yet sinners Christ died for us," and that God commended or made conspicuous his love to us thereby.

They who favor the doctrine of special spiritual influence in conversion will here doubtless be ready to say: The passage you have just quoted is in proof of our side of the question Here the Holy Spirit is represented as (ekkechutai) shedding abroad or pouring forth the love of God in or into the heart; and this, not from without, through any intermediate means, as the word, but within-"by the Holy Spirit given unto us." Admitting this view of the passage, it is only necessary to remark that it is applicable to the converted aloneto those who have embraced the gospel and have been in consequence put in possession of the pardon of sins and the Spirit of God, by whose presence the love of God is thus maintained constantly in the heart.— It is not applied by the Apostle to the unconverted, but to himself with the "saints and beloved of God" at Rome. It has therefore nothing at all to do with the question now under examination in this respect. It shows this only, as here adduced, that the power of the gospel is in the facts which it presents, and that when this gospel was shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit in Christians, and exerted its highest renovating power in them—no additional source of power is alluded to, and no new facts supplied, from which such additional power might be derived.

But it will be said again: It is not meant that the additional power which the Spirit imparts to the gospel is derived from new facts or revelations, but that it consists in the power or energy which the Spirit gives to the facts already revealed. Let me ask, then, In what does the power of a fact consist? or, in other words, What is necessary in order that a fact shall have its full power over the person affected by it? Is it not simply that it shall be fully presented, clearly understood, and truly felt? And has not the Holy Spirit already presented the facts fully in the scriptures, so that they may be clearly understood? Granted, it is replied, but these must be truly feit; and it is the office of the Spirit to accomplish this; without which all else were vain.If, then, I ask in turn, we admit such a case, where the gospel has been fully presented and is clearly understood, but not truly felt, to what cause is this want of feeling to be attributed? Is it not to this, that the affections are pre-engaged? Is it not because the individual loves the world or the things of the world, that the love of the Father is not in him? Is it not that his heart is already full of corrupt affections, so that he has no relish for the things that are of God? If so, the accompanying power, supposed, acts by emptying the heart of worldly desires, in order to prepare it for the reception of the gospel,

and is occupied simply in removing those obstacles or circumstances which prevented the gospel from being received into the heart. It is not correct, then, to say that it gives any actual, absolute, or additional power to the gospel itself. It merely prepares the heart for it, and gives power indirectly by removing that which was a hindrance to its exercise. Thus the seed which falls upon the beaten track is unable to exert its inherent vegetative power because it is exposed upon the surface of the ground. The plough which breaks up the stubborn soil and enables the seed to enter into its bosom, may be said to give it the power to grow; but it does so indirectly-adding nothing to the vegetative power of the seed, but placing this in circumstances favorable to its action.

But whither am I carried? To this point; that this doctrine of special spiritual influence, when fairly examined, agrees with my philosophy and with the opposing doctrine of providential agency in this, that no additional power is really given to the gospel by such influences, and that they render it effective only by removing obstacles to its action. This I conceive to be a rational conclusion, and an important one. It is a simple view of the subject, and a scriptural one, leaving the gospel in possession of all power necessary to salvation, and preserving the integrity of all the scripture declarations concerning it, while at the same time it admits of the use and necessity of co-operating agencies in their appropriate sphere.

If it be urged that men cannot clearly understand the gospel without special spiritual assistance; that not only has the heart become gross so that they cannot feel, but that their ears are dull of hearing' and they have 'closed their eyes' so that they cannot understand; I would give the same answer; that these are only hindrances to be removedthat it is not necessary the gospel should be made to shine so brightly as to pierce through the eyelids, but only that the man should be induced to open his eyes; nor that it should be made to sound so loudly as to force a passage into his ears, but only that these should be unstopped. But I can, perhaps, explain myself better by an illustration. Suppose a man in an apartment, and the window shutters to be closed so that not a ray of light can enter, though the sun shines brightly in the heavens. He cries: Oh! that the power of the sun were increased ten thousand fold, that its light might penetrate through the shutters and dispel my darkness! But I would say rather, My dear sir, let the shutters be opened; let that which hinders the light be removed, and you will then see clearly, without an answer to a prayer which, in enabling you to see, would put millions blind, and disturb the harmony of the whole solar system. Thus it is that men pray that the gospel

29*

may be increased in power, as though deficient, so as to force its way, as it were, into the heart, without considering that the same end is to be accomplished in a way much more simple, natural, and ready, and far more in accordance with the scriptures, with right reason, the principles of human action, and the circumstances of the ease.

All this will, I think, be fully apparent when I come to consider the nature of the obstacles which impede the action of the gospel, and the special agencies necessary to their removal. My views of these matters I hope to present to you ere long.

Ever yours,

L.

SYNAGOGUE WORSHIP.

Erother Campbell,

NASHVILLE, May 21, 1842.

As considerable investigation is now going on, on the subject of "the order of worship," I would be glad (if you can find a vacant corner) you would give us the true order of the synagogue worship among the Jews in the days of the Apostles. For some are inclined to think the order of the Christian worship was modelled after that.

