nature of the power." Already, indeed! I saw it long before. I did not write without thought, and I am certainly obliged to Mr. Campheil for such a clear defence. It is true that I cannot find a name for the nature of the influence for which I plead, because it is an influence above all that I can conceive. It is an influence from the infinite God which he has not explained to his creatures, and this fact is indicated by the expression supernat■ral. He asks, "Who ever understood a subject for which he could not find a name?" I do not profess to understand the subject of divine influence, i. e. the mode by which God operates upon the human mind in renewing and sanctifying the heart; but I do profess to understand when that influence is virtually denied. I do not despair of proving satisfactorily that Mr. Campbell's theory not only virtually denies the influence of the Hoty Spirit, but tears down the very pillars of the whole gospel plan.

It is necessary to be more explicit here; for if the theory of Mr. Campbell does not stand out prominently to view, it will be impossible to meet it. In that part of his answer which is found in the September number of the Harbinger, he has delivered himself so indefinitely, that a superficial reader might be led to conclude that he held the doctrine of divine influence in renewing sinners. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Mr. Campbell does not believe that the Holy Spirit exerts any influence upon the heart of a sinner, in renewing and sanctifying him, beyond that of the written word.

In my former essay I had argued that the Holy Spirit exerts an influence in renewing and sanctifying men, by which the motives or arguments exhibited in the gospel are rendered efficient. I proved that such an influence had been recognized by holy men in all ages. In reply to this he observes that he never held the dogma that all the influence of the Holy Spirit is in the words recorded in the Old and New Testament. He says that "all the illuminating or sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit is in the Word," &c. Now what construction am I to put upon this language? Who does not know that all the influence of the Holy Spirit is not in his Word? He possesses equal physical influence with the Father and the Son. Mr. Campbell certainly must have understood my language to mean that if all the influence which the Holy Spirit employs in renewing and sanctify. ing men is in the words recorded in the Old and New Testament, and we have these in our possession, why pray for grace to help in time of need? Does he suppose that Paul could have been sanctified if he had not obtained grace to help in time of need? Why then spend time in giving us the meaning of this phrase? He contends that all the sanctifying influence of the Spirit is in the Word, and yet, that this is not all the power or influence which he exerts in sanctifying men. He admits that there is an iufluence extraneous to this, or superadded. He says, "When I pray for the conversion of sinners, I ask not for any new light or revelation from the Holy Spirit; [nor do we] but that God would so order it, in his ten thousand ways and means, that the word of life, the gospel, might have access to their hearts, and work in them to will and to do, according to his benevolence."Again, he allows that it is in the power of God's Spirit to occasion trains of thought, to arrest the attention, and to hold up certain associations in the mind by means of media so subtle and indiscoverable, that one seems to think, feel, and act as spontaneously as though there was no other agency in the universe than his own.

Now, upon Mr. Campbell's own showing, a sinner is not renewed merely by the motives or arguments of the gospel; but by the exertion of physical power superadded to moral.He says definitely that it is the "power of circumstances," which in other matters we call providential. After all, then, it comes down to mere providential arrangement.— Thus for instance, when the Lord opened Lydia's heart, inclined or disposed her to attend to the words of Paul, he merely in a way of providence called her attention to the preach. ing of Paul, probably by arranging matters so that she should be in Philippi when the Apostle preached. In all this I see no influence upon the heart, giving an efficacy to the words of Paul, which, without such influence, they could not have had. I cannot from his language understand that he believes the doctrine of divine influence. Any one can perceive that the ten thousand ways and means which the Holy Spirit possesses are employed simply to bring the gospel to the attentive consideration of men through providences. When the gospel is once brought to their attention, it then depends upon

themselves whether they are renewed or not. The gospel itself, wherever it is preached is capable of occasioning trains of thought, of arresting attention, and of holding up eertain associations in the mind. It will do all this among the lost through eternity. No Holy Spirit is needed to do these things, nor do we need a subtle and indiscoverable media. I maintain then that this providential arrangement is brought in by Mr. Campbel to avoid the force of the argument from prayer, and that he does not hold the doctrine that the Holy Spirit gives to divine truth an efficacy in the heart which it could not otherwise have.

