seriously reflect upon the subject, that there is a wide and well founded distinction between the fidelity of a true disciple of Christ, and that of which the most distinguished of the heathen world have been the subjects. The former differs from the latter especially in its origin, its operation, and the end it has in view. While the latter must originate in some principle that is natural to fallen man, the former springs from, and is inseparably connected with," faith in God," and "our Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ," and a sacred regard to his authority and all his commands, "If ye love me, (John 14:15,) keep my commandments." While the latter has ever been but partial in its operation, and regardless of many, if not the most of the precepts of the moral law, with which the most enlightened of the heathen have ever been very imperfectly acquainted, the former, where genuine, must ever have an universal influence upon both the heart and life of its subject, inducing a sacred respect to, and sincere, though it may be, (through the remaining imperfection of human nature, even when renewed" after the image of God,") imperfect obedience of all the commandments of God. Thus says Christ again, (John 15:14,) "Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you." While the latter induces men, according to the declaration of the apostle, (Phil. 1:21,) to seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's," the former leads them to approve themselves unto God, and habitually to aim at the promotion of his glory; so that whether they eat or drink, or whatever they do, they desire to do all to the glory of God. Thus the apostle assigns as the reason for the exhortation which he directed Titus to give to servants, to show "all good fidelity," that thereby they might "adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things." If Mr. C.'s views of christian fidelity accord with those just expressed, and which, it is belived, strictly accord with the word of God, what, I repeat, is he to gain by his assertion concerning the true meaning of the word translated faith, in the passage under consideration? If fidelity,

thus explained, be a special fruit of the Spirit, ho more that jaith from which it springs?

There is still another view of this subject, dese serious consideration. Mr. C., as we have seen that faith, in this this passage, is ranked amon fruits of the Spirit, and that it is associated with ness and temperance. And why did he not als that it is equally associated with "love, joy, peac suffering, gentleness, goodness," all of which, as faith, meekness, and temperance," are enumer "the fruit of the Spirit?"

But if we are not in this passage to understand word PISTIS, that faith" which works by love" and by God purifies the heart; or that faith whereby justified and have peace with God, but something i to it, why may not Mr. C. as well contend, t "love," here spoken of, we are not to understa supreme love of God, which is invariably the effec love shed abroad in the heart, by the Holy Spirit, 5:5. but that natural affection of love or good which all men are more or less susceptible; or, t the "peace," of which the apostle speaks, we are understand that peace which Christ gives to suc such only, as truly believe on him, which is calle peace of God, and said to pass all understandin that by the joy which is mentioned in connection this love and peace, &c., is not intended that "joy Holy Ghost," which, according to the apostle, (Ro 7,) constitutes an essential part of that kingdom of which is begun in the heart of every one that is bo the Spirit.

Thus, were it necessary, it might, on the one han demonstrated by the strong analogy which exists bety this interesting passage of God's word, and many parts of the same unerring testimony, that the va graces, dispositions, or affections therein mentioned in their nature truly gracious or saving, as well as special fruit of the Spirit; and, on the other, that it w

not be more inconsistent for Mr. C. to assert the contrary, than it is for him to deny, as he does, that PISTIS, in this passage, means faith, even that which is the gift of God, and the fruit of his Spirit. I will only add, upon this particular, that if faith be "the gift of God," or "the fruit of the Spirit," as the great mass of the christian world have ever understood the apostle to assert, then not only is the assertion of Mr. C. to the contrary, as "is the chaff to the wheat," but his whole system of historical faith is proved to be false and deceptive. And when we reflect that his only argument to prove that faith is not the gift of God, is derived from the gender of TOUTO, whilst to prove that faith is not the fruit of the Spirit, he relies upon the authority of his own naked assertion,-who, but such as shut their eyes against the light of truth, can fail to discover, that his foundation is rottenness, and his system," a refuge of lies?"

