planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase?' This I consider equivalent to an acknowledgment that the passage proves the point which it was intended to prove. It must therefore stand till Mr. Campbell fairly meets it.

Mr. C. contends that the Spirit can exert no greater influence upon the human mind, than is found in the arguments which are written in the New Testament, 'provided always, that the arguments are understood.' Now will Mr. C. say, that he means by the word 'understood' in this place, that the heart and the conscience feel the full foree of the arguments, or in other words, 'provided always that the heart be renewed by these arguments?' Are the heart and the conscience always reached by the arguments, when the mind comprehends their meaning? No man in his senses will make such an assertion If they are not thus reached, is the power of the Holy Spirit at an end? Will Mr. C assert that the mind never does perceive the meaning of these arguments until they are felt in the conscience and the heart? until the heart is renewed? Then what are the arguments worth if they cannot be comprehended? And where is the guilt of rejecting them? Let Mr. C. come at once to the mark, and inform us where the guilt of rejecting these arguments lies. If he can prove the non-comprehension of the arguments to be the sinuer's guilt, I pledge myself to prove that he abandons his whole argument. If Mr. C. means to say that the Holy Spirit can exert no greater influence upon the human mind than is found in the arguments, provided always that the heart is renewed by these argumeuts, he says nothing at all to the point. Suppose the heart is not renewed by these arguments, what then? Why then the Holy Spirit can exert a greater influence, and make the arguments effectual if he chooses. This is the doctrine of the Bible. This is the incomprehensible fact. This is the fact which Mr. C. denies, when he says, 'he that is not sanctified and saved by these, cannot be saved by angels or spirits human or divine. Though Mr. C's view of divine influence is a part of his reformation, yet the honor of it does not belong to him. It was advocated long ago by Arminians. Dr. Whitby, from whom I suppose Mr. C. has borrowed, held the same doctrine, that all the Spirit of God does is to bring moral motives and inducements to mind, and set them before the understanding.

The moral arguments of the Spirit, and nothing else jaccording to Mr. Campbell, can change the moral hue of a mind. Of course, nothing but the moral arguments of the devil can operate upon any sinner to induce him to disobey God. Now if the whole power of the Holy Spirit consists in the full reception of the arguments in the heart and conscience, how does it happen that the devil developes more power in his arguments than the Spirit of God; for this, in thousands of cases, is an incontrovertible fact. But the Bible every where teaches that the Spirit of God has a control over the hearts of men with all their depravity and all the temptations of the devil to sustain it. Besides, every man who is renewed gives the entire praise and glory of the work to God; he ascribes nothing to himself. Upon the same principle sinners ought to give all dispraise and blame of their sinfulness to Satan. But is it so? Are the cases at all parallel? If not, then the Holy Spirit exerts a very different, a far higher power over men in renewing them than Satan does in keeping them in sin. But Satan presents motives as well as the Spirit. The power of the Spirit then must be something more than motive, or man must be the determining cause of his own holiness. But now comes a dilemma. How does the Devil manage to get motives into the mind? We wait to be enlightened on this point by Mr. Campbell.

I think every reader will concede that I have not shunned to moet the arguments of Mr. Campbell in all their force, and that I have not concealed my own views in relation to this important theme. I think, moreover, that the reader will clearly perceive how much is involved in this controversy. It is not simply a difference of opinion, which may be innocently cherished, but a point that involves the cardinal doctrines of the Bible.Whatever apparent difficuity may grow out of the idea of an influence over and above the power of motive to renew the heart of a sinner; it is not a difficulty that comes in conflict with the Bible. But if there is no such influence, embarrassments of the most serious character rise up before us. At every step we come in conflict with large portions of the

word of God. We must adopt a uew and alarming system of exegesis, and with a rude hand sweep into oblivion the doctrine of antire depravity-the doctrine of salvation by grace-the doctrine of the sovereignty of God in saving men—the doctrine of final perseverance through grace to glory-doctrines that have stood the shocks of error for nearly 1800 years, and have come forth brighter and brighter from every trial.

I have therefore been particularly anxious that the whole ground should be investigated. I only regret, as far as I am concerned, that the controversy has not fallen into hands more able to manage it, But I am satisfied the cause of truth is at stake, and that God will vindicate that truth with power. S. W. LYND.

REVIEW OF MR. LYND-(CONCLUDED.)

