptions are in favor of the idea that our Saviour actually submitted to work with his hands for the support of the family till he was of the appointed age of majority, or freedom from the parental yoke. What think you, Eliza, is intimated by the saying, "His mother kept all these sayings in her heart ?" Eliza. Such as the saying which he uttered when he was twelve years old, alluded to last evening "Know ye not that I should be about my Father's business," or "at my Father's house." Your remark on his being subject to his parents, would commend the propriety of reading "Father's house" rather than "Father's business." Olympas. You mean, then, that the phrase "kept all these sayings" imports all such mysterious and unusual things said by him, or concerning him by others; and what, then, means her "keeping them in her heart," William ? Olympas. "To memorize" is scarcely good English. Within my memory this phrase has been gaining a new currency. It is growing into use like the words resurrect and resurrected, which are gross innovations upon our good old English language. "To memorize" is to record in writing; or, according to Shakespeare, who is of high authority with one class of lexicographers, it means to cause others to remember." But this new occupation of the word is, upon the whole, an act of violence upon the legitimate province of the ancient memorize, as much as the outlandish "resurrected" is upon the dominions of the verb to resuscitate. I would, indeed, have you to observe that "to keep a thing in the heart" in Jewish idiom, is to remember it, and to ponder upon it. Jesus, we are informed by Luke, "increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man." What think you of this expression, Thomas? Thomas. It would indicate that Jesus was a child like other children-at first imperfect in wisdom and in stature; and that as he increased in both, so he also grew in public favor -in favor both with God and man, because of his early and vigorous virtues and excellencies. "The child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom, and a divine gracefulness was upon him,” would seem to convey the same idea. Olympas. We shall now hear you read, William, the third chapter of Luke so far as the 18th verse with a special reference to the chronology of the Messiah's birth and times. [William reads.] Olympas. What date is fixed in this passage, Thomas ? Thomas. The commencement of John the Baptist's ministry. The word of the Lord came to John in the 15th year of Tiberius Cesar. Olympas. How many Cesars in all, reigned over Rome, William? William. They are said to have been twelve, and arranged in some histories as follows:Julius Cesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galha, Otho, Vitellus, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian. Olympas. But does the true line of descent continue to Domitian? William. I think it terminated in Nero, the sixth of that blood. Other six assumed the title of Augustus, or Cesar, of different families. In the New Testament I think you told us that Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero, are simply addressed or spoken of under the general name of Cesar. Olympas. "I appeal unto Cesar," says Paul; that was to Nero, then Emperor of Rome. "Render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's," says the Messiah speaking of Tiberius. When, Eliza, was the first of the twelve Cesars born? Eliza. The tenth day of the fifth month, called Quintilis by the Romans; that is with us the tenth day of July, one hundred years before the Christian era. Olympas. Did not the fifth month receive the name of July, and the sixth month receive the name of August from the two first of this Julian family? William. So the Roman historians say; but after these two they resumed the Latin names for the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth months, called September, October, November, December. Olympas. The Roman year began with March, so called from Mars the god of battles, because in this month the Romans generally commenced their military campaigns. The Jewish ecclesiastical year began in the latter half of that month called ABIB, which occupied about the last half of March and the first half of April, so far as their lunations permitted. But to return to the Cesars: how long did Julius reign as Emperor? Thomas. Born July 10th, Ante-Christo 100 years, and being assassinated in the Senate House, died in the 56th year of his age, at the ides of March, being the 15th day of that month. He, Crassus, and Pompey his son-inlaw, formed the first triumvirate, and by degrees, after the death of these two illustrious men, he ascended to the title of Pontifex Maximus, and Imperator, having been appointed Consul for five years, Dictator for one year, and Tribune for life; and again Dictator for ten years, and Censor for life, with his statue placed in the Capitol; but he only enjoyed the sovereignty expressed by Emperor a few months. His nephew, the son of his sister Julia, called CAIUS OCTAVIUS CESAR AUGUSTUS, succeeded him, being appointed in Julius' Will his heir, and declared to be his adopted Rome for almost 50 years. Tiberius succeeded the great drama of Christianity in its grand him. In the 15th year of his reign John the introduction into the world. And