Ezekiel xxxiii. 11. Phillip. ii. 12. "Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways--for why will ye die O house of Israel”—Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God that worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure." The passage expresses nothing beyond that summary of the divine law, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart. This is the new heart, and this the bounden duty of all rational creatures, in failure of which, they are inexcusably guilty and justly condemned. It is the duty of every one to have a holy heart. But this is no proof that the sinner has any disposition to obey the divine command--or that he ever will do it. It is not replying against God, but echoing the language of his word, to say that the sinner will not come unto Christ that he might have life; and therefore has no agency, but that of opposition in the renewal of his own heart. The analogy of Scripture fully confirms this truth. It is the uniform testimony of the word of God. and the experience of all who are savingly taught by his Spirit.

Compare this passage in Ezekiel, on which you rely as proof of human agency in regeneration, with the few following passages, and we need not set Scripture at war with itself. I shall recite them without comment. They need no explanation,

"Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me." Psalm li, 11.

"Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them and said unto them with men this is impossible—but with God and all things are possible? Matt. xix. 25. 26.

"Which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John i. 13.

"For by grace ye are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast. We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them." Ephesians ii. 8.-10.

66

I have planted, Apllos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planted any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." 1 Cor. iii. 6. 7. We never hear Paul as

sert that he had changed any sinner's heart, or that the sinner had changed his own heart. He uniformly ascribed the excellency of the power to God.

On this very principle was grounded that declaration of Christ. "No man can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father." John vi. 65. This trait of moral character, however, is the very accent of his guilt, and seals his ruin. It is unbelief, the grand condemning sin of the world. All the reasons or causes, why men cannot come to Christ, are the things in which they are sinful. It is not an excusing, self-justifying, natural inability. We say of a generous, public spirited man, he cannot be guilty of a mean, low action. The greatness of his soul, and the nobleness of his diposition will not admit of it.— Reverse the character, and we may see the propriety and force, of the Saviour's expression. "No man can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father." It is by reason of a proud, carnal heart, contrary to God and the gospel plan, that men cannot come to Christ. Such an exalted act of virtue is above moral character-for it is a self-emptying-soul humbling act. They therefore cannot perform it, except God give them such a heart—a humble and holy temper of mind.

The last paragraph of your remarks, seems to need particular attention, and to my feelings is peculiarly painful. After confidently asserting that the sinner, whom you had persuaded to become a Christian, had changed his own heart, you go on to say-And what matter is it, what were the operating motive--whether it were love or hatred, hope or fear, or whether accompanied with divine influence or not, if the important change be but accomplished? That a man of intelligence and reflection should adopt and explicitly avow a sentiment so dangerous, and which, were it upon a subject less important than the salvation of the soul, would appear too ludicrous for sober argument; is to me a matter of surprise and regret. But my dear Philemon, I am too deeply penetrated with grief, to be sportive or sarcastic. My desire is not to reproach but to convince. For this purpose, then, I ask you

to review the subject candidly, and in the light of divine truth. Look at the man whom you have persuaded to become a Christian, and whose heart, by the influence of selfish motives, you so confidently affirm that you have changed; and tell me what sort of a Christian he is. Is he a New Testament Christiana self-denied disciple-one whom Paul would have embraced as a beloved brother in Christ? What is it to be a Christian? Is it not to possess the benevolent spirit of Christ-to deny self--to love God, and to be actuated by a supreme regard to his glory? This is the new man produced by the sinner's change of heart in regeneration. Who is the author of this change, we need not stop to inquire, any longer than to open the Bible." It is the gift of God. We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." I charitably presume, Sir, that you was not aware of the irreligious nature of the sentiment, that it is immaterial by whose agency the work of regeneration is wrought, or whether accompanied by divine influence or not, provided the important change be accomplished. Is this Scriptural? Is it a doctrine according to Godliness?-the faith once delivered to the saints, and embraced by the church of Christ, from the time of the apostles to the present day? Does it not contradict all Christian experience, and the feelings of every humble believer in Jesus? Your Theorem, is built on this selfish principle, that the creature is his own last end--that the sinner's salvation has no higher ultimate end, than his own happiness; and therefore if this end be but accomplished, or ensured, it is indifferent by what means or by whose agency. This doctrine is in safe keeping with such a principle, as a natural and necessary consequence, and it can flow from none other. But, my dear friend, does this sentiment' manifest a due regard to the rights of Deity? Does it humble the sinful creature, and give God the throne? Has the glory of God, no claim in this greatest of his works, the restoration of the poor, miserable, ruined sinner to holiness, to happiness, and to heav en? Has he resigned this claim, or consented to divide it with his creatures since he solemnly announced

"For my own sake, even for my own sake, will I do it, and I will not give my glory to another?" Isaiah xlviii. 11. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the Beloved." Ephesians i. 6. Now how does it appear in the light of these Scriptures, to attach no importance or necessity to God's agency in regeneration-to leave his glory wholly out of the account, and say, what matter is it whether it be accompanied with divine influence or not, if the important change be but accomplished ?—It is the most solemn trifling-invading the divine prerogative, and treating the office of the Holy Spirit with great and awful disrespect.

Furthermore, you view it of no importance, what be the operating motive, whether love or hatred, fear or hope. In this you are speaking of regeneration, and not of conviction or awakening. And now without, recurring to the fact, which may be abundantly shown, that means have no effect in changing the heart--I ask you to look at the inconsistency which you have presented for truth--a selfish motive as the means of changing the heart, and producing holy affections :how preposterous the idea! How pointedly condemned by the Saviour's instruction-" Neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit-for of thorns men do not gather figs-nor of a bramble-bush gather they grapes." No comment is necessary. Make the ap

--:

plication for yourself, and beware that you build not your house upon the sand.

I close this long letter, with a short reply to that hacknied cavil of the ungodly--you can and you cantyou will and you wont,&c. "Wo unto him that striveth with his Maker. Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? He that reproveth God, let him answer it."

Your affectionate friend,

ARISTARCHUS.

9

LETTER VIII.

DEAR SIR,

The next objection which you have brought, and which I am now to consider you express in the following terms.

"These doctrines of our absolute dependence, and of the universal divine agency, must be false, wicked and dangerous, because they represent God as the author of sin. This is repugnant to every right notion of Deity which we can gather from Scripture or reason. We read in our Bibles, James i. 13, 14, "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted of evil, neither tempteth he any man; but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away with his own lust and enticed." Therefore God cannot be the author of sin, nor his agency concerned in effecting it."

If by God's being the author of sin be meant, the actor or committer of it, I equally reject the doctrine as absurd and blasphemous: but if the word be designed to signify nothing more than the universal agency of God, or that sin is an effect of which the divine agency is the cause ;-this would set the objection in a materially different point of light. This doctrine is a consequence fairly and regularly drawn from established premises. It is in strict and inseparable connexion with the doctrine of absolute dependence; established upon the firmest basis, and capable of abundant proof. It stands supported by the united testimony of reason and scripture. If this can be fully shown to the eye of the candid inquirer, the heavy charge brought against it, of being a wicked and dangerous doctrine, is unfounded and misapplied.

The only point now in question is the universal divine agency. If this be a true doctrine it is consistent