hopes of heaven upon this revelation of dreams, visions, and impulses, These are the rock of their salvation. And the other tendency, equally pernicious, is that eventuating in despair. How many are there, who, because they cannot tell so good a revelation of dreams, voices, and impulses, are never moved to action under all the lights and influences of God's true spirit striving with them. The fanatics of Nat Turner's school, and all the enthusiasts of every other school, together with all the despairing suicides, and doubting and fearing drivillers, those hangers on religious society, are the victims of this capital error. Glad am I to see that Bishop Broaddus has got his eyes open to this subject at length, and that he has become as heretical as ourselves; and I am sure if he had given this admonition to "the ministers and churches" some ten years ago, it would have been stilt more necessary than now, and likely might have prevented the fanaticism of Nat Turner and some other kindred spirits, as visionary, though not so infernally instigated as he was.

Believing that "it is eternal life to know the only true God and his Son Jesus Christ his Apostle," we set ourselves in the first volume of our labors to expose this destructive error, and to found religion where its divine author founded it-in the words just now quoted from his lips. Had it not been for this error, the long controversy about spiritual operations had never been broached.

Our three great maxims, which we have never before laid side by side; but which have been three cardinal points in our theological compass, are these:

1. The testimony of God believed, constitutes christian faith.

2. The testimony of God understood, constitutes christian knowledge.

3. The testimony of God obeyed, constitutes christian practice. Corollary.-All true religion is founded upon the testimony of God, developed and authenticated by the Holy Spirit.

But because we have protested against a new revelation of spiritual dreams, voices, and impulses, we have been slandered, denounced, and proscribed by all the dreamers, and by all those whose authority with the people rested upon the relations which they made concerning their spiritual calls, dreams, visions, and impulses; amongst whom we are now sorry to rank Bishop Broaddus, notwithstanding his having become so heretical,

It is true he would take a little credit to himself for traducing us into the error which he has invented for us, of what he calls "the Holy Spirit having infused into the word a holy spirit, which we may receive," and in holding this up as our extreme to balance the other extreme of "the ministers and churches" he has admonished. But this we repel as a slander. If he will induce "he ministers and churches" to form all their ideas of religion from the written word, and to rely upon no light but the testimony of God in their hearts, as he now endeavors, we will never say a word on the subject of spiritual influences. He may philosophize amongst the fathers and mothers,

the sons and daughters of men, about the modus operandi, till the day of his death, without provoking a demur or a caveat from us.

We do not, however, repent of our course, seeing that even our warmest and most dogmatical opponents are admonished by it to change their course; and while they ostensibly oppose, in fact cooperate with us in many important items.

The following incontrovertible facts have much meaning, and disprove the theories opposed to us:

1. In the vegetable kingdom God creates all that has vegetable life by a power which never operates out of an established channel, Nature cannot produce an oak without an acorp, the soil, and the influences of atmospheric air, solar rays, and moisture. Thorns bear not grapes, thistles yield not figs, nor vines olive berries, says James; and so says our observation. God has not, in six thousand years, or since the first creation, exerted any power to produce any vegetable product but in an authenticated and established channel. This is the law of God's creative power. We speak not of miracles, but of the established order of things in vegetable life and being.

2. In the animal kingdom God creates all that has animal life by a power which never operates out of an established channel. Wolves bring not forth lambs, nor lions kids. From the egg of the serpent there is not hatched a dove, nor are the feathers of the ostrich plucked from the wings of a raven. Human beings come not forth from the fowls of the air, from the fish of the sea, nor from the beasts of the field. His power to create all these operates only in immutable channels, subject to undeviating laws.

