Christ. This was illustrated by cases which frequently occur in such transactions, and especially judicial proceedings, among men, where testimony is indispensable, and where it is all-important that it should be both given and received by men whose minds are free from prejudice or bias of every kind. Hence, it was observed, that a man was justly considered as altogether disqualified to act as a juror in any particular cause, if it was ascertained that he entertained a strong prejudice, and especially a high degree of enmity, against one of the parties. A further illustration may be drawn from Mr. C.'s account of his belief of the history of these United States, and the effect thereby produced upon him. If his mind had been as much prepossessed against, as it is likely it was in favor of, this land of freedom,-if high tory principles had, from his childhood, been instilled into his mind, instead of those principles of civil liberty, to which the religious sect to which his father once belonged, have ever, and at all hazards, adhered; had he been early taught to believe, that under these republican institutions, instead of equal rights and protection of life, reputation, and property, nothing could be expected, but anarchy and violence, popular commotion and wild misrule, would he have yielded to the history, or the accounts of this country which he read, that credence which they justly deserved? Would he, willingly, have emigrated? Certainly not, unless his prejudices could have been removed,-even although he might have believed many of the facts contained in the history which he read in his youth, especially such as related to the fertility of the soil, the abundance and variety of its productions, &c., &c. Thus, also, it is evident, that until the enmity of the carnal mind against God, and the consequent carnal prejudice against his truth, his gospel, his Christ, be removed, the sinner, although he may historically believe the scriptures, will not so receive the truth and testimony of God, as to induce him to renounce all trust in himself, or his supposed righteousness, and trust in the Lord alone as "Jehovah our Righteousness," and rest his hope of eternal life simply upon his promises.

If, then, the scriptures be at all intelligible, and were, indeed, "written for our learning," that we through the patience and comfort which they suggest and teach, might have hope, we seem to be evidently taught by the whole tenor of the sacred volume, that the destruction of this enmity against God, and the removal of this carnal prejudice, cannot be effected by any act which man can devise, any persuasion which he can use, or any "might or power" which he can exert, but by the "Spirit of the Lord of Hosts." Many passages of God's word might, with great propriety, be referred to in support of this position: suffice it, however, just to observe, that God is declared to be "in Christ reconciling the world unto himself;" and having made peace (or having provided a peace-offering) through the blood of his cross, he actually reconciles such as before were enemies in their minds by wicked works.* The manner in which, as well as the efficient agent by which this is effected, we are informed by Christ himself. "When he (the Comforter or Spirit of truth) is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." And we are said to be chosen unto salvation through" the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth," and to be "saved not by works of righteousness which we have done, but by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost:" which is declared to be shed on such as are thus renewed, "abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour." (Tit.3:5,6.) Thus the same apostle, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, 6:11, after having declared what had been the character of some of them, whilst in their unconverted state, adds: "But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

In responding to my reply,-after Mr. C. had expressed his gratification that I had offered objections to his views of the nature of faith, and especially as it furnished him with an opportunity "of saying something more," upon that

Col. 1:20-22.

subject, he spoke, among other things, of the doctrine of divine influence, or the alleged necessity of the influence and grace of the Divine Spirit to work in, or operate upon, the hearts of men for the production of true faitheven that which is not of ourselves, but is the gift of God, as implying "a physical operation" upon the soul, which he not only denied, but treated as deserving of contempt. What was the exact meaning which he wished to attach to the word "physical," he did not inform us. For my own part, I know of no meaning of this term in which it could, with propriety, be used literally, in relation to this subject. I therefore, as Mr. C. states in his narrative, "also protested against physical influences," or operations upon the mind in the production of that faith whereby a sinner is justified and finds peace with God. And I further stated, that I considered the operation of the Spirit, whereby that change was produced that caused old things to pass away and all things to become new, to be, that the subject of it is not only declared to be the workmanship of God, (Eph. 2:10,) "created in Christ Jesus unto good works," but " a new creature," (2 Cor. 5:17,) to be in its character and effects wholly and purely spiritual. That it could not, with any propriety, be compared (unless it were figuratively, and simply by way of illustration) to any physical, or natural operation performed upon any member, or organ of the body, whether it were intended to restore sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, or muscular power to the paralytic. But that it is to be viewed as a mighty and glorious, as well as gracious operation of Spirit upon spirit-of "the Eternal Spirit" upon the spirit or soul of man, whose mind is carnal, that he may thereby be renewed after the image of Him that created him, or restored to the image as well favor of God, which were lost by the fall. The effect of this operation is, that the subject of it is delivered from the power of this carnal mind, which is death, and becomes spiritually minded, which is life and peace. When, forthwith, his soul, like that of Mary, " doth magnify the Lord," and his spirit rejoices in God his Saviour. And