4. The reader will observe particularly that Mr. Campbell has not made an attempt to define the nature of the Spirit's power when he enabled the Apostles and others to speak in languages which they had never learned. He cannot define it while he keeps in view his own language in the dialogue. He says, "When we think of the power of the Spirit of God exerted upon minds or human spirits, it is impossible for us to imagine that that power can consist in any thing else but words or arguments" p. 349. The Holy Spirit taught the Apostles to speak in different languages. Will Mr. Campbell's subtle physical media account for this? Then it was something more than words and arguments, and an operation upon human spirits too.

[TO BE CONTINUED.]

Every year brings us many new readers. For their sakes especially, as well as for the more complete illumination and confirmation of our former readers, we consent to a sort of annual discussion of one of the most prolific sources of modern mysticism and error-a false theory of supernatural influence. Notwithstanding the subject has been so often discussed-to the entire exhaustion, as we supposed, of all the strength of former antagonists; still some new theologian fancies he can do better than any of his predecessors, and appears upon the stage in defence of some one of the too popular theories of conversion. We endeavor to give as much variety and utility to the subject as possible, so far as we are editorially bound to consider it, and that is only in such cases as our opposers give our essays to their readers. On any other consideration we regard the farther discussion of this subject as a work of supererogation. Still I think it is capable of being placed in bolder relief before the whole community; and I thank my friend Mr. Lynd for the opportunity he has given me for so doing.

I complain, however, of the ex-cathedra style and pontifical proscriptive character of the communication before us. There is a labored and studied effort to denounce as damnably heterodox-to exaggerate and to widen the difference by twisting and stretching it until the thread repeatedly snarls and breaks to his own discomfiture. Mr. Lynd feels where his strength lies, and has a right to use those weapons which he can best wield. The goat pushes with his horns, and the horse strikes with his hoof. Every animal knows what Nature has done for him.— Mr. Lynd feels that he is strong in popular prejudice, and that I am weak there; and therefore he makes the most obnoxious assertions pass for arguments and proofs "strong as holy writ."

In section 2d he says, "We are fairly at issue on a point of vital

importance to the whole scheme of redemption. If Mr. Campbell errs here, it is a fearful error, involving a departure from the faith once delivered to the saints." And what is it if Mr. Lynd errs here! Is it impossible or improbable in his case more than mine?

Again, in section 3d: "Mr. Campbell does not believe that the Holy Spirit exerts any influence upon the heart of a sinner, in renewing and sanctifying him, beyond that of the written word." And what if Mr. Lynd believes the contrary? What does all this prove?

My answer to the alleged difficulty of "asking help in time of need," which I supposed was a misapplication of the words, (for they were not spoken to unconverted, but to converted men,) by showing him how much might be done for Christians and for all men in the mysterious ways of Divine Providence: is repelled by saying, "I maintain that he does not hold the doctrine that the Holy Spirit gives to divine truth an efficacy in the heart which it could not otherwise have." And again I ask what does this prove or disprove? Does not all this and much to the same effect, look as if Mr. Lynd wrote for effect rather than for conviction?

Now while I, in my turn, declare that there is a difference between our views on "this vital subject," and my assurance that Mr. Lynd is in error, palpable error on this very subject of supernatural influence, I candidly do not think that his theory will keep him out of the kingdom of heaven hereafter, or ought to debar him from the present administration of that kingdom on earth, provided only his life is morally right with God and men. I think, however, that his theory, when promulg ed, may be greatly injurious to others. Still, my think or my belief on this matter I neither urge against him, nor in proof of my own views, There is, indeed, one candid acknowledgment, and it is a redeeming concession uttered by Mr. Lynd on the whole premises, which I shall also quote:-"It is true that I cannot find a name for the nature of the influence for which I plead, because it is an influence above all that I can conceive." Again: "I do not profess to understand the subject of divine influence, i. e. the mode by which God operates upon the human inind in renewing and sanctifying the heart; but I do profess to under. stand when that influence is virtually denied." Now I ask, why should he represent my departure from his theory "a departure from the faith once delivered to the saints"!!