3. In the spiritual kingdom God creates all that has spiritual life by a power which never operates out of an established channel. Men will sooner see with their fingers and hear with their hands, than inan or woman have one spiritual idea without the written word. Hence where this vision is not, the people sit in darkness and dwell in the region and shadow of moral death. What does the native Hindoo, the Japanese, the Tartar, or the Colon bo Indian know of the sacrifice of Jesus or the remission of sins through the blood of the Son of God. As soon as we discover a human being possessed of any spiritual idea without oral or written tradition, we will find apples without trees, lambs without dams, and infants without mothers. It is God creates us anew in Christ Jesus-it is the power of God that gives us spiritual life-and it is the power of God which gives us a kid, a dove, a fig, and an apple; but this power is subject to laws, and operates in channels which are unchangeable. And until men can explain how the bones of a child are formed in the womb, how the plumes of the peacock are developed from the egg, and how the orange emanates from the germ of a shrub, they will not be able to explain the operation of the Spirit of God which gives spiritual life to the soul dead in trespasses and sins. Our wisdem is not to speculate, and worry and devour each other because of our discordant theories of vegetable, animal, and spiritual life; but our wisdom is to sow wheat in the earth, to plant corn in the soil, to look for lambs from

the fold, grapes from the vine, and spiritual ideas from the revelation of God. Did not these analogies exist, our Saviour would not have borrowed his illustrations from parents and children, from quickning and being born, from the plant and the vine, from the earth and its fruits, from sowing and reaping, from bread and water, from life and death, from nature and society.

But here is the folly of our opponents: they tell us that they cannot explain how any one is born of the Spirit, and yet condemn us for not receiving and teaching their theory! Reader, remember this.

ANDREW BROADDUS, HIS DILEMMAS, AND HIS GOSPEL OF THE SPIRIT.

But we shall, from the aforesaid Religious Herald, introduce Andrew Broaddus under his title of "Christianos," with his dilemmas and his reductio ad absurdum:

"1. We shall now place the advocates of this sentiment in a dilemma, from which we think they can find no way to escape:

"It is admitted that faith must precede baptism, otherwise baptism is of no avail. Now this faith either "works by love," or it does not. If it does not work by love, then, not only is it wanting in validity, according to the Apostle's representation, but then must the subject be baptized without any love to Jesus Christ, and so must be under the apostolic anathema. Here, then, is one -horn of the dilemma. If this faith does work by love, then the subject loves Jesus Christ before he is baptized (which certainly he ought to do;) and love being the very essence of religion, he must have a holy spirit before he is baptized; and whence comes this holy spirit, if, as yet the Holy Spirit has not been imparted to him? Here is the other horn of the dilemma. Now, candid reader, is not the advocate for the sentiment above mentioned enclosed between these two horns?

"2. We shall reduce the argument or sentiment to an absurdity. And here we shall use what logicians call the argumentum ad hominem, or take the advocates of the sentiment on their own ground.

"The holy spirit which believers receive is derived, it seems, merely from the word, or from imbibing the truth. This is all the Holy Spirit that they plead for. Now can a person truly repent and unfeignedly believe in Jesus Christ, without "receiving the love of the truth," or the truth in the love of it? Surely not. Well, then, the penitent believer receives the word, by which only the Holy Spirit, or a holy spirit, can be received; and yet before baptism he has received no holy spirit with it-he has received it as "a dead letter"aye, as a dead letter: but after baptism he receives, in the same word, the Holy Spirit. Mirabile dictu! If this be not glaring inconsistency-downright ab surdity-I would fain know what is so?"

We shall test this dilemma by applying it to its inventor's theory. We shall regard the mechanism of its horns with all logical accuracy. It is argued that the Spirit must precede faith, i. e. must enter the heart of an unbeliever and operate upon it, otherwise faith is of no avail. Now this spirit either works by the truth or it does not. If it does not work by the truth, then not only is its work wanting in holiness according to the Saviour's representation, but then must the subject believe without any truth to be believed, and so must come under the Saviour's condemnation-"He that believeth not the gospel shall be condemned," Here, then, is one horn of the dilemma. If this spirit does work by the truth, then the subject knows or has re

ceived the truth before he believes, (which certainly is a very singular proposition,) and the truth (or gospel) being the very substance of faith, he must have faith before he believes. Here is the other horn of the dilemma. Now, candid friend Broaddus, are not you the advocate of such a sentiment, "enclosed between these horns." These, too, are not horns of wax, like those you have wrought for others. These horns will not be melted by a touch of the fire of truth like those fancy horns which your fervid imagination has fashioned for a terror to the inquisitive. These waxen horns are dissolved when it is understood that there is no faith working by love, but that which is leading the soul forward in obedience, or that no one can truly love the Saviour whose soul is not following him in all the obedience of the truth. The love, then, as well as the peace of mind tasted before the overt act, is always co-existent with, or subsequent to, the determination to act. The case of Simon [Extra, No. 3, p. 20.] who is reprieved on condition of a stipulated act, might have saved the labor of forming this dilemma had its creator been mindful of what he there read.

