and especially his manner of identifying the vision in the third of Beltshazzar, with the interpretations in the first year of Darius, we have shown to be palpably erroneous and deceptious.

3. His making the last thousand years of the world a mere day of judgment, is alike destructive of the meaning of the last day and of a thousand years reigning of the saints, and of his own theory of the age of the world, as being of seven thousand literal years duration.

4. And last, though not least, his radical misconception of the import of the word sanctuary, and especially of the phrase "the cleansing of the sanctuary," forbids any confidence in his biblical and philological attainments as a mere commentator, much less an interpreter of prophecy. In no respect is Mr. Miller elevated above his Baptist brethren in talent or erudition, except it be that he has studied the prophecies more than the most of them, and speaks with a dogmatical assurance greater than any of them. For my part, I do not think that any man who substitutes mourning benches and anxious seats for the Lord's ordinances, and calls for sinners to come up to him as a mediator to be prayed for, instead of beseeching them to be reconciled to God, and to come to God's ordinances for comfort and deliverance, can possibly speak by any inspiration of the Spirit, or be a chosen vessel to harbinger the day of the Lord. A. C.

1440 04444

CONVERTING INFLUENCE.

L. to E.

BETHPAGE, July 9.

THE question at present is this:-Is it not necessary that a power or influence, DISTINCT FROM the word, should always accompany it, in order to render it effective in conversion and salvation? I answer this question in the affirmative, without hesitation. I think it is necessary, and that the word ALONE converts and saves no one.

However people differ about this theoretically, I am convinced that all agree with me practically. And this, after all, is the best way of testing principle. For what party is it that is content to leave conversion to the word alone? Not those who preach the doctrine of its alone-sufficiency, I am sure, else they would leave the word to accomplish the work alone, and no longer encumber it with help. Why, if they believe their own teaching, do they not read or simply state the gospel facts, and suffer them to act by their own power? Or why, rather, do they not suffer the truth to work its way through the world in silence, unaided by a human voice? Why do they add their personal efforts their preachings, teachings, their mourning exhortations,

their prayers and entreaties? Why do they bring to bear upon the sinner the influence of friends, of special solicitation, of sympathetic feeling, of the melting harmony of music, and all the favorable circumstances within their command? Is it not because they know that without these influences the word will fail to effect conversion? And are not these influences a means distinct from the word, thus made to accompany it in order to render it effective in conversion?

How inconsistent men are! They who preach the spirit alone as necessary to conversion, fail not to preach the word also, and to add the influence of persuasion in every mode in which it can be made to operate; while they who preach the word alone are just as careful to add to it their prayers for divine aid and all the means usually employed to move the feelings and induce to action, as though they believed these mainly to be depended upon in the affair. So per. fectly agreed, in fact, are all parties in this respect, that a stranger to their theories would perceive but little, if any difference, in their mode of conducting religious meetings for the purpose of conversion. They are always the most successful in making converts to any party who are the most eloquent, or who can manage with the greatest address the various agencies, external and collateral, appertaining to what are termed "revivals." In the use of these agencies, to a greater or less extent, (and the use of them at all is an admission of the principle,) all agree; but all at the same time, while thus substantially agreed in practice, reserve and guard with care the privilege of contending with each other about the theory of conversion!

But,' you will say, it is the word after all which converts. The influences of which you speak are employed only to engage men in the consideration of the subject. I do not expect the word to act until it is fully presented to the mind. Preaching, teaching and exhortation are designed for this end-to call the attention of mankind to the gospel; this, when clearly perceived, will act by its own power.'

You expect then these special influences and agencies to accomplish the same thing in effect as the direct influence of the spirit, which is supposed to bring the gospel or word of God home to the hearts and minds of men. For I believe it is now admitted by all parties that it is only necessary to have the word properly impressed upon the heart, and that the special office of the spirit is to bring the gospel thus home to the heart and affections, by giving to it an increased efficiency, so as to overcome all obstacles arising from human inattention, obduracy and impenitency. This, I repeat, is the general sentiment of those who believe in special spiritual agency, for

as to those who hold that some are converted by the Spirit alone, without the word, they are so few as scarcely to deserve mention: indeed, they retain this doctrine rather to secure the election of infants than as one of general application. The great majority, both in theory and practice,.exhibit their belief that the gospel is to be preached, and that the Spirit must give a saving efficiency to the word announced by the preacher. The special influences you approve accomplish the same end in fixing the attention, and presenting the gospel clearly and forcibly to the mind. The gospel, then, upon either hypothesis, acts by its own power.

Let it then be clearly stated, as a point generally conceded by all parties, that WHENEVER THE Gospel is brouGHT HOME TO THE HEART OF THE SINNER, IT THEN BECOMES THE POWER OF GOD TO HIS SAL“

VATION.

