had spoken to their remembrance. Mr. C. sets out with the principle that physical power can operate upon matter only. Of course when the Holy Spirit brought all things to the remembrance of the disciples he operated merely upon matter; yes, upon matter as distinguished from spirit with all its attributes, as he operated upon the tongue of Balaam's ass. If he operated upon the minds of the Apostles in this work, then he must have done it by moral power. But moral power is motive contained in words or arguments, and not the words or arguments themselves. How then did they get into the minds of the Apostles by motive? How could motive operate upon them before the words containing it were brought into the mind?

With regard to my argument on prayer Mr. C. endeavors to caricature it as much as possible by such expressions as these, 'Mr. L. will have it that some indescribable Influence beyond all the laws of nature must be exerted '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.' 'Mr. L. inaintains 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.' But Mr. Campbell ought to be careful on this point lest he caricature himself in his zeal to escape the force of my argument. Let him remember what he prayed for in a former reply, that God would so direct and govern the whole machinery of the seasons, or operations of nature, as to insure seed to the sower, and bread to the eater.' I understand by the whole machinery of the seasons, and operations of nature the immutable laws of nature, and Mr. C thinks they need such a direction as to insure seed to the sower and bread to the eater. It seems then we are agreed in some direction over and above established laws, in order to insure our food. Let him remember too what he says in the close of his last rejoinder: 'Special providence is but the application or direction of these laws on particular occasions in the way of blessing or of cursing men.' I hope then that the reader will not be alarmed by those high-sounding words, indescribable and mysteriDoubtless Mr. C. perfectly understands the whole matter; and what is plain to him, may, at the same time, be mysterious to others.

ous.

The reader will please to observe that Mr. C. is writing concerning a power new and foreign to the instrumentality employed in nature and in grace, i. e a power which acts independently of the established instrumentality. He cannot proceed a single step in argument till he has placed me in this predicament. But every one can perceive that the position I have assumed is not met, and consequently that it remains unanswered.

As to the soul-chilling and deleterious errors which Mr. C. supposes to arise out of my view, and specified under six different heads, I have merely to say, that not one of them has ever appeared in any thing which I have written. They are a repetition of some positions already replied to, and may therefore be dismissed as unworthy of notice. I will say, however, with a little alteration of the third specification, that the faith which saves the soul differs not in definition, or in objects, from any other faith of gospel truths, but that it does differ essentially from other faith. But this belongs to another question which may be examined at a subsequent period.

An Omission.

In the part of the reply published last week, the compositor omitted a whole paragraph. This should come in on the last column of the first page, 49 lines from the bottoin, and immediately before the section which commences with the words, 'Now I freely grant that all these points are engrossed in the proposition,' &c.

The paragraph omitted reads thus:—

In immediate connexion with these statements he proceeds to say, 'What is the proposition to be proved? That God renews men by his Spirit before they believe; or that he works faith in them while they are ignorant of the testimony of God-that they believe first and hear afterwards-that he gives sinners a new heart and a right spirit before they understand the word. These are points engrossed in the proposition that man must be supernaturally operated upon without the word, and independent of it before he can believe in Christ, or truly repent of his sins.'

Reply concluded.

We will now examine the philosophy that to be fully convinced is to be fully disposed. There is a wide distinction between being convinced of a truth, and feeling that truth.— Hence to see a truth and to feel it are familiar expressions in our language to denote different states of the mind. The fact that all men use this language and understand it, is proof that the distinction has its foundation in the nature of things.

Mr! C. says 'lo fully comprehend a moral argument is, in my estination, to perceive and feel its meaning. Mr. Lynd is of a contrary opinion. In his view, a person may fully understand a moral argument addressed to the conscience, and yet not be convicted of sin; he may fully comprehend the obligations of the love of God, and feel no love in his heart,' &c. Now I do most solemnly protest against this-shall I call it unfairness?

