bestowed on us, that we should be called the sons of God." I presume it must be clear, from these passages, that the love of God is not bestowed on all. But John iii. 16 is quoted as proving the reverse: "God so loved the world as to send his only begotten," &c. Now, the word world here may be understood as referring to character, or persons. He so loved the world—the ungodly: he so loved the world—not Jews only, but Gentiles; not that he loved all mankind, for -4000 years had rolled away before he sent his son, and previously the great bulk of mankind were ignorant of a Saviour; but that God does not love the Jew merely, or give his son for the redemption of a certain class boasting on their descent from Abraham and external privileges (a blow evidently aimed at the ideas of Nicodemus as as Jew); but he loves men of the worst character, and of every nation, that whosoever, whatever may be the depth of misery and sin in which he is sunk, believeth on him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. Perv. 34, 35, and 36, I have barely space to glance at. With regard to the first, John xii. if Christ prayed not for the world, but for those who had been given him, then those who believed on him through the Apostle's words must have been given him, since he prays for these. On 2 Cor. v. 18-20, I need only say that the reconciled need often to be reconciled to God in their conduct and state of mind, &c. This was the case with the Corinthians, whom the Apostle exhorts not to receive the grace of God in vain. With regard to Tim. ii. 6, it is easy to see, when compared with J. D.'s observations about a "metaphor mixture," of how much value his universal ransom would be as it regards actually redeeming men from sin. The passage, however, when compared with Rev. v. 9, "Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and people, and tongue, and nation," clearly indicates universality as it regards character, clime, and nation, but particularly as it regards individuals. 66 In reference to the expression which has particularly caught J. D.'s attention, viz. "Our sins, it is true, deserve punishment, but not after atonement is made," I need only say that, if it is admitted that justice is satisfied, and the atonement made accepted as infinitely sufficient, then the atonement must "demand pardon and justification:" if not, what does? Certainly not mercy; for if justice remains unsatisfied, then mercy cries in vain. True, our sins deserve punishment," considered in themselves, and irrespective of the worth of Christ's offering and obedience; but when the Father has accepted the suretyship, engagements, and obedience of his son, even unto death, "he is well pleased for his righteousness' sake," and consequently it is no longer "a question of grace whether the pardon or acquittal of the sinner shall be granted," seeing that the question has been already settled by the acceptance of Christ's sacrifice. J. D. appears to think that the writers of the pamphlet do their judgment and understandings injury by supposing that the idea that the atonement does not do away with liability to punishment, leads directly to Popery; and tells us, that " a person who has truly believed in Christ," &c. is little likely to fall into this error. Certainly not; but if he does not see the worth of Christ's sacrifice, as that alone which takes away his sin, if he does not adopt Popery, he may adopt something not much better. For if we inquire into the character of Popery and its origin in the church, we shall find it sprung from a setting aside the great truth of Christ's vicarious satisfaction, or sacrifice, for the sins of his church. Thus penances, masses, and purgatorial fires, are only so many doctrines aimed at the suffi ciency of Christ's blood to expiate sin. NOTE. It would be unnecessary and improper for us to make any formal reply to G. R. D. seeing that our friend J. D. is so capable of re It would, perhaps, be considered a great omission not to notice perversion 29, which has escaped me in the pre-plying for himself. We cannot, howvious remarks, Isaiah lv. 10. J. D. intimates it is plain from these words that the word is always sent to do good. The prophet, however, declares it is sent to accomplish Jehovah's pleasure, and prospers in that. Is it the Divine purpose that all mankind shall be saved? Why, then, does not the word "prosper" in accomplishing it? The passage clearly shows a Divine purpose; and if this is "fatalism," be it so. Rom. ii. 8-10 show that the word of God may mysteriously only aggravate a nation's guilt: thus it was with Israel. God did not in their case make his word effectual to increase their infidelity and sin, and thus it only witnessed against them, and brought on desolating judgments. ever, refrain from remarking, that G. R. D. either greatly misunderstands, or apparently perverts, the arguments embodied in J. D.'s two last articles. Besides, we object to the length of the article: six pages of such prosing theology are too much to insert in one number of the Harbinger. Articles of this character, which can neither correct error nor enlighten the mind, should be few and far between. But, we are sorry to say, such articles are too much in accordance with the pulpit teaching of the present day. "Onward and upward" is the motto in all the arts and sciences: the antiquated theology of sectarian Christianity is an exception—it remains stationary, leaving the world to perish under the deadly weight of its own inconsistencies. G.R.D. states that Paul planted the word of God at Corinth, and that Apollos, of course, must have watered it with the same word. Now this appears to us to be without meaning. Paul planted the Lord's vineyard, house, building, temple; or, in other words, the church of the living God at Corinth. He proclaimed the faith and hope of the gospel in Corinth; he also demonstrated the truth of the things he taught by the mighty signs and wonders, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, which were displayed among them through his instrumentality. Men and women were begotten to a living hope by this truth-they were immersed into Christ for the remission of sins