it in the soil? Then will the soil produce where there is no seed? Is it in the soil and the seed combined? Then how originated the seven years famine in Egypt? I grant that God has implanted in seeds the principle of vegetable life, and that when these seeds are placed in suitable soil, soil adapted to the development of the vegetative principle, and the operations of nature are directed by the power of God so as to insure fruit, that fruit will be the result. Hence I use the means which God has appointed, and then pray for his blessing without which all my labor would be in vain. I believe in a special providence, in the exertion of an influence over and above my conformity to established laws, otherwise I would not pray for fruitful seasons. The very idea of prayer in this case involves such an influence. The means are physical; the laws are physical; the result is physical; the whole subject is physical. I should therefore suppose that the influence necessary to insure a crop would be physical.

Apply this reasoning to the renewing and sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit.Where does the renewing influence of the Holy Spirit lie? In what part of the universe? Is it in the incorruptible seed, the word of God? Then, will this word produce any fruit where there is no understanding, no mind to receive it? Is it in the mind, or the understanding the proper soil for truth? Then will this soil produce where no truth is implanted in it? Is it in the seed, the word, and the soil, the understanding combined. Then why are any who hear the gospel unrenewed? I grant that God has imparted to his truthi the principle of spiritual life, and that when this truth is sown in the understanding, ahd the Holy Spirit so influences the development of spiritual life as to insure fruit to holiness, that holiness will be the result. Hence I use the means which God has appointed, and then pray for his blessing, without which all my labor would be in vain. I believe in an influence over and above any conformity to established laws, otherwise I would not pray for the renewing of sinners. The very idea of prayer in this case involves such an influence. But the means are moral; the laws are moral; the result is moral; the whole subject is moral. If I formed any opinion at all, I should suppose that the influence necessary to insure fruit to holiness would be moral power, but not moral in Mr. Campbell's limited sense. But whatever be the nature of the power, I would not pray for it if it were not absolutely necessary to the renewing of sinners. We may prepare the ground and cast in seed; but if God do not so direct and govern the machinery of the seasons as to insure fruit, we shall have a famine in the land. On the other hand, we may sow the moral seed in the understandings of men; but unless God or the Holy Spirit so operate as to insure the renewing of a sinner, there will be a famine in his soul. How truth in the mind might make its corresponding impression upon the heart of a holy being is not the question. The Bible teaches that it does not make its corresponding impression upon a heart at enmity against God. To produce this effect is the work of the Holy Spirit himself. It is for this we pray; and if no such work is to be done it would be folly to pray for it.

Mr. Campbell may pray for fruitful seasons, because he believes that God has a work to do in the insuring of seed to the sower, and bread to the eater. But he has no right to pray for the renewing and sanctifying of sinners, because he does not believe that the Holy Spirit himself has a work to do in the insuring of this change and sanctification of heart.— Does he not contend that every spirit puts forth his moral power in words, and that what ever power Cicero and Demosthenes have exercised over Greece and Rome, since their death, Is in their writings? If the Holy Spirit were dead, upon his principle, the work of renewing and sanctifying would go on. Did God, when he established the laws of nature, stand aloof and leave them to their own operation? Or does he exercise a special providence in the affairs of the world? Is it to be supposed that when the Holy Spirit had delivered the entire truth, he stood aloof from the spiritual world, and left truth to work its own way among men, to fail or to succeed, as the case might be? Does not Mr. Camp bell say, that if the New and Old Testament contain all the arguments which can be offered to reconcile men to God, and to purify them who are reconciled, then all the power of the Holy Spirit which can operate upon the human mind is spent; and he that is not sanctified and saved by these, cannot be saved by angels or spirits, human or divine?" On this principle why should he pray for power which we have already in our possession?— VOL. II.-N. S. 13*

Would he say that if all the vegetating power of God he now operating in immutable laws, to bring forth fruit, then all the power which God can exercise upon vegetation is spent, and that if fruit is not the result of these laws, it cannot be produced by angels or spirits human or divine? No man in his senses dare utter such language, and if this were his theory he would be out of his senses to pray for fruitful seasons.