To evade the force of the argument for the necessity of the saving illumination of the Holy Spirit, drawn, as I have already shown, from 1 Cor. 2: 14, Mr. C., in his response to my first reply, asserted, as stated by him in his narrative, that the natural man there spoken of by Paul, "was a Pagan, with only his five senses to guide him." Or," a mere animal man, destitute of any oral or written revelation from God," and therefore "could not have spiritual ideas." In his narrative, Mr. C. adds, "but that the natural man of the schools, was the same with that of Paul, was not only denied but evinced." I do not certainly know what is intended by this statement of Mr. C., or to what schools he alludes. But upon the supposition that he means to be understood that in that debate it was by his reasoning evinced, that no one who had the light of revelation could be considered a natural man, in the sense of that term as used by the apostle, I ask why did not Mr. C. give his readers at least a hint how a point so important to his system or religious views was established? Does he expect his readers to be guided, in maters of the first importance, solely by his assertion, and without exercising their own judgments? Whether Mr.

C. did evince this position, or whether he even advanced one plausible argument in its support, are questions which are cheerfully referred to the impartial part of the audience that were present upon that occasion. It is true he did, as usual, confidently assert the position, which he attempted to support by another assertion,-which well accords with his views of spiritual things and spiritual men, that there was not a natural man, according to the sense in which the apostle used the word, in the church that evening.

Mr. C., in his narrative, states, moreover, that I“ did not appear to have apprehended that the natural man spoken of by Paul was contrasted with the spiritual man." In this he is certainly much mistaken, for on this very contrast, in connection with several plain declarations of the word of God, was founded one of the principal arguments that were advanced to show that the position of Mr. C. was as absurd as it was unscriptural. It was contended that every man that is born into the world, whether he be a Pagan, or infidel, or a mere historical believer of the holy scriptures, but has not been" born of God," or "born of the Spirit," is the very natural man spoken of by the apostle. That this is fully supported by the declaration of our Lord himself, in his conversation with Nicodemus, (John 3.) "Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh, but that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." From which declarations, as well as many other passages of the word of God, these propositions are clearly deducible. No man can be said to be in any degree spiritual, (and therefore must remain a natural man, or in the same state in which he was born, "a child of wrath, even as others,") until he is born of the Spirit. Nor can a man who has been born of God, and consequently through grace attained to a degree of true spirituality, any longer be denominated a "natural man," but has been brought out of nature's "darkness into God's marvellous light." Spiritual persons no doubt differ greatly as it regards the attainments which they respectively make in spirituality,

or in other words, the divine life. Thus we hear the apostle, in the commencement of the next chapter of his letter to the Corinthians, reproving them by reason of their low attainments and their remaining carnality, and in so doing he speaks as though they were not spiritual but carnal; yet he acknowledges, them to be babes in Christ. But as it regards a state or condition, the scriptures do not warrant us to expect any, more desirable or exalted, than that which is designated by the term spiritual. Thus it is said, (Rom. 8:6,)To be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." "He that is spiritual judgeth all things." (1 Cor. 2:15.) The apostle describes his believing brethren, (Gal. 6:1,) as "spir itual." The blessings also bestowed upon such as are thus born of God and truly believe, are said (Eph. 1:3.) to be "all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ."

I

How different from all this is Mr. C.'s idea of a spiritual man? Every one, however earthly, or sensual or devilish he may be, who has received" an oral or written revelation from God," is, in his view a spiritual man.. ask, then, whether it be not evident, that his system is calculated and designed to exclude all true spirituality from the religion of the bible?

There was, moreover, another argument urged, which fully shows the palpable absurdity of Mr. C.'s explanation of "the natural man," to which he was, as he still is, prudent enough not to attempt any reply. It is not only said by the apostle that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God," but he assigns the reason: "for they are foolishness unto him." Now, says Mr. C., "the natural man is a Pagan, with only his five senses to guide him, a mere animal man, destitute of any oral or written revelation from God." A man, then, who has never heard or read any thing concerning these "things of the Spirit of God:" and yet in his estimation, or judgment concerning these things, of which he has never heard and consequently has formed no idea whatever, "they are foolishness." What consummate absurdity! Many, it is believed, are ready to pronounce Mr. C.'s explana