by their own voluntary act—and were thus espoused to one husband by the power of the gospel In closing these remarks, I may notice one statement made by your correspondent rather prematurely. He says, "The great doctrine-justification by faith alone—is quite given up without an attempt to sustain it." Reply, however, appeared to me to be quite unnecessary when there was nothing to reply to. True, he makes an allusion to the Apostle James, in which he says he describes justification by faith alone as justification by a dead faith. Yet I took the liberty of pointing out a discrepancy in his statements on this point, inasmuch as he first says the doctrine is not so much as named in the Divine word, and how could James | describe it to be justification by dead faith? To say the least, the burden of proof lay on J. D. to show that James was referring to the doctrine at all. On the contrary, the subject he propounds is that of those profess-Christ's death. Apollos watered these ing to be justified, showing their faith by their works. Yours respectfully, Liverpool, June 28, 1848. G. R. D. planted together into the likeness of plants, (Ps. xcii. 13); that is, being mighty in the Scriptures, which are the sword of the Spirit, his teaching proved efficacious; he not only helped those much who had believed through this favour being sent among them instead of the law of Moses, but he also mightily convinced the Jews that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. Thus Paul planted this field, or church, and Apollos watered it. By this means God gave the increase. May we be permitted to ask G. R. D. if he really understand the Apostle Paul to designate the Spirit of God the sword of the Spirit? Surely he must know that the Apostles never expressed such an idea in any of their epistles. Paul exhorted the Christian disciples at Ephesus to take to themselves the word of God, which, he adds, is the sword of the Spirit. The disciples, and not the Holy Spirit, were to take this sword with two edges, one for sinners and the other for saints, (Heb. iv. 12) and with all prayer and supplication, go forth in the name of the Lord to subdue men and women into subjection to His laws and government who is King of the Universe. J. W. CONVERSION. BY WHAT SORT OF INFLUENCE IS THE SOUL CONVERTED? THIS is a most interesting and important question, though one which has not been duly considered, and consequently is not understood by the generality of those professing Christianity in the present day. The following essay is recommended to the serious examination of all, but especially of Baptist friends, some of whom are now engaged in opposing the things for which we contend in refe rence to conversion. It is universally regarded as a first truth, an axiom in philosophy, that every effect must have a cause, and not merely so, but a cause corresponding to the nature of the effect. An irresistible conviction of this truth forces itself on every mind, whether savage or civilized. Hence no rational being could be seduced into the belief that the ingenuity of the little ant created the world, or that the power of the huge elephant constructed the chronometer. Therefore, when any effect is explained in such a manner as to contradict this principle, we may expect, without the hazard, or even the possibility of error, that it is attributed to a wrong cause. To apply these principles to the case before us, let us consider, for a moment, the nature of the effect in question. What, then, are we to understand by this conversion? To convert (converto) is a Latin word merely anglicised, and when translated into English, it means to change. All changes are conversions. Hence we speak of the fruitful field being converted into a barren waste; the sober man converted into a drunkard; the trees of the forest converted into a lordly dwelling; a living man converted into a mass of lifeless clay. All these are conversions or changes, each of its own kind, and each requiring a different cause for its production. But the conversion of which we now speak differs from all these, in that it is a change, not of matter, but of mind. Nor is every change of mind the conversion which is now to be considered. Many minds may be converted from holiness to sin, as well as from sin to holiness. The latter conversion, viz. a change from sin to holiness, is the one at present under consideration. Now, it will not be denied that motive gives character to action. Conduct not under the influence of motive cannot be pronounced holy; neither can it be pronounced sinful without a gross perversion of terms. I feel very confident that this position is impregnable, and that I can easily prove it to be such, should it be assailed. We have already seen that the power applied to effect any change must always correspond to the nature of the change that is to be effected. The carpenter never attempts to con vert the trees of the forest into a dwelling by logical arguments. Neither does the bricklayer attempt to convert brick and mortar into a stately mansion by moral reasoning, or mathematical demonstration. No less absurd than either of the preceding attempts would be that of converting the mind by the application of any other power than the influence of motives. The lever, the wedge, and the screw, are incapable of being applied to mind for its conversion, even if they possessed the power to convert it when so applied. Motive is the only power known to us (or of which we can form any conception) that is capable of influencing, changing, or converting mind, or of altering its affections, desires, and purposes. So philosophy decides, and its decision is supported by the uniform testimony of scripture: "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." The Saviour does not pray to his Father to sanctify his disciples by the direct influences of the Spirit, or by any other influence than that exerted through motive. "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." The scriptures are every where represented as "able to make men wise unto salvation." "Faith comes by hearing," &c. Man never feels right, nor acts right, by the influence of falsehood; and he