If, in the arguments of the Old and New Testament, all the power of the Holy Spirit which can operate upon mind is spent, what becomes of Dr. Beattie and his sallad bed; and the lads at school prompting their companions by signs: and the ten thousand providential ways and means which God has of bringing the gospel to the attention of men? None of these explain, or even remotely touch the great question of spiritual influence.When we pray to God to occasion, providentially, trains of thought in the minds of me, we have our attention fixed on that great subject, the renewing of a sinner's heart by divine power. This is all that is meant by giving a new heart, by working in men to will and to do, by a quickening from a state of death in trespasses and sins, by being created in Christ Jesus, by being raised from the dead, by being strengthened by the Spirit with might in the innuer man! Oh, who that knows the corruption of his own heart and the power of temptation can believe it! Who that has gone forth weeping, bearing precious seed, can fail to pray that God would give efficiency to truth in the hearts of men, aud renew them by his mighty power! Who that feels upon this subject as he ought to feel, would ridicule the efforts of Christians as Mr. Campbell has done in his last letter 10 England. He has treated me with respect, I grant; but he has done injustice to American Christians. He says that "men are truly converted by the Spirit, without the knowledge of any of the four gospels." And he adds to his friend, "Publish it, dear sir, in the length and breadth of your land, that it is this theory of spiritual operations-this species of divine influence-this idealess, headless, and heartless religion, which, on the principle of animal magnetism, or some non-descript human sympathy, has filled meeting-houses with converts that have no root in themselves." To this I offer no reply. I can only lament the spirit which dictated it. S. W. LYND.

REMARKS.

Mr. LYND positively avers that "Mr. Campbell's theory denies the power of God." So say the Universalists; so say the Unitarians; so say the Deists. Because Mr. C. will not allow that God can save all mankind whether they die in sin or in righteousness-that God can save sinners without expiatory sufferings-that hè can be approached without a Mediator, Mr. C. denies the power of God. So does my friend Mr. Lynd deny the power of God. This is rather a calumny than an argument-something to prejudice rather than to convince a certain class of readers. It deserves no serious refutation. I candidly confess that I believe that God cannot save a man in his sins, nor renew a soul without motives, nor forgive sin without sacrifice, nor break his promise, nor change his purpose-nay, I believe that God could not make a better world than this in reference to all its relations to himself and the universe; for with me Omnipotence means such power as is actuated by infinite benevolence, guided by omniscient wisdom, ruled by inviolate and immutable justice, truth, and holiness, and terminating in the greatest amount of felicity at the least possible expense.

I ask Mr. Lynd, does he believe that God can cause a person to see without light, or without eyes; to believe without testimony; to love

without knowledge; to be righteous without disposition, and good without a motive? I am afraid that Mr. Lynd will also deny the power of God!

What remains of the long essay is engrossed on my answer to the question, "Why pray for grace to help in time of need?" It would have been sufficient, (for it is all that logic and good sense impose on me,) as I have before shown, to answer this objection by saying that this is wholly irrelevant to the case; for this is not a promise nor a duty prescribed to unconverted persons. Paul speaks only of Christians coming to a throne of grace to find grace to help, &c. Now, Christians, as we have a thousand times said, need the accomplishment in themselves of all the promised influence and aid of the Holy Spirit in order to their perfection in holiness and thorough fitness for every good word and work. Hence God has promised to walk in them, to abide in them, and to work in them to will and to do according to his own pleasure. It proceeds from an entire mistake of the question on hand to make such an objection.

In answer to the question, "Why should we pray for the conversion of others?' I presented, as I supposed. an illustration by asking Mr. L. why should he pray for abundant harvests, &c.-not that God would put forth new powers and depart from established laws, &c.; but that he would so direct the vegetating powers already existing as to produce the desired result; not that he would put forth a new law or power, but so bring together, or direct the operations of nature as to give seed to the sower and bread to the eater, &c.

But Mr. L. will have it that some indescribable influence beyond all the laws of nature must be exerted. This he does to make out an analogy suitable to his theory; for he seems to admit the analogy, and only wishes to accommodate it to his philosophy. He will have a mysterious influence above all the laws of nature in the one case, that he may have a similar influence above all the laws of grace in the other. But he cannot explain it in either case, and therefore to himself and his readers it is equally incomprehensible. Now while in both nature and religion, the offspring of one and the same mind, we believe in a regular established system, which is immutable except in case of miracles, we do neither hold nor teach that either of these systems operates as though there is now no God nor Holy Spirit: nay, we do teach that the divine presence and guidance, presiding over and directing these systems, not by applying new laws or new influences, but by governing, directing, and managing the whole machinery of both according to the counsels of his benevolence and the prayers of his saints, is a part of both systems, alike essential to a remedial as to a providential administra tion

