universal spread of the gospel, is "no better than a religious trick." Second, This, not being a prayer to the Father, in the name of Jesus, would now be improper; because among the last instructions to his apostles, the Lord said, "Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give you. Hitherto ye have asked nothing in my name: ask and you shall receive." Third, It is a prayer which Jesus taught his disciples at their request, and was applicable while he lived, after he rose, and while they tarried at Jerusalem, until the day of Pentecost; but now, a believer "cannot, with intelligence, and in faith, make such a request, because the kingdom of Messiah has come."

In reply to these objections it must first be admitted that there is no divine authority for understanding this clause to relate to a more general spread of the gospel; for it is not a revival, nor an increase, but a commencement, that is prayed for in the words "thy kingdom come." Second, It is by no means a valid objection, that by using this prayer we do not ask in Jesus' name; because, on the same ground, we might object to many recorded prayers of the apostles; and because it is very easy to add "we ask all in the name of the Lord Jesus." Third, It is fully admitted that the Messiah's kingdom came when, having ascended to the right hand of the Majesty on high, he shed forth the Holy Spirit upon his disciples: and if this expression did indeed relate to the coming of the Messiah's kingdom, it would be not only improper but absurd, to make use of it in prayer at any time after the kingdom had so come. The accurate reader will, however, with ordinary care, perceive that it is not the Messiah's, but his Father's kingdom, that Jesus directs his followers to pray for. "Our Father," "thy kingdom come."

How it has come to pass that a matter so plain should have been so generally overlooked, we need not now stay to inquire; we may more profitably observe that the Lord Jesus, when on earth, did speak of his Father's kingdom in distinction from his own. For instance: concerning his own, he said to his apostles (Luke xxii. 29) "I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom: concerning his Father's he said (Matt. xxvi. 29) "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.' His

own is the preparatory kingdom; his Father's the consum

mation.

In the parable of the tares (Matt. xiii. 37) the good seed sown by himself are "children of the kingdom;" doubtless of Messiah's kingdom, who now has "all power." At the "end of the world," the wicked being cast into a furnace of fire," then shall the righteous shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." It is in desire for this consummation that the Lord directs his followers to pray for the coming of the Father's kingdom: nor is it a vague desire or a random wish; it is a definite and well-founded hope, built upon the solemn assurance of the Holy Spirit: it is a lively, hope to which we are begotten by the fact of Jesus' resurrection, and by the knowledge that he who raised Christ--the first fruitswill also raise "those who are Christ's at his coming," and will present them faultless before the throne of his glory; and the Son, who has till then reigned, shall himself be subject to Him that put all things under him! Happy day to look forward to! Great was the day of creation when, on the completion of the universe, the sons of God shouted for joy; greater was the day of the new creation when God, who in past times had spoken to the fathers by the prophets, spoke to us by his Son; but still greater will be the day, when the kingdoms of this world, the dominion of Satan, and the last enemy, death, being all swallowed in the last victory of Jesus, he will deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that God may be all in all! Then we may conclude all distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit will be at an end, and thence Jehovah be one, and his name one.

It should be the great concern of each son and daughter of Adam, to become, and be one of the "children of the kingdom," by believing in, putting on, and being determined to follow the Lord Jesus; because such will be "Christ's at his coming," to shine like their Lord in the Father's kingdom. J. D.

ELECTION OF ELDERS.-No. V.

BEING AN ANSwer to g. greENWELL'S REPLY TO JETHRO ONE of the prime ministers of my revered Lord, in an exhortation to the disciples scattered abroad, thus addresses them:"Love as brethren; be pitiful, be courteous; not

rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing; but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.' Another of the same class has thus written:-"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." Raillery and rodomontade, moreover, I have long been convinced, especially when employed to accomplish what only matter of fact and sound argument are calculated to effect, though they may for the passing moment awake the spirit of risibility in the ignorant novice or prejudiced partisan, yet will they ever meet a merited repudiation from the honest inquirer and intelligent reader, to be reflected with ten-fold impetuosity on the head of the imprudent author, while his intended victim escapes without a scar. With this single remark I dismiss this, to me, most ungracious part of the subject; pained that the occasion required even this brief memento.*

I shall now proceed to an examination of the objections presented in opposition to the theory I have offered for the consideration, and, if approved, for the practice of the disciples.