Candor itself is put to the utmost stretch to find a favorable construction of this course, repeated several times by Mr. C. in his reply, as I have shown; and the reader cannot fail to be reminded, however painful the recollection, that error naturally seeks to hide itself in darkness and ambiguity. All I ask is that Mr. C. meet me fairly without mutilalating my arguments without charging me with sentiments explicitly disavowed; and if he can show that I have clothed his arguments in a false dress, as he has repeatedly treated mine, I am ready to make a public acknowledgment, promptly and cheerfully.

While Mr. Campbell charges me with unmanly and unscriptural cant, and with obsequious homage to the prejudices of the multitude, I ask him to read attentively the follow ing quotation from Blair's Rhetoric. 'Candor in stating the arguments of his adversary cannot be too much recommended to every pleader. If he disguise them, or place them in a false light, the artifice will soon be discovered; and the judge and the hearers will conclude that he either wants discernment to perceive, or fairness to admit, the strength of his opponent's reasoning.'

Every reader will perceive that Mr. C. has palmed upon me a definition of his own. As it has so occurred I rejoice in it, because it confirms an argument in my first essay, and providence permitting, I shall bring this to light. We will therefore travel over the ground again. Here is the original argument: ‘A person wishes to carry a certain point with his neighbor. He expresses all the arguments he has to offer on this point. His neighbor attends to the arguments and fully comprehends them.' Now mark, for the whole connexion will prove it, I used fully comprehend for a full mental perception, a perception of the meaning of the argument used. But to proceed: "This being the case, this person has not only exerted, but developed his whole moral power. He can do no more. Suppose this point carried (that is as far as his arguments could carry it) to be an important duty which the neighbor hates to do, and is unwilling to do, notwithstanding he is convinced he ought to do it. Is he changed? No, his disposition remains the same. He will not do it. How is this man to be made wiillng? All moral power is at an end.— Apply this to the Holy Spirit. He employs arguments written in the Old and New Testaments. In doing this he exerts his whole moral power. But many pay no attention to the arguments, and of course it is not in the power of the Spirit to renew them. But suppose they do attend to the arguments, and yet do not comprehend them. In what consists their guilt? They either have not capacity to understand the arguments, or their natural depravity blinds their minds to the force of truth. If they have not capacity to understand, they cannot be renewed, nor can they be guilty for not doing what they have no ability to comprehend. If their natural depravity, their enmity to holiness blinds their minds to the force of the arguments, they are guilty indeed; but how is this state of mind to be removed? The Holy Spirit has spent all his moral power in his arguments; but all his power is useless until the sinner comprehends their force, and until the cause of his ignorance is removed. It is not therefore in the power of the Holy Spirit to renew any man, unless he fully understands his arguments-and in order to the comprehension of them the depraved state of his heart must be changed. He could not by any power be converted to God.But suppose a sinner fully comprehends the arguments, and thus the whole moral power of the Spirit is fully developed, he is then renewed, or not renewed. If he is still unwilling to submit himself to Christ, then what power in heaven or earth can change him, upon

Mr. C's view of divine influence. Hear what God says-Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.'

Mr. Campbell in replying to this argument supposed that it assumed the position that a sinner may fully comprehend all the arguments of the Holy Spirit-feel all his moral power in his understanding, conscience, and heart, and that to full conviction too, and still remain an enemy, alienated and indisposed.

In my rejoinder I denied that the argument assumed this position. These are my words 'I have not for a moment supposed that a sinner may feel all the force of divine truth in his conscience and heart, and still remain an enemy.'