such is the Baptist commenced his ministry, as Luke in- preamble to the introduction of John the Bapforms us. These three Cesars, Julius, Augus-tist's mission and dispensation as the hartus, and Tiberius, were monsters of iniquity; binger of the Messiah. and though of high intellectual character, wanted all the attributes and elements of moral dignity and real worth. He died March 16, A.D. 37, aged 78 years, having reigned 23 years. Olympas. Susan, can you tell us who was governor of Judea and the Syrian provinces of those days? Susan. Pontius Pilate governed Judea, Herod ruled over Galilee, Philip was tetrarch of Itrurea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene. Olympas. William, explain these officers and the countries over which they presided. William. Pilate was procurator of Judea, a sort of president governor, appointed by the Roman Emperor. Herod Antipas, and his brother Philip, together with Lysanias, were tetrarchs, or governors of the fourth part of an old estate or territory once under one goThus Galilee, Itrurea, Trachonitis, and Abilene, were four provinces, three of them provinces of Syria, willed by Herod the Great to his sons Herod Antipas and Philip. His will was confirmed by Augustus, and the estates were continued to the family. vernor. Olympas. Who, James, were high priests in those days? James. Annas and Caiphas. Olympas. Could there be, Thomas, two high priests at once, according to the law of priesthood? Thomas. Annas being father-in-law of Caiphas, was principal high priest, and Caiphas was a sort of deputy or assistant high priest. That they officiated in turns is supposed by some; but I think you taught us that although the law of Moses recognized but one high priest for life, after the subjugation of Judea by the Romans it appears that they appointed high priests as they could. According to Josephus Annanias or Annas had been high priest eleven years, but had been deposed by the Roman governor before the time here mentioned by Luke; and we are expressly informed that Caiphas was high priest the year in which our Lord was crucified. The Jews, in all probability disregarding the deposition of Annas by a Pagan governor, still regarded him as a legitimate high priest according to their law, but were content that either of them should officiate under that jurisdiction. Olympas. Luke intended to challenge the scrutiny of the whole world as to the events he narrates. He gives them persons, places, and dates in profusion. Here is Tiberius Cesar in the 15th year of his reign over the Roman world, and here are four governors of Roman provinces, and two high priests connected with the nation of the Messiah and the theatre of What new and strange doctrine did John preach, Reuben? Give us a full statement of his doctrine, place of ministration, manner of life, &c. Reuben. John came as the harbinger of the Messiah, and in that capacity proclaimed a deep and thorough reformation of both principle and practice. He proclaimed a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. It was not mere mental regret, or sorrow for the past; but, superadded to that, and emanating from it, he enforced a reformation in all persons and in all things. Soldiers, publicans, and all the people came to him, asking what they should do. He commanded a genuine and universal reformation, which was signified by a peculiar immersion in the Jordan. Olmypas. For what were John's proselytes immersed? Reuben. Matthew says that they were immersed into reformation, or that they might reform, professing reformation, and with a special reference to the remission of sins. Hence the confession of sins made in baptism was indicative of a forsaking of them and a remission of them. The points in John's preaching were repentance, remission, and the immediate appearance of the Messiah-the new era and its accompaniments of judgment and mercy. All that sincerely repented, were baptized, and turned to the Lord, escaped the impending vengeance then threatened as just to be poured out upon the ungrateful nation. and character of the Messiah, and develope Olympas. Did he not also exalt the person some attributes of the coming reign? Reuben. He spoke of the superiority of the Messiah in very bold and decisive terms, and of the searching and discriminating character of his dispensation, and also of a baptism of the Holy Spirit and of fire, to one of which all who heard him should be subjected. Olympas. Can you give an instance of a similar phrase in the evangelical history? Reuben. The Apostles were a sweet savor of Christ to the saved and to the lost;" in the same sense all that heard Jesus were to be baptized, but not in the same mannerone class in the Holy Spirit, another in fire : for so the context, as you allege, would intimate. The Spirit of God is frequently in its influences and effects compared to water, but never to fire, so far as I recollect. All that hearkened to Jesus were participants of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and those who did not obey were subjected to the fire of divine indignation. Jesus gathered the wheat of the people into his garner, but he burned up the chaff in a fire unquenchable. The verdant trees he made fruitful, but the dry and withered | written respecting him. Although such a suit he