the use of moral power, to renew such a soul, than Jesus Christ could have failed in the use of physical power to convert water into wine. Mr. Campbell confounds fact and theory in a most singular manner. He says, "The incomprehensibility of a fact cannot nullify it, but the incomprehensibility of a theory always does.' A fact is something done, as for instance, that Christ became incarnate-a theory states in what manner it was done, as in this case; the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and the power of the Highest overshadowed her. Both are facts, and yet the second fact is positively a theory of the first. But both are incomprehensible, and upon Mr. C's principle, I may believe the fact of Christ's incarnation, but the theory I must not admit, because it is incomprehensible. Again, it is a fact that some men are born of the Spirit of God. But it is also a fact that this birth is by an incomprehensible influence. It is com. pared to the wind: 'The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.' The second fact is an incomprehensible theory of the first, and according to Mr. C. it is nullified. I suppose that an incomprehensible human theory nullifies it, but not a revealed theory. I take the position that some men are renewed by an influence of the Spirit which I cannot understand. 'No,' says Mr. C., 'this cannot be. I admit the fact of such influence in renewing men, but I cannot admit your theory of it, because the incomprehensibility of a theory always nullifies it.' I reply, 'Mr. C., you mistake me, I have not attempted any explanation or theory.' 'Yes, you have,' says Mr. C., 'for you say it is an incomprehensible influence. You cannot define it, or give it a name.' Here the conclusion is obvious that the Saviour's language, "The wind bloweth,' &c. is either an incomprehensible theory or an incomprehensible fact: if the former, it is nullified; if the latter, then my assertion is a fact, and not a theory. Every one may perceive that there is a great want of accuracy in the positions of Mr. C.; and were it not for the exceeding delicacy of the theme, we could show from the fact and the theory of our Lord's incarnation that the same method of reasoning which Mr C. employs in relation to the influence of the Spirit in renewing men, would prove that the Holy Spirit was no more the efficient agent in the production of our Lord's body, than he was in the production of the body of Saul of Tarsus. The principle, however, is perfectly harmless, so far as any argument of mine is concerned, and it appears to have been used chiefly for the sake of convenience. It is indeed a very convenient mode of disposing of any fact. All we have to do is to call it a theory, and it is nullified. [TO BE CONTINUED.] REPLY TO MR. LYND. THE first paragraph above quoted appears to me a manifest evasion. After seemingly granting all I said, viz. that "the name or the idea of Jesus never reached the understanding of any mortal whose eye never saw it or whose ear never heard it," he goes on to deny a proposition never affirmed by me in word or writing, and becomes eloquently animated about it. If this be not an intended evasion, Mr. Lynd has done himself a real injury. "Mr. Campbell's theory," let me tell Mr. Lynd, supposes no such thing as that God has created a moral agent over whose moral character he can "have no control further than by the communication of ideas to the mind by the senses.' Better Mr. Lynd would examine what I do say, than combat what I do not say. The second paragraph is also evasive. I had given Mr. Lynd's views both in his own words and in those of a Regular Baptist Confes sion of Faith, backed by the Presbyterian, on "regeneration before faith, and the working of faith by the Spirit independently of the Word, in the human heart," that it might stand in bold relief before our readers. On this Mr. Lynd first observes. "Verily, this is a hard spot." I believe it, though not as Mr. L. wishes to represent it. It is a very hard spot; and Mr. Lynd gets round it quite handsomely. I believe Mr. Lynd considers himself a "Regular Baptist Minister," and professes to accord with the orthodox Presbyterian Confession on these subjects of faith, regeneration, and spiritual influence. At all events, these are the words and phrases against which I have written and spoken, and which have elicited all the dialogues, conferences, and discussions, verbal or written, which, for 15 or 20 years, I have had on this subject. Now every man who opposes me on this ground, is fairly supposed to defend the propositions I oppose; provided only, I do only oppose those propositions. Now Mr. Lynd seems to say in the next paragraph that he does not hold these propositions, but that he goes for the instrumentality of the word in every case of regeneration and conversion. If this be so, I certainly have misunderstood him; and I now ask, Has he renounced the doctrine of the Regular Baptist Confession, and of the Presbyterian Confession, from which the Baptists borrowed it? If he have, let