Here the distinction is clearly drawn between UNDERSTANDING or perceiving the meaning of an argument, and feeling its force in the conscience and the heart. I am sorry he did not read it with more attention. When Mr. C. speaks of full conviction, full persuasion, or full comprehension, he intends to say that the understanding fully perceives the meaning, and the conscience and heart feel the full force of truth. To be fully convinced is with him to be fully disposed, i. e. to be fully disposed is to be fully disposed. Where is the philosopher who would advocate such a proposition? And then in his last reply he informs us that Mr Lynd is of a contrary opinion, i. e. Mr. Lynd does not hold that to be fully disposed is to be fully disposed! In his estimation a man may be fully convicted of sin and not be convicted at the same time; he may feel all the obligations of the love of God, and yet not feel these obligations. Let the reader judge. Now says Mr. C. 'to fully comprehend a moral argument is, in my estimation, to perceive and feel its meaning.'— Ah! to perceive the meaning, and to feel the meaning! There is then a vast difference between perception and feeling after all, Mr. Campbell. If the mind perceives the meaning of any argument, does not the mind comprehend it, understand it? I maintain that to be fully convinced, and to be fully disposed, are two different things. Common sense says the same. Mr. Campbell says the same.

My argument then is untouched. There is an enmity of heart to the truth as it is in Jesus, that is to be overcome in the renewing of a sinner. He looks at truth, perceives his duty, and hates to do it. The arguments, though understood, fail to reach his conscience aud heart. To reach these is the mysterious and immediate work of the Spirit of God. Mr. C. maintains that the motives of the gospel are not fully understood until they have reached those parts of the moral nature of man to which they are severally addressed.Then in those who are lost, these motives never were fully understood. Now I confess myself at a loss to know the precise meaning of the word understood in this connexion.If Mr C. used words in their ordinary acceptation, the case would be different. In order to be certain on this point, I will take the first signification of feeling their force in the conscience and heart. Then, what is the affirmation? Simply this-The motives of the gospel are NOT FELT IN THEIR FORCE IN THE CONSCIENCE AND THE HEART, until they have reached in their force the conscience and the heart. Does Mr. C. mean this? Then the affirmation 2 and 2 make 4 would be of equal value to the question before us. IN THOSE WHO ARE LOST, THE MOTIVE OF THE GOSPEL NEVER REACHED THE HEART AND CONSCIENCE. Who denies it? But remember this was the work of the Holy Spirit. He fully displayed all the power with which he could operate upon mind, and yet that power never reached their conscience and heart. This is the influence of the Holy Spirit which Mr. C. holds, and yet he charges me with misunderstanding his views.

But I will suppose that by the word 'understood' in this connexion, he means a FULL PERCEPTION OF THE MEANING. Now what is the affirmation? Simply this-The motives of the gospel are not perceived by the mind, or the meaning of them is not perceived, until they have reached the conscience and the heart. Then those who are lost never perceived the meaning of these motives. To say nothing of the absurdity of the conscience and the heart feeling the force of motives, before those motives are comprehended by the under standing, the same argument may be made in this case as in the other. The Holy Spirit fully displayed all the power with which he could operate upon mind, and yet that power never succeeded in enlightening their minds, much less in changing their hearts. It was not an efficient agency, such as the Bible teaches.

The argument. I first empioyed is founded upon this statement. If those who are lost never perceived the meaning of the Holy Spirit, or never felt the force of truth in the con science and heart, to what was it owing? Not for want of natural powers to understand and feel the argument, for in that case they could not have been renewed, or been guilty for not being renewed. But if the natural enmity of their hearts to holiness and to God hindered their perception and their feeling of the arguments, then they were indeed guilty. If there be any natural defect in the understanding, or any physical obstacle to prevent a conformity to the will of God, it is an excuse. Every one perceives, who chooses to perceive, that there is an essential difference between that kind of inability which is independent of the will or disposition, and that which has its origin altogether in the disposition. But how is this state of mind to be changed? I believe that this is the work of the Holy Spirit. It is his to give a new heart. The scriptures always ascribe the work to the Holy Spirit,

[TO BE CONTINUED.

REPLY TO MR. LYND.

PRAY where did Mr. C. say that God possesses no other kind of power than physical power? Quote the passage, Mr. Lynd!—and save your comment for the text. We can conceive of no other power. But he that infers God can have no other power reasons illogically. Let him, however, who, in his theory of conversion, introduces any other power, explain it; or let him not call upon us to admit it. This is our proper ground.

care.