That the difference between Mr. Lynd's and Mr. C's theories may stand out most prominent by the aid of the analogy now before us:Mr. L. maintains that there is a system of nature and a system of grace, but that it is necessary for God to step out of both systems in order to feed and save us; while Mr. C. maintains that there is a system of nature and of grace, and that it is not necessary for God to step out of these systems, but to preside over and direct them in order to give us temporal and eternal life. According to the former theory God leaves both systems in every special providence and in every conversion, and exerts a power new and foreign to them; while according to the latter system, he confers both the bounties of his providence and the blessings of his grace, not by a new operation or an independent influence, but by the machinery of those systems which he himself originated, and over which he constantly presides. Mr. C. expects no naked power in nature or religion. Nature is God's power clothed in physical laws. The gospel is God's power clothed in moral and gracious institutions. Special providence is but the application or direction of these laws on particular occasions in the way of blessing or of cursing men; and conversion, so far as it is special, even as in the case of Saul of Tarsus, or the three thousand Pentecostians, is effected by arresting the whole attention to the inspired suggestions of the Holy Spirit; or by drawing men to Christ by the calls and attestations which the Father has addressed to the understanding and heart of sinners confirmed by the Holy Spirit.

To state most distinctly my objections to Mr. Lynd's theory, I shall attempt to specify what he in my case would call its radical, and soulchilling, and deleterious errors:

1. The sinner must be renewed or regenerated by the Holy Spirit antecedent to his faith in Christ.

2. That a holy principle is infused into the soul of the sinner and faith wrought in his heart by the Spirit independent of the word of God, and sometimes without any knowledge of the gospel of Christ, and without the exercise of any one of the five senses.

3. That faith which saves the soul differs from every other faith, not merely in its object, but in its nature.

4. That it is the duty of every sinner to repent; but nevertheless no sinner can repent without supernatural help; and therefore it is the duty of every sinner to be perpetually attempting an impossibility.

5. That persons are renewed as soon as converted; whereas "the heart is purified by faith," not before faith.

6. That the gifts and miracles which the Holy Spirit vouchsafed in confirmation of the gospel, are now, and ever were useless; because inadequate to produce saving faith: and more especially as the Holy

Spirit, without any knowledge of these gifts and miracles, does supernaturally work faith in the mind of every individual convert.

These erroneous speculations, with all their practical consequences, I do most cordially repudiate as equally unphilosophic and unscriptural, and as greatly detrimental to the prosperity and progress of the gospel. But in rejecting these speculative traditions of the elders, I am very far from rejecting the Spirit himself as necessary to our sanctification and salvation. God our Father gave his Son for us, and he gives his Spirit to us. The promise of his Son was the peculiar glory of the Old Testament, while the promise of his Spirit is the distinguishing excellency of the New. By the sacrifice of his Son the guilt of sin is taken from us; by the power and grace of his Holy Spirit the power of sin is subdued within us.

Still we expect nothing from the Holy Spirit but through the truth; for he is the spirit of holiness because he is the spirit of truth. The holy truth is the instrument by which the Spirit of God works mightily in us to will and to do what is just and true. We pray for its presence, its comforts, its joys, its perpetual abiding in our hearts, that the love of God may be diffused through all our affections and awaken every corresponding sympathy in our souls. A religion without the inhabitation of the Spirit of holiness is like a body without a spirit, a head without brains, a heart without blood.

We would never pray for any spiritual blessing if we thought that the Spirit of God never influenced the disciples of Christ—if we thought that it in no way operated upon the spirits of men. We could not say Amen to Paul's prayer, Eph. i. 17-23.; nor to his prayer, Eph. iii. 1421.; nor to any other prayer written in the Bible, if we doubted the work of the Spirit in the sanctification and joys of all that obey the

truth.

Nor do we think it necessary that we should understand how or in what manner the Spirit operates through the truth on our spiritual nature, before we confidently ask for his presence and power and comfort. It is enough to know that the Holy Spirit is promised, and that we are 'commanded to ask for it. In no other matter would a person wait till he understood how a favor was to be bestowed before he asked for it. We have the command to ask, to seek, to knock, and the promise of receiving, finding, and obtaining all that we ask in faith, and that is all we could wish on the subject. Our duty is plain, however mysterious our philosophy; our privileges are clear, however dark our metaphysics may be.

Our Baptist brethren (for we have some Baptist brethren) are being enlightened more fully on this great subject. The refinements of Gill, the previous holy principle of Fuller, and the fire and noise of modern