him say it clearly and unequivocally; for then, indeed, the controversy would be narrowed down to a single point. If Mr. L. does not make "the simple act of regeneration before faith the renewal of the Holy Spirit, in which man is wholly passive, and in which there is no co-working with the grace of God," I have misunderstood him; and if he do not, he is almost as great a heretic as myself. Mr. Lynd must not evade this "very hard spot" by saying, "This is not the proposition before us.' I say, it is the very proposition which is before us, if there be any such. The dialogue on which he animadverts is written upon this very proposition of regeneration or conversion, independent of, or without the word, as any one may see by turning over to the first page of it. Mr. Lynd never stipulated about any special proposition: he attacked my reasonings upon this point without invitation, or challenge, or agreement, and he must be understood as holding the contrary of that which he opposes. Moreover, I think it is high time and every way expedient, that if he maintain the proposition I impugn, we should come to some agreement about the mode of conducting the discussion to a proper close. We ought to have some understanding about the length, breadth, and thickness of our respective replies, and the number and order of them. As things now are we may write an annual volume each without edificacation. Meanwhile, I propose that after he shall have laid my reply before his readers, he will come to some understanding about the points at issue, and that we shall have not more than a certain reasonable space in direct reply to each other monthly. Two or three pages each, well condensed, and to some one point, will do more than a hundred of such random shots as those now before us. Mr. Lynd will, I hope, think favorably of this. As to accompanying power in nature or in grace, I have repeatedly said I neither affirm nor deny. But I do deny the doctrine of the Baptist Creed and of the Presbyterian, in teaching the renewal of the Holy Spirit, or regeneration, before faith; and faith as wrought in the heart, independent of the word, by some mysterious influence of the Holy Spirit. I deny this because it makes the word of God of no effect, and opens the door of imposture and self-deception, teaching men to wait for, and to expect a visit from heaven, as essentially prerequisite to their believing and obeying the truth. These are the real points at issue; and I understand Mr. Lynd as defending these views both as a Regular Baptist Minister and also as opposing me. If I have misunderstood him I shall be happily relieved. The chapters on "Effectual Calling" and on "Saving Faith" in his Confession of Faith, which I have understood he is pledged to teach, contain enough on these points without any other reference to justify all that I have spoken or written on the subject. In the part of his reply quoted last month, the reader, by turning back to the first paragraph, will find Mr. L's illustration of his doctrine of instrumental and efficient agency. The illustration is a boy, a saw, and a large log of hickory wood. Again, a man, and the same saw, with the same piece of wood. The boy failed to cut it into two pieces; but the man, by superior strength, succeeded. The instrumental cause of conversion is set forth by the saw, and the efficient cause by the arm of the strong man. Avoiding the abuse or misapplication of this illustration, against which Mr. L. cautions his readers, I proceed to observe that this illustration represents the word of God as useless as a saw without a foreign hand to use it, and that neither the preacher nor the sinner can effectually use it to his own salvation or to that of any other sinner. Why, then, does Mr. L. preach it, or exhort the sinner to read it, inasmuch as it is of no salutary use but in the hand of the Spirit working by it with a miraculous or divine power? But in the case of infant and Pagan regeneration, of which the Confession and the party speak so often, the Spirit of God has no instrumental cause-there is no saw. Yet it saws the infant's or the Pagan's heart effectually without a saw, or effectually saves without any instrumentality. Does not, then, the whole theory effectually render the word of God of no effect? For if the word be of no use in any case without the hand of Omnipotence, and if the hand of Omnipotence can renew and regenerate without it, I ask Mr. Lynd for a rational and intelligible account of the use of it in the article of regeneration. Mr. Lynd will not, I hope, put us off by saying, "I use it merely to illustrate the difference between instrumental and efficient agency." This we all understood long ago. What a free and acceptable gospel my friend Mr. Lynd has for sinners! The gospel itself may be compared to a saw, so far as they are both instruments. But as the saw cannot cut without the sinews of a human arm, so neither can the sinner believe the gospel until it is grasped by the omnipotent hand of the Spirit and effectually stamped