the Lord Jesus, in whom he now believes, is made unto him wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctific and redemption. (1 Cor. 1:30.)

If Mr. C., in his response to my reply, even re to any passage of scripture in support of his doct is not recollected, and the impression on my mind he did not. It is true, he did endeavor, so to expl wrest some of the passages of God's word, referred me, as to do away their force or application to th ject under discussion. Whilst, as it has already observed, he was prudent enough to make no re upon the prayer of Paul for his beloved Ephesia asserted, as he has done in his narrative, that "fa not said by the apostle (in the second chapter of the epistle) to be the gift of God," as the translators o Bible understood, and as all evangelical Christians ever understood him to say. And what is the we reason assigned by the learned Bishop of Bethany f assertion? It is that PISTIS (in Eph. 2:8,) or rather ós, (being in the genitive case,) the original of the rendered "faith," is feminine gender; whereas the TOUTO, translated "that," is neuter gender, and ther cannot refer to faith as the gift of God here spoken

According to this view of the meaning of the text, C., in his version of the New Testament, has either n or adopted a translation different from that to which portion of the Christian world who speak the English guage, have long been accustomed to appeal as the s dard of revealed truth. In the version of Mr. C. it r thus: "For by favor you are saved through faith; this affair is not of yourselves it is the gift of God." would here ask, what affair is alluded to? Certain i the apostle speaks of no affair; and it is equally cert there is no word or expression in the original, to exc much less to justify, the insertion of the word affair in translation. Nor is it inserted avowedly to supply w the translator believed to be wanting to express the me ing of the original text: if such had been the case, not of it ought by some means to have been given to

reader, as it is invariably done in our standard version, by printing the word or words supplied by the translators in italics. But in this, as in many other similar cases in the version put forth by Mr. C., the common or unlearned reader, may read Mr. C.'s gloss, and suppose it to be the very word of God. This, however, is but one, and by no means the most atrocious of the many corruptions of the word of God that are to be found in Mr. C.'s ver sion of the New Testament, some of which will be noticed in the sequel of this narrative.

But it is said by Mr. C. that TOUTO, in the text under consideration, cannot refer to PISTEŌS as its antecedent, and that faith is not said by the apostle to be the gift of God. I can hardly persuade myself that Mr. C. is so ig norant of the idiom of the Greek language, or of the various passages in which this word TOUTO evidently refers to nouns, either in the masculine or feminine gender, or in which pronouns in the masculine gender refer to nouns in the neuter gender, as to admit the conclusion, that he sincerely believes the apostle did not mean to declare that "faith is the gift of God."

Before I proceed to compare this, with some other passages in the New Testament, in which the word TOUTO is similarly used, it may perhaps be gratifying to many to know what was the judgment of Dr. Philip Doddridge→→→ one of the three translators, whose names Mr. C. has given to the world, as the authors of the version of the New Testament that he has published-concerning the true meaning of this passage. "Some (says Dr. Doddridge) explain the following clause, and that not of yourselves, as if it were only a repetition of what was said before, that the constitution that made faith the way to salvation, was not of their own appointment, but God's. But this is making the apostle guilty of a flat tautology, for which there is no occasion. Taking the clause as we explain it, that is, as asserting the agency of Divine grace in the production of faith, as well as in the constitution of the method of salvation by it, the thought rises with great spirit. As for the apostle's using the word TOUTO in the