The controversy is, in regard to the means by which it is thus savingly impressed upon the heart. You employ a variety of influences which may be designated as providential, to give to the word sufficient power. Others employ these same influences, indeed, but suppose them inadequate without the additional agency of the spirit. Both, therefore, believe in special agency-in a power or influence out of or distinct from the word, and in the incompetency (absolute or relative) of the word alone to produce saving faith. For certainly the influences you would employ are as distinct from the word and as plainly superadded, in order to give efficiency to it, or in other words, to enable it to reach the heart and convert the soul, as are the spiritual influences you oppose. How happily, then, we are all agreed in reference to this important matter! How sincerely we all believe in a power out of the word! Let no one, therefore, henceforth presume to doubt the doctrine of special influence in conversion.

Nor is the nature of this special influence a matter of such importance that the religious community should suffer itself to be disturbed or divided on account of it. We call certain agencies providential,

but we have, perhaps, very imperfect conceptions of the true nature of the various influences so denominated. Many of them may spring from impressions made upon the mind by a secret divine or angelic agency, or so special an arrangement of circumstances as requires the exercise of the wisdom and power of God in a manner as admirable as when Ahasuerus was prepared to say to Haman "What shall be done to the man whom the king delighteth to honor?" and the latter, prepared in like manner to suppose the honor designed for himself, was made to devise and to execute the plan of a triumph for the very man whose death he came to demand. No one can presume to cir

cumscribe the workings of Him who knows the secret springs of every heart, and who, in answer to prayer, may turn the hearts of men "withersoever he will." Other agencies are termed spiritual, and are just as little understood. Many influences and excitements are regarded as spiritual which are purely animal, the natural effect of attendant circumstances. Many influences, again, which might truly be called spiritual, are unnoticed or contemned. How much better it were for all to agree to preach the gospel to sinners for their conversion, and in the use of all the means and measures dictated in the scriptures for the purpose of arresting the attention of men and bringing the truth clearly to the minds of sinners, to co-operate together, leaving the result to God, without presuming to debate and dogmatize with each other about theories of conversion!

July 11.

IF, my dear E., I were disposed to philosophize upon the mode in which certain influences act in giving efficiency to the gospel, my view of the matter would be something like the following-and if it be the true philosophy, it will be the best antidote for the false. Let the case, however, be in the first place fairly stated.

All admit, as above, that it is necessary to conversion that the gospe! be brought home to the heart; or, in other words, that the love of God in Christ be so powerfully and deeply impressed upon the heart of the sinner as to remove his enmity and change his heart towards God.

All agree too, as shown above, that the word or gospel alone, as presented in the scriptures, is insufficient to arrest the attention of men and accomplish this conversion They admit that just as the wheat in the garner is unable to sow itself, to introduce itself into the soil and to bring forth fruit of itself, so the gospel is unable to diffuse itself for the conversion of men, and that it becomes necessary to employ agencies for this purpose, and to supply various special influences before it can obtain admission into the minds of men for their salvation.

Now one party are pleased to say that these special agencies and influences are providential-the power of circumstances.

The other party affirm that they are chiefly the immediate and direct operations of the Spirit who gives efficiency and power to the word. Here, then, let me make a distinction. There is a difference between giving increased power to the gospel, and removing the obstacles which impede it. If a moving body be hindered by an obstacle, the

difficulty may be overcome in one of two ways-either by removing the obstacle out of the way, or by giving to the body a sufficient increase of momentum to break through or overthrow the obstacle. I maintain this position, that with respect to the sinner the very same effect would be produced whether the gospel were to receive increased power, or whether the obstacles which impede its progress were to be taken out of the way. In either case the gospel would reach the heart-the point desired. If a man be distant from an object and he wishes to obtain it, his desire will equally be accomplished, whether he go to the object or the object be brought to him. He is put in possession of it by either method. So a man may be put in possession of the gospel equally by being brought to it, as by having it brought to him Now my philosophy is this: that the special agencies and influences which give effect to the gospel, do this, not by imparting to it any additional power, but simply BY REMOVING HINDRANCES OUT OF THE

WAY.

To say that the gospel requires a positive addition of power in order to enable it to reach the heart, is to say that it is really deficient in power. This cannot be for a moment supposed in view of those scriptures in which it is called "the gospel of salvation," "the power of God to salvation," "the engrafted word which is able to save the soul,' "the gospel, by which you are saved," "the good seed," &c. Besides it is wholly inconceivable how any thing could be added to the gospel to give to it an absolute increase of power. In what does its power consist? Is it not in the astonishing revelation it presents of God's love in the gift of his Son, comprising his death for our sins, his burial and his resurrection from the dead? Is it not absolutely and essentially in the view of the divine character which it presents by the facts which it embraces? Must unquestionably it is. And since its power resides in this, how is it to be augmented unless by adding new facts and greater or nobler or more attractive views of God? But this is impossible. The gospel can receive so such addition and consequently no such increase of power. It contains already all power. It is already "the power of GOD." They who imagine it to have received additional power in their own experience, cannot mention a single new fact or idea from which said additional power could be derived. It is obvious, indeed, that this is out of the question from what Paul says in 5th Rom., where, when he represents the love of God (contained or exhibited in the gospel) as shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit, he does not, in stating wherein this love consisted in the subsequent verses, introduce any new evidence of it, but simply that contained in the gospel itself—that "while we were