But this dilemma, in its second horn, is as perfect a quibble as ever made a jury smile: for who can imagine a faith working by love before it works at all? The faith of friend Broaddus, by which he was justified on his theory, never worked either by love or fear until he was justified! for if he had been justified by a faith working by any principle, he would not have been justified by grace, John Calvin being judge. What sophisms do some zealous-minded disciples construct when they set about making dilemmas to entangle the unwary and to allure them from those whom they cannot meet on the book!

But once more on this dilemma, and the absurdity, by way of makereight, added to it. His assumption is false; for we do not affirm "that all the holy spirit for which we plead is derived merely from the word." He is then fighting with a chimera of his own creation. We contend that our heavenly father gives his Holy Spirit to them who submit to the government of his Son. But, inasmuch as Andrew cannot explain how any man is born of the Spirit according to his favorite text, "The wind bloweth," &c. how dare he condemn any thing we have said or written on the subject!!! We say that no person can enter into the kingdom unless born of the Spirit. He says so too. But he says he cannot tell how one is born of the Spirit as he cannot tell whence the wind comes or goes.

The consolations of the gospel of the Holy Spirit preached by Bishop Broaddus, appear to be the following:

Article 1. No man can believe unless the Holy Spirit work faith in his heart.

2. The Spirit works faith only in the hearts of a very few of them who hear the gospel.

3. In these few it works by no other system than arbitrary choice. 4. If the unbeliever ask for the Spirit, he is not to be heard nor regarded; for without faith it is impossible to please God.

5. If he read the Scriptures he cannot understand them, for they are spiritually discerned,"

Corollary-Every natural man is by this gospel of the Spirit comforted with the peradventure, that perhaps it may be his good fate to be one of those in whom the Spirit will work faith; and if not, he must stoically await his doom. This is our reductio ad absurdum of his theory of what he cannot explain. And with this we shall bid him adieu for the present, waiting for his solution of this quillemma. EDITOR.

For the Millennial Harbinger.

Brother Campbell,

KING & QUEEN, January 30, 1832,

THE particular design of this communication is to correct your notice of the case of suicide, published in the December number of the Harbinger. The report, as it now stands, may lead to unfavorable impressions, and ought to be, in any event, corrected. The brother of whom you received information, was doubtless unacquainted with the facts of the case, else the mistakes existing in the report would not have been made. In these days it is no easy matter to get at the truth upon subjects of common report.

Mr. never presented himself for membership to any church in King William, nor withdrew from any appointed immersion. These are the mistakes of the report, (the balance being substantially correct, as alledged to me by his brother-in-law, a truly respectable disciple,) and will be corrected when I have stated that he presented himself for admission to the First Baptist Church in Richmond, and would have been there baptized, without any objection that we know of, but for the circumstance of his suddenly leaving town. His mind became affected, and seemed to dwell more particularly upon his religious exercises than usual; and he would speak of the effects of the different methods of proclaiming the gospel, and the improprieties into which he had fallen while detailing before the church a long experience; declaring, as his friend informed me, that if he had heard the ancient gospel only, he should not so have sinned, but been a happy man. These things may be considered by some as the mere figments of a maniac's fancy; be it so: but all who knew him well, will probably admit that he was a young man of acute sensibility, and upon the subject of religion would be as likely as not to suffer from discordant teaching. I conversed with him not long before he went to Richmond, and from what was to be learned from himself or others, he appeared to be a firm believer in the Saviour, but apologized for his disobedience by urging his desire to obtain some extraordinary manifestation of the divine favor? Fatal teaching! It seems to me that the funeral fires of Brahma are less destructive of the great interests of immortal souls, than is the influence of this doctrine as commonly inculcated in christendom. The very best classes of society are, by its legitimate operation, made to suffer most largely. The moral man is made to wait and look, and look and wait, until he learns fairly to live without God in the world, or is thrown into fren