Would you not do well, brother Campbell, to reconsider a saying of yours in the April number of the Millennial Harbinger on Christian Organization? You say Elders ordained Elders-(that is, Bishops ordained Bishops.) You may find this a hard proposition to prove. I have been in the habit of thinking this was the principal leg on which Popish and other successions stood.

Yours in hope,

JAMES C. ANDERSON.

FAMILY CULTURE.

CONVERSATIONS AT THE CARLTON HOUSE.-No. XXX. Olympas. HAVING had the lineage, birth, circumcision, education, and early circumstances of the Messiah under consideration, as also his early visit to the temple at twelve, his baptism, reception of the Spirit, temptation and victory, we shall now inquire into the theatre and nature of his employment after this time. Read, William, to the close of the 4th chapter from the 14th verse.

[The chapter being read, William went on to say that]—

Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and began to teach in their synagogues, being glorified by all " The cities of Galilee were then the theatre of his public instructions. Reuben. I wonder that they let him preach in the Jewish What were these synagogues?

synagogues.

Olympas. Places of meeting or holding public assemblies for the edification of the Jews.

Reuben. What was the order of worship in these synagogues?

Olympas. You can explain it, Thomas.

Thomas. I had better first, perchance, describe the places of worship among the Jews as I have gathered them from Josephus, the Bible, and the books I have read on the Jewish Antiquities.

Olympas. You may state all their places of meeting for religious

uses.

Thomas. Their houses of worship and places of edification were the tabernacle, the temple, the colleges, the proseuchas, or oratories, and synagogues. The Tabernacle and Temple are fully described in the Bible: the Colleges, Proseuchas, and Synagogues are not fully described in the Bible. The schools of the Prophets and Colleges, if they were not the same, were very nearly related. I think you told me they were two names for the same institutions.

Reuben. I have never read one word of Colleges in the Bible.

Thomas. You have forgotten the books of Kings and Chronicles; for in one of each they are mentioned. So early as the time of Huldah the Prophetess, who flourished in the reign of the good Josiah, about 620 years before Christ, we find them named in 2 Kings xxii. 14., and again in 2 Chr. xxxiv. 22. And that persons of much divine learning were in those institutions-(that inJerusalem occupied the inner wall, whence, perhaps, came "Esquires of the Inner Temple")-is evident from the fact that when the long-lost copy of the Law was found, it was expedient to send to the College for an interpreter. Thus Huldah, a Prophetess, connected with the institution, is brought into notice as an expounder of the volume.

Next to these in, antiquity were the Oratories or places of prayer. They were located on the tops of mountains and on the banks of rivers, and in such sequestered spots. They had open tops through which to look up to heaven. Our Saviour spent a night in one of them, and the pious were wont to assemble there in the early dawn and at the close of even for meditation and prayer. They were built not only in Palestine, but sometimes in foreign countries. Paul found one near Philippi where Lydia was converted.

It

The Tabernacles were another class of buildings commenced before, but greatly multiplied after the Captivity. With regard to the Synagogues, villages were distinguished by two names-the Koomai and the Koomopolis. The latter had synagogues, and the former none. required ten families as the least number to constitute a synagogue. When less than ten resided, they had no synagogue; and when more, they had synagogues according to the number of inhabitants.

Olympas. Do you recollect how many were in Jerusalem and some other large places at or near the time of the Messiah?

Thomas. The city of Tiberias had twelve, and Jerusalem four hundred and sixty-five. They were located over the whole country, and were essential to every Jewish settlement abroad as well as in their own country.

Olympas. State their architectural peculiarities.

The western end was used as a There was kept the Book of the THE HOUSE OF THE BOOK. The

Thomas. They were very uniform, although of varying dimensions. They always consisted of two parts. sort of sacred temple, called the Icel. Law in a small chest. Its title was body of the building, or east part of it, was seated for the congregation, separated in the midst down to the pulpit (for they had each a pulpit of wood) by a wire lattice from five to six feet high. On one side sat the men, on the other the women.

Olympas. Repeat the names of the officers, and give us a brief view of the services.

Thomas. Rash Eceneseth was the Hebrew name of the ruler of the synagogue, usually called in Greek Archisunagoogos. Of this class there were three in every synagogue. They were, because of their frequent adjudications of small civil offences, called THE COUNCIL OF THREE. They prevented all disorders in the congregation. They commanded the public readers how much to read every Sabbath, and the people when to say Amen. They had considerable power in the settlement of all questions of moral wrong. They were to decide on the admission of proselytes, and on the ordination of all public functionaries.

The second officer, Shelih Hetsebur, or minister of the congregation, frequently called The Angel of the Assembly, labored among them in word and teaching. He prayed and preached. He sometimes appointed the readers, and stood beside them to see that they read r.ght.— Hence he got the name of the Episcopos, or Overseer.

The Deacon, or Almoner of the Poor, was the next officer. Of these there were generally three. To prevent the suspicion of embezzlement, they generally officiated in concert, at least two of them always had charge of the collections and of the synagogue lekupe, or chest that stood in the house.

To these there were sometimes added interpreters of the readings into the languages of those who were in attendance. Besides the e they sometimes had Doctors of Divinity Schools, who instructed even the interpreters; and these also had their own interpreters. But the three Rulers, the Angel of the Church, or chief Bishop, and the three