words of one of God's martyred ones -oh, hear them! they are joyous as a bridal song, yet solemn as the anthem of the redeemed: "I am now ready to be offered up, and the time of my departure is at hand; I have fought a good fight; I have finished my course; I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day, and not to me only, but unto all those also that love his appearing." And now hear the last words of one who applied his deep wisdom to the acquisition of "Treasure, and purple pomp, and glory's meteor glory fall upon us, we shall receive immortal beauty, for we "shall be like him," and "all things shall be ours"-the world, life, death, things present, and things to come; all things shall he ours, and we shall be Christ's, and Christ is God's. And when, in the silence of the night, thou dost commune with thine own heart, and art still, say, O Christian ! is not all earthly fame a mere shadow compared with the glory of thine own mission? J. G. L. In this world we cannot receive The measuring line of your correcompense, for as it is only by the respondent appears certainly to be withdrawal of the sun-light that we very accurate; and he displays no can discern the myriads of worlds little tact in rescuing scripture from around us, even so it is not till the light" reckless quoters :" still, I will venof life is withdrawn that we can discern the glory of the spiritual universe; and when this veil of flesh is rent asunder, and our spirits depart to the God who gave them, "The high ones and the powerful shall come ture to say, he might have been a little more cautious in some of his statements. Thus, for instance, he says I plead that repenting and believing are doing good: I pleaded that if man could repent and believe he would do good. He says, again, man is incapable of yielding obedience to law, and yet it does not follow that the " fleshly mind cannot receive eternal life." If so, man can begin and the angels shall gaze upon us with eyes of love, as beings who have fought, yet not been conquered-who have been tempted, yet stainless-religion in the flesh, and yet the as earthly, yet spiritual, and high above all the inhabitants of heaven shall our thrones be set; and while the seraphim and cherubim veil their faces before Him, lest they perish while they gaze, wes hall look upon him with steadfast eye; we shall see Him as he is; and as the rays of his Apostle assures the Galatians they began in the spirit. Again, according to our theory, none could be unconvinced of sin, if the Spirit convinced the world. It has, however, not yet been shown that the word implies universality, and therefore I am obliged to consider it in a limited 66 those," he says, "who attend to, and receive his testimony, are convinced." The Saviour, however, makes no such addition to his words; the language is absolute, and refers the power of producing conviction to the Spirit. He says, again, the Spirit was sent to convince the world of "one sin." The Saviour, however, says sin-a general term, of which unbelief is the highest form. The Jews, on the day of Pentecost, were convinced of more than the sin of unbelief, when the Apostle brings home to them the charge of crucifying the Redeemer, which amounted to a violation of the sixth commandment. As regards the inquirers on the day of Pentecost "saving themselves," the language is evidently to be understood in strict accordance with the Apostle's exhortation as being a separation from the world, an "untoward generation." I presume J. D. will admit that those whom the Apostle then addressed were convinced of sin, and received joy from the Apostle's testimony of remission of sins through Christ; and hence it is said they gladly received his word, and in obedience to the apostolic injunction, came openly out from the world, and thus, in that sense, saved themselves. On Rom. iii. 9, J. D. says the Apostle was not referring to those who had murdered the Redeemer, but to other characters who had defamed him. It is clear, however, that he grounds his state-fore it cannot be considered in a serment that they were no better than such, on the fact that both Jew and Gentile were all under sin; and he himself, indeed, had consented to the death of Stephen, and kept the raiment of those who slew him. sense, as the results testified. “ Only I have already noticed some of your correspondent's observations about mis-stating A. Campbell by representing him as saying we do repentance, and faith, and baptism for ourselves," instead of we must do them for ourselves. If, however, leaving out the word "must" makes such an alteration in his meaning, why should J.D. repeat the error by saying, "Gentlemen, all these things are done by and for ourselves." That the sinner converted by the gracious operations of God's spirit, personally repents, believes, and is baptized, is a scriptural truth; but that they are done by and for himself, in order to his regeneration, and to make salvation available, is a very different idea. But your correspondent says they find it easy to say faith we do not do, repentance we do not do ; but how to get out of baptism is their difficulty. This difficulty, I apprehend, however, will vanish by considering :-1. That baptism is not done by the believer to be saved, because the scriptures teach believers are justified by faith in Christ, and consequently saved. 2. Baptism, if truly administered, recognizes the subjects of it as already repenting believers, and consequently is a fruit of their faith and repentance, and not a work done. 3. It has been already shown in the pamphlet, that the object of baptism is Christ. "We are baptized into Christ," and there On Ezekiel xxxvi. 