converted into fuel. might have been disregarded by Mr. Campbell, as he had returned, and was beyond the control of Mr. Robertson, or any Court in this country, yet he did not choose to avail himself of this circumstance, being unconscious of having com to come, Olympas. What means the phrase "wrath as used by the harbinger, William ? William. The vengeance promised to the wicked Jews in Malachi, last chapter, and afterwards explained by our Saviour. I pre-mitted any wrong, and therefore courted insume reference is had to the final destruction of the nation of Israel. This was the impending judgment from which baptism alone could save them. Susan. But if John baptized to save men from impending vengeance, why was Jesus baptized ? William. To honor every institution of God: for so he expressed himself when John at first declined the honor of baptizing him. Olympas. Have we any intimation that John spake on any other topics than those enumerated by the Evangelists? Thomas. Yes: Luke adds, "And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people." And hence it came to pass that he reproved Herod the tetrarch of Galilee for having taken the wife of his half brother Philip while he yet lived. This caused his imprisonment, and finally cost him his head. In consummation of the crimes of Herod, he added this above all, that "he shut up John in prison." And in this unfortunate predicament we are sorry to leave him for the present. You will study the genealogy of Jesus, as given by Luke, for the next lesson. A. CAMPBELL. CAMPBELL v. ROBERTSON. CLOSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THE important proceedings in which we were involved by the law suits in Scotland having now terminated, we submit a brief report of them to the brethren and readers of the HARBINGER. The circumstances which led us to be entangled with the "Rev." James Robertson, Edinburgh, are well known, being fully detailed in the CHRISTIAN MESSENGER of September and following numbers of 1847. It will be remembered that on an appeal being made from the decision of the Sheriff of Lanarkshire in the fugæ warrant case, to the First Division of the Court of Session, the Lord Ordinary decided that Mr. Campbell had been unjustly and illegally imprisoned, and on a further appeal being taken by Mr. Robertson to the Lords in the Second Division, the judgment of the Lord Ordinary was confirmed with costs. This, however, did not end the matter, nor did it put a stop to the "Rev." Gentleman's determined persecution. He had, while Mr. Campbell was cruelly and lawfully detained in jail, caused a summons to be served upon him for £5000, as reparation and solatium for alleged injuries he had sustained by what Mr. C. had spoken and quiry, and was desirous to have the cause tried and judgment given upon it. Accordingly steps were taken to meet it, and defences were duly lodged in Court preparatory to the cause being submitted to a jury; but whether from the cogency of these defences, or the very significant hints given by Lord Jeffrey of the absurdity of such a suit, or on finding that he had got a person to do with who would not compromise the matter when his character was at stake, Mr. Robertson abandoned the case. One course was yet open for having the whole matter brought to an issue, viz. by Mr. Campbell assuming the offensive. Accordingly an action was raised against Mr. Robertson for unlawful imprisonment, and the detention and injury Mr. C. had suffered in consequence; but Mr. Robertson did not attempt to make any defence, thus again condemning himself. A decreet was consequently obtained against him for £2000. It never was the desire of Mr. Campbell or his friends to pocket any of Mr. Robertson's money; yet it would have been just that he should been made to pay the expenses which his proceedings had occasioned. There is, however, no probability of even this being obtained from him, as he has left this country; neither is it likely the church or party to which he belonged, nor his associates in the Anti-Slavery Society will step forward and do so they will therefore have to be paid by us. The costs amounted to upwards of £120, but part being received from Robertson, (£40 odd) there remain £80 to be provided. An opportunity is thus afforded us of showing our sympathy with Brother Campbell in the persecution and suffering he endured, our estimation of his consistent and honorable conduct and Christian magnanimity, and our gratification that his character is unsullied, his usefulness unimpaired, the cause he advocates uninjured, and that no occasion has been given for any adversary to speak reproachfully. In addition to the above we consider it necessary to notice an unfortunate circumstance somewhat connected with the foregoing. When Mr. Robertson issued his placards in Dundee, some persons there circulated printed queries as to the character and standing of Mr. R. The same course was followed at Falkirk an individual there who had put one paper of the queries in his window, was sued for damages for having thus published queries calculated to injure Mr. R.; but before the case came to be tried in court, the individual thought it better to compromise the matter by agreeing to pay the costs of Mr. R.'s prosecution of him, amounting, with his own expenses, we have |