"THE renewing of the heart," says Mr. Lynd, "is an object of power," &c. "The Holy Spirit," he adds, "can do any thing that is properly an object of power"-"If he chooses he can."—"The power by which he does this must be vastly different from the mere presentation of motives to the mind. This is a full avowal of the philosophy of “irresistible grace," or of conversion by an all-subduing power, over and above that of moral means or motives. Mr. L. distinctly teaches, in the above paragraph, that the reason why any one is renewed is a special choice, and a special power superadded to all that Christ has done-to all that the Holy Spirit has done-to all the motives and arguments in the Book; without which no one can be renewed, and by which any one may be subdued. This is the mysterious power which he cannot understand, and which he cannot explain; but which he can believe, and which he does teach as necessary in every given case of conversion; and which, unless I believe and teach, I subvert and make void the whole dispensation of mercy. This is, with him, the vital point. The preaching of this mystery is, with him, preaching the gospel-"the glad tidings of great joy to all people." What a misfortune, then, that no inspired writer has ever said to sinners, "God loved the world; sent his Son; his Son died, expiated the sin of the world; the Holy Spirit descended, inspired the Prophets and Apostles, confirmed the testimony, revealed the whole grace of God; yet all this is of no value, unless there be superadded a special choice, and a special, sovereign, irresistible power, which consists not of motives, nor of force-not of illumination, nor persuasion; but of a mysterious, unintelligible, and inexplicable influence preceding faith.'

of

Mr. L. admits he cannot find one text in the Bible to prove such a power in the case of conversion or renewal of a sinner. He quotes the prayers of David and of Paul for themselves and for Christians; the prayers of believers for their own growth and strength in the ways the Lord; and then adds, "All these were believers, but this does not alter the nature or the fact of the influence." Strange indeed! Renewed and converted persons pray for a special choice, and a special con

verting power to be put forth in their own case-as essential to them as to Pagans, Jews, or enemies of God! They were, then, converted, unconverted, natural, spiritual, dead and alive men, at one and the same time. I thank Mr. Lynd for his candor in admitting he has no proof from the Bible in reference to sinners; and that he has called upon me to do his business, by admitting, or saying that I believe his doctrine true of Christians, at any rate. "Will Mr. C. admit the immediate accompanying influence of which we speak in relation to believers?" Explain it first, Mr. Lynd, and then I will tell you. But as you cannot understand yourself, you ought not to expect that I can understand you. I believe that the Spirit of God helps our infirmities when we call upon the Lord for help. When we do what he bids us, he does for us what we ask according to his will. But this only when we do what he has commanded us. Is this your accompanying power in conversion! Can sinners pray acceptably without faith! And will God hear the infidel's prayer! "I wait to hear," Mr. Lynd!! inform us whether the prayer of unbelief can be heard!

Do

I

Mr. Lynd then calls upon me to answer for him a string of questions -such as, "If the moral arguments of the gospel are not fully comprehended, can there be guilt in not yielding to them?" &c. &c. answer, There is guilt in not comprehending them; for if men loved not darkness rather than light, they could comprehend them. There is, then, guilt in not yielding; because there is guilt in not comprehending. "If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light," &c. It is, indeed, in the power of the Holy Spirit, with his moral arguments, to reach the conscience and the heart of any sinner who listens to him. But does Mr. Lynd teach that the Holy Spirit will do this whether men listen or not!! He may say the Spirit can make him listen; but surely he will not say whether he listen or not.

But Mr. Lynd will have men guilty for not doing what is impossible. It is impossible, according to him, for a sinner to believe without his mysterious help; and yet he says that he that believeth not shall be damned for his guilt in not believing!! According to Mr. L., man is guilty for being born with a sinful nature; guilty for being a sinner; guilty for being helpless; guilty for not being helped, and guilty for not doing what is impossible without that help! This is all proved by quoting such passages as, 'God gave the increase when Paul planted and Apollos watered!' And, adds Mr. Lynd, "If he (Mr. C.) can prove the non-comprehension of the arguments to be the sinner's guilt, I pledge myself to prove that he abandons his whole argument.". Mr. Lynd has already more pledges out than he can redeem before the year of Jubilee.