never feels wrong, nor acts wrong, by the influence of truth. This principle of the influence of motives is fully sustained and illustrated by every system of means put in operation by the Omniscient for the salvation of ruined man. Nowhere can we find a trace, or even an intimation, of any attempt to convert the sinner, except through the influence of the truth, the power of motives. than through motives) may imagine that, by such reasoning, we rob God of his glory, and the spirit of his office in the work of salvation. This conclusion is as far removed from the truth as it is possible for it to be. No person expects God to convert souls by the application of the handsaw, the gimblet, or the trowel. Why not? Simply because the idea of such a power applied for the production of such an effect is plainly incongruous and absurd. No man unsophisticated by a false and deceitful philosophy can, for a moment, divest himself of the belief, that minds can be changed only by motives. Hence, those that are employed in the work of conversion are equipped for that work with motives, and with motives alone-the bliss of heaven, the agonies of hell, the love of God, the constraints of gratitude. The God who made man understands his organization too well to set about this work in any other way. bare idea of conversion through any other instrumentality is as incongruous as that of building brick houses by logical arguments. The Now, we contend that the truth, in relation to God, and to man, as a creature of God, and dependent upon him, in all its connections and bearings, furnishes the motives by which the sinner must be converted to God, if converted at all. When these motives convert him, the Spirit converts him, not, indeed, with the trowel or gimblet, but with the only instrument that is applicable in the case, viz. the truth. "Of his own will begat he us by the word of truth." The truth on these subjects is the voice of the Spirit, even among heathen nations that have not the written word. The things of God could only be known by the Spirit of God, and therefore The superficial thinker, who has they must for ever have remained been indoctrinated into an undefined hidden from the world, had not the and unintelligible theory of direct Spirit revealed them. Hence, whenspiritual operation (I mean such as soever and wheresoever, even in are exerted on mind any other way' heathen lands, the knowledge of sin ditional glory-or any glory at all— dishonors him that it makes the death of Christ, and all the machinery connected with it, an unnecessary and unmeaning pageant. as ruinous to the soul, and hateful in the sight of God, causes men to repent of their sins, and turn from them to the love and practice of piety, we have genuine examples of conversion by the Spirit through the truth; not, Hear the proof. If sinners can be however, by a direct operation, with- converted by a direct spiritual operaout the intervention of motives, or to tion, there was evidently no necessity make it possible for motives to have for the death of Christ. According effect. Thus "in every nation, he to that hypothesis, they could have that fears God and works righteous-been converted as easily without his ness, is accepted of him." Such an death as with it. Nay, it does not individual may, with strict propriety, even facilitate the conversion; for, be said to have been converted by the notwithstanding the death of Christ, Spirit through the truth. sinners are still as dependant on the direct influence of the Spirit for their conversion, as they would have been if he had not died, or as they were dependant in the beginning on the power of God for their creation. And, according to the theory in question, until they are converted by an abstract influence, or a direct operation of the Spirit, it is absolutely impossible for them to be properly affected by that love which was manifested on Calvary. Away, then, with the preposterous notion, that those who contend for conversion by direct spiritual operation, without the intervention of motives, and who maintain that such conversion is necessary to make it possible for motives to have effect, give God all the glory of salvation, but that all others rob him of this glory. It would be just as rational to affirm that it would be more honorable to God if the scripture read thus: "Of his own will begat he us -by the chissel and hammer-rather than by "the word of truth." Now if this be so, it is most manifest that the death of Christ contributes not a whit to their conversion, and was wholly unnecessary for that purpose. Neither could it be con ance and progress in holiness. It is obvious, that direct spiritual influence could more easily preserve and perfect them in holiness after their conversion, than convert them from sin in the first instance. But, it may be said, God's justice demanded an expression, and that the death of Christ was necessary to enable the Father to pardon sin consistently with the claims of his vio The difference, then, if any, between us and other Christians on this sub-sidered necessary for their continuject lies here. We give God's Spirit the whole praise of converting sinners in a manner both rational and scriptural, viz. by the truth. Others think they give the Spirit greater praise by making him convert sinners in a way that is neither scriptural, rational, nor possible. For, as we have already seen, it is very manifest that such a change as we now contemplate can be effected only by motives; and that no change not influenced by mo-lated law. I fully assent to this sentives, could with any propriety be called a conversion from sin to holiness. But there is still a stronger objection to that theory of spiritual operations which we oppose than any which has yet been mentioned. Reader, attend-I affirm, and shall undertake to prove, that the theory in question, so far from giving God ad timent, but I contend that it builds up my argument, and completely overthrows that of the opposition. What are we to understand by the justice of God? And why is it that the demands of justice made the death of Christ necessary as a propitiation for sin? The justice of God, as the moral |