26-27, I need only say it matters not whether J.D. applies it to the Jews or Gentiles(no doubt it had a primary reference to the former)—but as Gentiles are now grafted into the church, we find that what was spiritually applicable to the one was so to the other. vile point of view as done by and for ourselves. Your correspondent appears to act on the old adage, that constant dropping wears away a stone. Thus we have a vast variety of changes rung on "reckless quoting"" it is a hard thing to prove by scripture what is not in scripture," and so forth. I need not say how much harder it is to argue than to make assertions of this character. As my limits forbid me to be diffuse, I shall content myself with a very slight notice of some "reckless quoting" which your correspondent has detected in the Strictures. Thus it is plain from Hebrews, that though the Father brings many sons to glory, it is by and through the Son, for he is called their leader (Isa. lv.) and the captain of their salvation (Heb. ii. 10.) With regard to Eph. ii. 5 speaking nothing of "spiritual agency," I may well ask what agency does it speak of? Believers are there said to be "quickened together with Christ;" and as the quickening is a spiritual one, the agency to effect it must be spiritual, unless we can, by means of the word, quicken ourselves. Again: if Christ casting out devils does not represent his power in subjecting sinners to himself, what does it represent? J. D. may say it represents nothing but his power over devils. I need not say, in reply to this, that there cannot be a greater display of Christ's power over Satan than that which is displayed in conversion. Hence it is said to be a translation from the kingdom of darkness and from the power of Satan. Besides, in at least one case in which this power was exerted, the subject of it became, we have reason to believe, a disciple, and published how great things the Lord had done for him. The writers of the pamphlet may be reckless quoters of scripture, but to assert that the will of man is a concurring cause in receiving salvation, when the Apostle John asserts that believers are born "not of the will of man but of God," and James asserts it to be of his "own will," must be something more than reckless quoting. We are told, however, it was of Paul's own will the Corinthians were begotten. This, I apprehend, is quite in opposition to the idea of the will of his hearers being a concurring cause. The Apostle knew too well that his sufficiency was of God, ever to make an assertion of this kind; their being begotten by him through the gospel he does not say was of his will, but "in Christ Jesus." In reference to perversion 27, I need only add that the language of the Apostle, "the sword of the Spirit," would fully bear out the inference of the writers of the pamphlet, viz. that the Spirit makes it effectual, if it be admitted (and I think it must) that the Spirit was the sword; and strange would it be to call that the sword of the Spirit which the Spirit does not use; and, indeed, as I presume J. D. admits the Spirit is given to believers, what is he given for but to enable them to wield the sword? Perv. 28. Your correspondent tells us, on 2 Cor. x. 4, that the weapons of the Apostle's warfare were tongues, awful judgments, the wisdom of God, &c. ; but as these could not bring down "high imaginations" without the proclamations of that truth which can alone humble the sinner and exalt Christ, it is evident that the Apostle must have been referring mainly to the gospel, the other weapons being merely adjuncts of his warfare; but he adds, that to say the gospel preached by the Apostle was mighty through God, would be to say "that when a divine influence does not accompany a divine influence, it was powerless" this being an absurdity of his own making scarcely needs any comment, suffice it to say that the gift of tongues is no where called a divine influence, and was merely a sign to them that believed not. We are further told that the expression "mighty through God," is an Hebraism, and means exceedingly mighty; but if so it must have been made mighty by God-not, however, J. D. would intimate, without the will of man as a "concurring cause.' These exceedingly mighty weapons, then, are not able to overcome man unless his will concurs. Rather should we say they are always mighty when God pleases, and this the Apostle distinctly asserts where he says, "God giveth the increase." This last-named passage is said to be much abused by being applied to "the increase" in conversion. I should have thought that to ascribe conversion to God and not to man, was making the best possible use of the passage, and agreed with the Apostle's design in the connection, namely, to make nothing of himself and Apollos. Thus the Apostle represents himself and Apollos as merely ministers or servants by whom they believed. "I have planted"—that is preached the word-" Apollos watered"-he has assisted me in my labours-but neither the one nor the other would have succeeded if God had not given the increase. But even granting the increase to be love, joy, peace, &c. then in conversion surely such fruits are produced by turning from sin-love to Christ, peace in believing--for there can be no conversion without them. Your correspondent denies that Ephe. ii. 10, Col. iii. 1, and John iii. 14, describe a converting agency along with the word. If, however, men are raised from death in conversion, and made new creatures, I presume sound logic alone would refer the act of creation and resurrection to God; and as the Redeemer emphatically declares that men are born of water and of the Spirit, volumes to prove the reverse would be in vain. The word of God, your correspondent says, "is the life-giving word both in the spiritual and natural resurrection ;" but as in the latter case the expression implies divine power exerted, so in the former case the same power, though displayed in a different character, must be admitted. But J.D. says, only they who hear and obey Christ's voice live. Certainly a proof that