upon his heart. And for the procurement of such help and power he need not pray; for until he have this very inwrought faith he cannot be heard or answered. So that he can neither believe, iepent, nor pray, until the efficient hand of the Almighty Spirit takes the instrument, the gospel, and writes it omnipotently on his heart. I argue not the truth of this splendid theory: I only say, that of all the abuses of speech, Mr. Lynd's gospel, as "glad tidings of great joy to all people," is the superlative degree. It may be glad tidings of great joy to all the selfstyled elect, who imagine themselves already to have been the subjects of this efficient agency; but to the world it is any thing but gospel. The gospel of a lottery ticket of one prize to a thousand blanks, is not more unfitly called glad tidings to all people. Mr. Lynd represents the conversion of the sinner as a sort of personal conflict between him and the Spirit of God. And hence if a sinner could be supposed to be a subject of spiritual influence, and yet fails of salvation, he would regard it as a triumph over the Holy Spirit; and because he regards the Holy Spirit as never-failing to convert all "in whose hearts he begins to work," he represents me as some way admitting that the sinner may in many cases overcome the Spirit. Such is the influence of unjust and improper analogies. Well now suppose I should admit that some resist the Spirit, and that the Spirit does unavailingly strive with some, would I not be sustained by the Holy Spirit himself speaking in his servants? The Jews often "resisted the Holy Spirit," as Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, intimated; and he ceased to strive with them. Shall we then say these Jews triumphed over the Spirit of God! Mr. Lynd's Creed has a doctrine of "common operations" of the Spirit, which just suits this case. These common operations are insincere and frustrable; but the special operations are sincere and infrustrable! Which of the Apostles so teaches? Now all these speculations are to me not only unscriptural, but unreasonable, and savor much of the darker ages. Suppose the phi losophers should get up a debate about the operations of the Spirit of God in nature in the production of the fruits of the earth. One of them insists upon it that the efficient cause of all the fruitfulness of nature is the Spirit of God. He quotes such passages as, "The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters;" "The Spirit of the Almighty has given me breath;" "By his Spirit he has garnished the heavens, and by his hand he has formed the crooked serpent," (or the milky way.) And in reference to the Spring season David says, "Thou sendest forth thy Spirit and they are created, and thou renewest the face of the earth." So much for natural regeneration in the Spring. These scriptures, by the way, are as well quoted as those quoted by Mr. Lynd. Now this religious philosopher argues that in every particular case the Holy Spirit is the efficient agent of every apple, fruit, and flower, and that all the natural agents, the heat and moisture, the gases and the salts, were instrumental causes. So far he is as plausible as Mr. L. And like him he proceeds to say, that unless the Spirit of God accompany every shower by some influence superadded, not of the nature of moisture, nor any other instrumental cause, not one apple or ear of corn shall be produced. Meanwhile, another philosopher who admits all the same scriptures which he has quoted, and much of his reasoning upon efficient and instrumental causes, asks him to explain his superadded special influence. He says it is not of the same nature with the instrumental causes, but a power which he cannot define as unlike the rain as an arm of flesh is unlike a saw; and thus he leaves it. But when pressed by an opponent, he asks by way of self-defence, How comes it that it so often rains, and the sun so often shines in vain, unless at one time there is a supernatural efficiency which is wanting at another. Well says the Prophet, "As the rain cometh down from heaven, and the snow, and returneth not thither again, but watereth the earth that it may bring forth and bud, that there may be seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall my word be which goeth forth out of my mouth-it shall not return to me void, but shall accomplish that which I please, and prosper in the thing whereto I send it." Let me add, the Lord is always present in all the realms of nature, pervading and animating all; and he always accompanies his word. But that in one case he subdues and vanquishes the sinner by irresisti ble and infrustrable power, and in another case does not; so that the faith of the one is to be ascribed to this overwhelming influence, and the unbelief of the other to the want of it, is a solution of the problem which I do not find in the Bible; but it is very clearly taught in Mr. Lynd's "form of sound words" and some other orthodox creeds. Mr. Lynd, in rallying his scripture proofs, re-asserts with additional |