understood it to their salvation-that it is credible, because it is true, and based upon ample testimony-and that, in the proper and literal sense of the term, men have ability to believe it, or they could not be guilty for unbelief. But to make a person willing to receive the word as it should be received, to change a heart of enmity to the truth, to one of love, to give a new heart, in other words to renew the soul, which is morally dead in trespasses and in sins, is quite a different proposition. And I affirm that the scriptures intimate, in many places, that the Spirit of God does, or must accompany the word, to give a new heurt, to make men willing to submit to Christ as their Saviour. This is the very point at issue between us, and you have the proofs before you, not one of which you have shown to be irrelevant to the positions they were designed to sustain.

The second proposition has relation to some other antagonist, but who he is I know not. Perhaps some Confession of Faith. The third proposition is true; but that which many say about it, is a false conclusion. It all results from their ignorance of the word ability. I hope when Mr. C. next presents tangible propositions for me to take up, he will affirm such only as have some relation to the subject before us.

I had stated that Mr. Campbell's system limits the power of God. This is a strong point, and the reasoning is, to my mind, conclusive. But does Mr. Campbell meet it? No-he merely affirms that my system also limits the power of God, because God cannot lie, and cannot create mountains without valleys. Until I can see the connexion between the premises and the conclusion, I must regard it as a non sequitur However, he makes a second attempt near the close of his reply, and a more clumsy perversion never was penned. I should not have expected such awkward work from a mere school-hoy. Mr. C. represents it in this light. He says, "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 he can be approached without a mediator, Mr C. denies the power of God." Now I assert that this is not the state of the case; and if any reader is so stupid as not to perceive that this is nothing like the position in which I have represented Mr. C.. I shall not take the trouble to enlighten him. Whenever Mr. C. can show that to save a sinner in his sins is an object of power, as I have shown that to renew a sinner's beart is an object of power, then, and not till then, will his charge stand that I deny the power of God. I believe that God cannot save a man in his sins, nor break his promise, nor change his purpose, because these are not objects of power. For the same reason I believe God cannot be unholy. But to renew a sinner's heart is an object of power. So much for the alteration of my argument, which still remains to be answered. I will now state again my proposition: God can renew a sinner whenever he chooses, through the truth. This is the point his system denies; and I call upon him to come out manfully and affirm or deny in so many words. Let him not again fly the track. There is no backing out now. By the grace of God I intend to know the uttermost of this matter.

I had also proved that as man is entirely dependent on God for his spiritual life, it depends upon his will whether they possess spiritual life or not. This is a strong point.How does he meet it? Merely by asserting, "Not so much as Mr. Lyud's."

[TO BE CONTINUED.]

REPLY TO MR. LYND.

CRESCIT EUNDO✶ is the best motto for all sorts of controversy. The stupendous avalanche was at first but the size of a marble; the darkening cloud that overspreads the whole heavens was a few hours since but a speck in the horizon; and the discussions of Luther and Tetzel concerning the efficacy of indulgences, filled Europe and America with a three hundred years' controversy, which has greatly illuminated and regenerated the world.

I am resolved that this bone of controversy shall not be lost in the mist

* It increases as it goes.

of a thousand sentences; and as my friend Mr. Lynd in the preceding pages has given me nothing to do, save to request the curious reader to compare his narrative with what is spread upon our pages, I proceed to sketch a plain common sense view of the real issue.

In my last I promised a few propositions covering the fore and back ground of the whole territory in dispute. I now hasten to my task.

1. The spirit of God is the spirit of wisdom and of revelation. By it all the Prophets were inspired, spoke, and wrote the spiritual, supernatural, and eternal things found in the Bible.

2. The spirit of God is the spirit of power, moral, intellectual, and physical. By it all the miracles were wrought which confirmed the mission of Moses, of Christ, and the Apostles. It is the immediate author both of the truth to be believed and of the supernatural evidence which supports it.