they are already quickened so as to hear the powerful voice of the Son of God. After another declaration, that the quotations in the pamphlet do not amount to a unit of proof, J. D. proceeds to labor at 1st Thes. i. 5, as another "cipher" in supporting the converting operations of the Spirit. Here I venture to remark, however apt your correspondent's metaphors may be, that he might have advantageously left out that of the "two sheets of paper and envelope," and a suit of black and a new hat," unless he means to give us the idea that the Apostle was glorifying himself in his miraculous powers, divine gifts, and heavenly authority. What damages this view of the passage, however, most seriously is, that the Apostle speaks of the power and the Holy Ghost being in the gospel; or rather that the gospel was so to speak in the power and in the Holy Ghost, and that this same power or Holy Ghost came unto or into the Thessalonians. That the Apostle was not speaking merely of his presentation amongst them is plain from the previous passage, in which he speaks as "knowing their election of God," and for the very reason that the gospel came to them not in word but in power. Other Thessalonians had heard the apostolic testimony and rejected it he had appeared to them precisely in the same way; why, then, should he not know their election on the same ground? 66 Your correspondent appears to be a very Daniel come to judgment" on the " Baptist members." When, however, he compliments them in his last communication on having "perfect views" of the atonement, he makes a very great mistake about one of these " perfect views" being that the virtue of the atonement lies in the mere appointment of God. Passing over, however, his caricature of certain notions, I shall proceed at once to consider briefly how far he has actually met the real views of the writers. He tells us the leading view in the Strictures is, that "redemption is a commercial transaction." The writers, however, no where say so. But J. D. cannot deny that the Scriptures make use of metaphors borrowed from transactions connected with buying and paying debts: the term redeem is clearly used in this sense in the Old Testament, as in Lev. xxv. 25-28, "If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possessions, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold," &c. It would be superfluous to show how strikingly these appointments connected with the Jewish law typified the Lord Jesus Christ as our God, or kinsman Redeemer, buying back his church from the slavery and consequences of sin, allying himself with our fallen nature, and thus redeeming it and avenging himself over all our enemies. Thus, strange to say, the metaphor mixture of "purchase, ransom, forgiveness," &c. are all used in reference to the atonement, as in the following: "Grace bought with a price," "redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins." He asks did we (business men of Liverpool) ever hear of the price of a debt; and tells us that a price paid implies a purchase made, and not a debt liquidated. Now, I answer, it may imply both; for I need not say that a price paid not only implies a purchase made, but may also comprehend a debt discharged; and imperfect as these views of the atonement may seem, they are fully borne out by the scriptures, which already teach that there is no "perfection" without this discharge, by the offering up of Christ; for what, indeed, did Christ come for but to make atonement, to satisfy justice, to redeem his people? But your correspondent wants to know "who is the vendor in this commercial transaction," and exclaims, "You will scarcely say they are purchased from God to God." A reply to this question would be quite superfluous, as I do not suppose myself reasoning with a Socinian, who would object to the atonement altogether in much the same way. Suffice it to say, that Isaiah liii. Acts xx. 28, and 1 Cor. vii. 23, "Ye are bought with a price," &c. clearly bear out such representa tions of the atonement as those contained in the pamphlet ; and if they are "cramped, grovelling, and selfish," then let J. D. object to those passages of scripture which clearly teach them. With regard to misapplication 33, "The death of Christ is spoken of as a ransom," &c. Ps. xlix. 7, it will not appear such a very "random" quotation as represented, if reference is only made to the 15th verse of the same Psalm, “ God shall redeem my soul from the grave," &c. Thus the Psalmist clearly teaches that God redeems where man cannot; and if it be asked how does he redeem? the answer is by the blood of Christ. I am aware that this may probably be called another misapplication, and that it may be said to be the language of Christ prophetically. But as Christ could not have been redeemed from the grave had his sacrifice not been accepted, we can only look for redemption from the same source. Mis. 34. Your correspondent cannot conceive how the law of ransom could typify the atonement of Christ, because each man paid his own ransom, and the ransom was for Jews, not Gentiles. Precisely the same objection might apply to sacrifices; for every man had to furnish his own sacrifice and offering, and the sacrifices were offered for none but Jews. We have another assertion about negatives not amounting to affirmatives, and then comes a sweeping statement against the reply (B. M. H. p. 130), viz. in reference to a denial that the Divine Being loves all mankind. Can we account, says J. D. for this outrage on propriety? If, however, it should be proved not to be an outrage on scripture, it matters not what may be said about "propriety." I scarcely know what sort of a passage would be considered strong enough to express the above view. I will, however, quote Eph. v. 25-27, "Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it." "Behold what manner of love the Father hath |