It is of the last importance to observe, therefore would I keep it closely before the reader's mind, that my great endeavour was to demonstrate the necessity, scripturality, and propriety, of an intelligent appointment of elders, over a promiscuous election according to the popular practice; that I introduced the proposition, "Society is the parent, not the child of government," to illustrate the cause or exhibit the root, of what I consider a great and prevalent evil in this reformation. I shall now further illustrate the question in a matter-of-fact manner, which all will at once be able to comprehend. Scores and hundreds of times it has been urged on my attention, when discussing this subject privately with members of congregations, that the elders are

* Our beloved brother, who from the best of motives styles himself Jethro, has sent us full four pages of manuscript in defence of himself against the charges preferred by brother Greenwell. As the charges and objections brought by brother Greenwell are rather of a serious and personal character, having nothing to do with the subject in discussion, we have concluded to hand over to him this part of the manuscript, that it may be settled privately, by the two parties, rather than introduce any further notice of it in the Messenger.-ED.

the servants of the church, the society, the people; that the church, society, or people, are the master; that as they had made the elders, so they could command or unmake them when they thought proper. One effect of this prevalent error, for I will not call it a crime, has been innumerable and unseemly debatings, heart-burnings, disgrace, and, in some instances, the entire annihilation of the congregation. To destroy these pernicious fruits, I concluded it necessary to destroy the tree, and, if possible, to remove the root. Such an act, though it might be considered an attack on the rights of the people would, in my esteem, be a great boon conferred on them.

As one means towards a legitimate conclusion, I commenced with a rigid induction of cases from the Old Testament Scriptures, commencing with the Divine Being, applying and showing the absurdity of the proposition as I went along. How does brother Greenwell meet this? First, By intimating that his was not a universal proposition. I have already stated that I did not use it as his, but as a general proposition, in use for many ages. Second, By indirectly applying his sentiment to the Deity himself, finding society in his manifestations! This idea he supports by a quotation from the Christian System. Brother Greenwell's objection, robed in logical attire, would read as follows:"Jehovah is the origin and archetype of all government and governors; but there is society in Jehovah; therefore, government is the child, not the parent of society!" Now from the writings of the same illustrious author, and in the same manner, could it be proved that there is society in one man. I quote from Mr. Campbell's debate with N. L. Rice, p. 675:-"Man, with me, when contemplated in his whole person, is a plural unit. He is one man, having a body, a soul, a spirit." If, then, in some sense man is plural, in the same sense he is society. But what would the intelligent reader think of my reasoning powers, were I to contend from such premises, that, therefore, society was the parent of government? In justice might he not put me down as trifling with the question? Let me seriously ask brother Greenwell, was this mode of society in the Divine Being, the kind of society contemplated by himself, or me? By no means; both of us were contrasting the mass of the people with one, or it might be a number; the question at

issue between us being, whether government was a result of the mind of the whole mass, or of the intelligent, moral, and pious of that mass? While, therefore, brother Greenwell has endeavoured to divert the reader from the true issue, to the question of eternal unity and plurality in God, the fact still remains strong and impregnable as ever, that the ETERNAL governor is the author of society, and not society of the ETERNAL governor.

The names, offices, and duties of angels, I borrowed from the Bible. Are they not the messengers of God? Does he not approve their conduct when right? Has he not punished such of them as have dared to rebel? And do not these prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that they are under a system of government devised for their direction and happiness by Jehovah, without exploring for information "in some stray leaves of the sibyl, or in some of the parchments left by Paul at Troas." Let brother Greenwell consult the Great Book, and he will lack no necessary information respecting the government of the angelic host, though it is perfectly silent regarding his archangels, or the speculations he has offered concerning God's manner of love toward devils. Truly, this "meditation" on " the reconciliation of Satan and his rebel colleagues," would have answered as well for the demonstration of a problem in Euclid, as a reply to what I have stated respecting angels.

The third illustration, or fact, also remains just as it was. It matters nothing whether there was or was not society to elect the first of humankind to the governmentship of the world; the question at issue not being whether there was society to elect him, but was he elected by society? The answer to the question is, No; society did not elect him, but his Creator, which was the proposition to be proved; and an "assembly of rocks, elephants, lizards, and crocodiles," is, in my opinion, but a sorry effort at disproving the fact.

Brother Greenwell has left me in full, though not altogether peaceable possession, of all the cases mentioned under the Patriarchal and Jewish ages; not altogether peaceable, I say, for he says my conclusions are not wrapped up in the premises; "it has all the strength and weakness of that argument employed by the Pedobaptists, that infants should be baptized now because they were circumcised then." The cases, we presume, are by no means parallel, and this is a sad