Mr. Lynd, in the second paragraph above quoted, especially directs the reader's attention to one point; because, he says, "it will clearly prove that Mr. Campbell is exceedingly embarrassed by my arguments;" and then refers to the dialogue on the Holy Spirit, &c. The reader will please read this part of Mr. Lynd's letter with especial This really deserves a smile rather than a serious reply.— Exceedingly embarrassed, truly!—with what I know not, unless with the misstatements and blunders of Mr. Lynd. Gentle reader, believe me, I have just now, for the first time since the controversy began, glanced over the aforesaid dialogue to see if it were possible that I could have done myself so much injustice as to have made such statements, and given such views as those Mr. Lynd would have you think I am now avoiding the discussion of by changing or shifting the meaning of the words, &c. I felt confident I could not; but still I was determined to make "certainty more sure," and so examined. I have arisen from the examination with much less respect for the judgment or candor, or something else of my friend Mr. Lynd, than I could have wished; and I boldly affirm that I am grossly misrepresented in the above paragraphs. Mr. Lynd has been straining and constraining, and sometimes torturing my words. I will, however, let the dialogue speak for itself. Austin in the dialogue represents an inquirer, and Timothy the editor. Touching this distinction of physical and moral power, of

which Mr. Lynd says so many crude things, and things that I have never said, my reasons for using the words at all are thus given:

"A.-I have one fault to your reasonings upon this subject. You speak of moral and physical influences, and sometimes of spiritual operations. The Bible speaks not in this style. It is owing to these humanisms that you are so much misrepresented and misunderstood.

"T.-It is a fault; but hear my apology. I never introduced these distinctions; I only adopted them. For the sake of argument with those who oppose reformation, I used their own style; I reasoned with them on their own concessions. It is not my style; it is their style. And he that thinks that I used these terms with approbation, forgets what I have written about them.

"Were I to sketch a philosophy illustrative of the views which human reason can apprehend, I would have intellectual, moral, and physical power. But to suit your nomenclature, we combine intellectual and moral; and call every thing which is argumentative, which imparts either light, knowledge, disposition, or motive, moral;' and this power may be displayed either in words spoken or written, addressed to the eye or the ear, to the mind, either in signs, suggestions, or tokens, internal or external. But the Bible neither teaches the one philosophy nor the other; and it would be better, incomparably better, to speak of Bible things in Bible terms, if men would not pervert our words, and abuse the public mind with a phraseology neither scriptural nor philosophic.”—C. R. p. 377.

The above hints one would think would have suggested both candor and caution to a reader of the dialogue, and have prevented him from using these words as if I had introduced and defined them for my own convenience. But notwithstanding all this, Mr. Lynd repeatedly misconceives and so perverts my use of these words. In the paragraph before us, for example, Mr. Lynd says, "Is Mr. C. then prepared to abandon his position that physical power cannot operate upon mind?” Where in the dialogue is this position found? No where! On the same page quoted above, will the reader examine the following periods?—

"A.-You might as justly, I think, take exceptions to the popular misrepresentation or misconception of physical as of moral power. When you allege that spirits cannot operate upon spirits as a hammer operates upon metal, it is to show that moral disposition cannot be produced by a spirit operating upon a spirit-moulding it into dispositions good or evil, as a smith fashions a horse shoe; that moral effects cannot be the result of physical causes. But this does not lead to the conclusions which some infer. Suggestions or temptations, by presenting any sort of motive, may be so far physical as sound or speech is physical; but yet it is the end proposed and achieved which designates the power. All moral means are physical, if we take into view the tongue that speaks, the sound uttered, or the impression made upon the eye, the ear, or the heart. In this confounding of things, there is no power purely moral in the universe. Power is properly denominated either from the agent which acts, or from the object accomplished. Thus we