In the part of the essay quoted no scripture is advanced, no argument, except it be found in this one point; viz. "when the gospel is once brought to their attention, it then depends upon themselves whether they are renewed or not." This is what logicians and mathematicians call a reductio ad absurdum-a reducing my argument to an absurdity. My

representation of converting influence leaves something depending upon one's self; therefore, is to be repudiated as unscriptural and fearfully erroneous? To this only argument in the essay, so far as it lays before my readers, I invite attention. Mr. Lynd's doctrine is, Whatever view of converting power leaves something depending upon one's self, is not of God. Then I ask why, in the name of reason, command, exhort, or beseech sinners to think, speak, believe, repent, or do any thing until they are converted, if there be not any thing whatever depending upon themselves in their conversion to God? Here, then, there is a clear issue between us. I maintain there is something depending upon ourselves; Mr. Lynd thinks there is nothing depending upon ourselves in the work of conversion. My proof is, "He that believeth not shall be condemned;" "Unless you repent you shall perish;" "God commands all men every where to repent:" "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" "Believe," "Repent," "Be baptized," as the case might be, is always the inspired answer to this question. Never once is it said, You can do nothing, and there is nothing for you to do. Having, then, fully answerall the argument in the part quoted, and I had almost said in the part not quoted as yet, I proceed to place before our readers a full view of the whole matter at issue.

Mr. Lynd's theory of conversion is

1. “Without faith it is impossible to please God."

2. This "faith by which the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of the soul, is the work of the spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily" [not always] "wrought by the ministry of the Word." Baptist Confession, chap xiv. sect. 1.

3. This faith is in the least degree of it different in the kind or nature of it from the faith and common grace of temporary believers; therefore it finally gets the victory. Ib. sect. 24.

On this view of the matter, I ask what gospel has Mr. Lynd for one of his sensible hearers who accosts him in the following words:You tell me, Mr. Lynd, 1st. 'I cannot please God or be justified without faith.'

2d. I cannot have faith without supernatural help.'

3d. 'I cannot pray for help without faith.'

4th. And if I could, God would not hear a sinner.' Now, Mr. Lynd, what shall I do?'

Mr. Lynd, 'You can do nothing, and there is nothing for you to do; for whatever view of converting power leaves something depending upon ones's self, is not of God.'

Is not this a glorious gospel!! If Mr. Lynd's unconverted hearers were sensible and reflecting men, they would ask him the above ques

tion, after stating to him the three first propositions which he had taught them.

Having stated one of Mr. Lynd's vital points, I beg leave to state one of mine. To make this plain I state as follows:

Eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, BY

MEANS.

These means are both divine and human. The divine means are, 1st. God purposed in and of himself to bestow eternal life in a certain way. 2d. He communicated his gracious purposes concerning this glorious affair by the Prophets. 3d. He sent his Son to reveal his being and perfections, and to make an expiatory sacrifice for our sins. 4th. His Son sent the Holy Spirit to preach, teach, and confirm, or to make intelligible and credible this testimony concerning God's love and Christ's unsearchable riches. Now we may safely affirm, that in the absence of any of these means, which are all of free favor or "sovereign grace,” eternal life would have been impossible to fallen man. But the human means, without which it would still þe impossible, are—

1st. We must receive it.

2d. We must enjoy it.

If any one ask, 'How is it to be received?' I answer, By faith, repentance, and baptism. And if asked, 'How is it enjoyed?' I answer, By obeying from the heart the truth, and by the indwelling of the Spirit of God, producing in us "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance," &c. Now God does not believe, repent, or obey the gospel for us. This we do for ourselves, and this much depends upon us. But this does no more nullify the grace of God than my seeing the sun by my eyes makes vision independent of God's bounty, or my sight a work of merit.

Outward and inward sight, or seeing and believing, are with me voluntary matters. God made the sun, and my eyeball, and my eyelid; but I see. Mr. Lynd says I cannot lift my eyelid; I say I can. This is here the vital point between us. God has not put the sun, nor my having an eye and its machinery, under my volition. These are sovereign gifts. But he has put the eyelid, and the machinery that directs the eye, under my volition; and if I do not see without farther help, the fault is mine. Mr. Lynd will have it that without the accompanying help of Omnipotence I cannot lift my eyelids-that every time I see, it is a miracle!

Mr. Lynd teaches in plain English, that some independent though indescribable supernatural help of the Spirit of God, preceding or accompanying the word read or preached, is in every case indispensable