3. The spirit of God is also the spirit of grace. By it sinners are converted that is, enlightened, renewed, sanctified, comforted, and fitted for the immediate presence of God.

4. The means which it uses for this purpose are the word and works of God; for it works upon the human heart only by moral means, and these are the word and the works of God, as creator, preserver, and redeemer, so far as they affect the condition and future destiny of man.

5 In converting sinners it is represented as convincing them of sin, justification, and future judgment, by the sayings and doings of Jesus Christ; and not by any peculiar, abstract, superadded efficacy, independent of, without, and above the word.

6. In sanctifying and perfecting Christians, it is represented as dwelling in them, animating, consoling, and working in them to will and do according to the divine benevolence.

7. It will yet quicken the mortal bodies of the saints, and make them like Christ's glorious body-spiritual, glorious, and immortal.

The present controversy primarily terminates on the 5th proposition. Mr. Lynd affirming that independent of, without, and above the word, the spirit of God in converting a sinner first makes him willing by some inexpressible efficacy superadded to it; and when made willing the sinner is farther assisted by a special interposition which gives efficacy to the word read or preached; but when it cannot be read or heard, it regenerates the person without it, as in the case of elect infants, &c. To this we object for the following reasons:

1st. Because the scriptures no where assert or declare that the word is impotent, or that it needs such a superadded efficacy to bring it down to the sinner or the sinner up to it. Not one text can be adduced from Old or New Testament signifying such a co-operation of the Spirit in the case of conversion.

2d. Because such an efficacy argues that the gospel is either wanting in light or evidence. If sinners are not converted by the gospel, the fault is either in them or in it. If in the gospel, it must be in the want of light or power; or, which is the same thing, in the want of motive. But it cannot be in the gospel, because it is divinely called "the power of God to salvation;” and his wisdom and power would not allow it to be wanting in light or in evidence; and because those who are saved by it never can communicate any more light or evidence than they derive from it: so that no motive to holiness can be suggested by the most gifted saint that is not derived from the Book. The fault is not then in the gospel, and must be in the sinner. Now if in the sinner, it must be either in the want of inclination or of power. But it cannot be in the want of power, for then the fault would be transferred to the author of his power, inasmuch as man can have no power but what is given to him.

It remains then that the fault must be in the inclination or will of the sinner. But that this fault be his own, there must be in the gospel such motives as when considered are able to overcome this apathy or aversion: for if there be not such motives or power in the gospel, it is not "the power of God to salvation," but only a part of his power; and such a part as always fails in every human being, unless sustained by something extrinsic of itself; and this is the same as to say that man has not power or reason to be willing; and this is equivalent to transferring the fault to the author of his power and of the gospel.

But unbelief is guilt. Now guilt cannot exist only when it is in the power of a person to prevent it, and that is not within the power of any being for which he has no capacity, or which, having capacity, there is not sufficient motive to influence him to act; from which it follows that the guilt of unbelief lies neither in the want of a natural capacity to believe, nor in the gospel want of sufficient motives to influence and enable a person to believe it; but in the wilful inattention of the sinner to the whole subject, arising from his having given his heart to idols.

The secret of all human inability is therefore found in the idolatry of the heart. "When it shall turn to the Lord," says Paul, "the veil shall be taken away." To overcome this a positive influence or efficacy without, above, and independent of the gospel, would be wholly inadequate; for then it would not be the gospel, but something apart from it, which affected the heart; and the effect could not be moral or holy, inasmuch as it would not be the result of moral motive, but of an influence without argument or moral consideration.

But a question arises in the mind of all considerate and reflecting persons just at this point;-How comes it that some persons hear, believe,

and obey the gospel, while others do not hear, believe, and consequently do not obey it to the purification and salvation of their souls? The conflicting theories of the schools originate in the conflicting solutions given to this question in whatever form it may be presented. And here is the punctum suliens-the fountain and source of my long conflict with the Rabbies of this day, on the influence of the Holy Spirit. Oh! that there were some unambiguous words-some definite phrases in our language, that could preclude misunderstanding and mistatement here!