"Mr. C's views of divine influence is a part of his reformation; yet the honor of it," &c., "belongs to Dr. Whitby," &c., "from whom I suppose Mr. C. has borrowed." Well, from whom has Mr, Lynd borrowed?— Calvin, Toplady, Andrew Fuller, or Andrew Broaddus? This last gentleman has, I think, exhausted the subject, and done it as much honor as it would bear. Mr. Lynd cannot transcend him. I have read Calvin, but not Whitby, on this subject: so that if I borrow from him, I know it not. Let Mr. Lynd pay his own debts rather than reproach his neighbors.

His dilemma about Satan is an untwisted cord of a single strand, easily broken. Satan's Bible is the world and the flesh. Without these he has no motives to offer. He seduced Eve by the ear and the eye, and not by entering into her heart. He wrought the ruin of our race by moral means. And having gained the greatest victory by moral means, has he recourse to other means to gain a less victory! If he overcome innocence and purity by arguments, is he unable to overcome sinners by motives drawn from the world and the flesh! He attacked the Saviour himself by motives! And yet Mr. Lynd asks, "How does it happen that the Devil developes more power in his arguments than the Spirit of God" If, then, the Spirit of God has stronger motives than Satan, he has greater power over the human heart, and is able to subdue him. But there are many one-sided sinners, who listen to the arguments of Satan, and not to those of the Holy Spirit; and, like those who listen only to the Pope, they cannot judge of the evidence on the other side.

"I think every reader will concede that I have now fully met every point" in Mr. Lynd's attack, and tested the biblical strength of his arguments.

The matter at issue is this:-The Bible contains the whole gospel of God. It is a full development of a grand and divine remedial economy. It represents in our own language all that God has willed and done for our redemption. The Bible is given first to unbelievers; or, in other words, we first read it as unbelievers. It is, like all other creations of God, adapted to those to whom it is given. It is given to sinners, and is adapted to them as fully as to Christians. It is adapted to unbelievers to produce faith, as it is to believers to produce holiness. Now the controversy between Mr. Lynd and myself, however expressed or represented, is in truth and fact, Whether the Bible is adapted to man just as it finds him-Can he believe it without another revelation or power superadded? I say, Mr. Lynd says, He cannot. I say, The Bible is "able" to make any man, who takes it for his guide, "wise unto salvation." I say, 'The written or the spoken gospel "is the

VOL. H.-N. 8,

He can.

48

power of God," as well as his wisdom, "to salvation." Mr. Lynd says, No sinner can understand or believe it, but by a special, mysterious, and inexplicable power superadded. This tradition of the elders makes void the word of God, and renders the gospel of no effect. He talks of a special accompanying power. I teach that "the word of God is always quick and powerful." It needs no special accompanying power, because it is always "powerful." The Spirit of God is ever present with it. It does not always convince, persuade, or renew all who hear it, because many resist it, strive against it, and reject it. This is their guilt, condemnation, and ruin. God employs no special force to save those who reject his word. He that rejects his word has one that will condemn, not save him.

I think in my various desultory replications to Mr. Lynd, his system is shown to be both unscriptural and unreasonable. He has spread it over a large surface, and has given me a great deal more labor than nccessary. He has challenged me once, if not twice, in his 3d attempt; or, in other words, he has asked for a fourth attempt. He may have it: but it is now my time to propose the rules or mode of investigation. After republishing my reply in the Baptist Cross and Banner, he may then proceed to redeem his pledge-in the following manner:

1st. State his proposition, or propositions, on which an issue is to be formed.

2d. He may take any one of them first; and offer, numerically, so many arguments, or proofs, as he thinks expedient: but only one arguInent in one essay.

3d. No one essay shall exceed four pages of the Harbinger, but may be as much less as either disputant pleases.

4th. No one argument shall ever exceed more than two essays.

5th. These essays shall appear monthly in the Harbinger, and shall be republished in the Cross and Baptist Journal.

6th. The whole series shall not transcend twelve on each side, and shall be republished in a separate volume by the parties, for more general distribution and utility.

Mr. Lynd will perceive that his challenge is now fully accepted; and the rules are such as, I doubt not, will be acceptable to him. I wish the subject to be debated fully and de novo, with a condensed brevity and perspicuity. I am daily more opposed to these verbose and endless genealogies of words. I doubt not but that all things shall be done decently and in order. If Mr. L. think that any point in his first, second, or third attempt has not been fully met, he can now take it up and have it specially canvassed. He has the choice of propositions. I trust he will be logically methodical, and make his point few, definite, and clear.