Mr. Lynd and his class of Christian philosophers will have it that his solution gives all the glory to God, while ours gives all the glory to man himself for the change of his own heart. He ascribes it all to the grace of God-to the sovereignty of his purpose, and to the direct and positive influence of the Holy Spirit in subduing the sinner, or in 'making him willing by an efficacy or power distinct from the gospel and superadded to it. Hence his constant effort to represent my views as subversive of the sovereignty of God-of the freeness of his grace, and the work of the Holy Spirit in the conversion of sinners. On the other hand, I charge upon his theory the nullification of the gospel of God, or, at least, the making it void by his traditions, and consequently I charge upon it the ruin of many souls, who, but for its influence, as taught by himself and others, might have obeyed the gospel and been saved. Moreover, 1 affirm that my solution of the above question is as compatible with the sovereignty and favor of God as any other solution of it; nay, that it is more honorable to the grace of God than that of Mr. Lynd.

The reader who has carefully examined the portions of Mr. Lynd's third attempt already quoted, needs not to be informed that abstract from the narrative which Mr. Lynd gives of his views of the controversy, the only point which he holds up to the aversion of his peculiar readers is what he calls "the inevitable result of my views❞—viz. “When the gospel is once brought to the attention of men, it then depends upon themselves whether they are renewed or not." This he has reiterated and italicised and expressed in different forms even to satiety. The contrary is, then, Mr. Lynd's theory-viz. 'When the gospel is once brought to the attention of men, it does not then depend upon themselves whether they are renewed or not.' Of course, then, such phrases as the following are wholly erroneous:—“ "Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked”*_"Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, you men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, lest my fury come forth like fire and burn that none can quench it"-"Make you a new heart and a new spirit; for why will you die, O house of Israel." I say, such ex

pressions are exceedingly erroneous, not according to Moses, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, but according to Mr. Lynd! Even the evangelical Isaiah is at fault when he said, "Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil-learn to do well"—from whom, perhaps, Jeremiah learned to say, “O Jerusalem, wash thy heart from wickedness that thou mayest be saved.”* Even James the Apostle is also in error when he says, "Draw nigh to God and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and PURIFY YOUR HEARTS, you double-minded."! Mr. Lynd says, "When the gospel is once brought to the attention of men, it does not then depend upon themselves whether or not they shall be saved."

But I have said my solution is as compatible with the sovereignty of God as that of Mr. Lynd. The proof is, that it admits that all things are according to God's own purpose which he purposed in himself before the foundation of the world; for he purposed to send his Son and to send his Spirit, and to do by them all that has been done for the salvation of men. He purposed to send the Prophets and Apostles, and to call Jews and Gentiles to the knowledge of Christ. He purposed that the gospel should be preached among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And it is in virtue of his purpose that it has reached this country and this generation-that it has come into my hands and into those of millions of my cotemporaries; and it is the immutable purpose and decree of God that he who believes the gospel, repents, and is baptized shall be saved, and that all who fall asleep in Christ shall rise with him at the last day.

I have also said that my solution of the question is more honorable to the grace of God than that of Mr. Lynd: for in the first place, our theories equally ascribe the origin of this salvation to the free gift of God in sending his Son, Spirit, Apostles, &c. and not to any petition or work done by any of our race to obtain it. It is therefore of free favor, wholly of grace in its origin and procuring causes-such as the death of Christ, the descent of the Spirit, the mission of the Apostles, and their labors of love and martyrdom in establishing the faith for us. Again-so far as the committing of this gospel to record, and preserving and extending it to us, is considered, it is also equally of grace. But when the question turns upon that part of the system of grace which relates to our becoming personally interested in it, I say that view is more honorable to the grace of God which relieves me by the employment of my own faculties and affections, than that which relieves me without such employment of them. It is, in my judgment, more gracious to save me actively than passively; or with, than with