Holy Spirit's power, that fact, therefore, is compatible with our doctrine; and need not, nay, ought not, to be concealed from the sinner. The knowledge of it will but encourage his exertions. It will encourage them more than all other considerations besides. Let it enter into the sinner's mind, while he is pondering the vast affairs of his soul, that the Almighty arm must be stretched out in his behalf, before his sinful heart will ever give up the world for God; and that the probability of his having the help of that arm is greater or less, according as his mind is more or less engaged in the exercises necessary to his repentance; and he is put under the force of the mightiest of all reasons for diligence in those exercises. And thus it is, that the doctrine of the sinner's dependence on the Spirit, rightly used, instead of leading to apathy, as it has been made to do by unskilful management, is, in the light of motive or moral influence, one of the most powerful of all the things of revealed truth.

These remarks, we think, expose two errors on the subject of the means to be used by sinners in order to their repentance and salvation.

Some maintain that the means of repentance and regeneration are selfish praying, reading and waiting on ordinances; but the inconsistency of this way with the end to be attained cannot escape remark. Sinning certainly is not the way to repenting. No excuse for sin, in any circumstances, is admitted by God, or ought to be admitted by us, as his ambassadors. If men are saved in a course of sinning, whatever that course be, they are saved against their own endeavours, and in spite of themselves.

Some allow sinners to use no means whatever. They call upon them to repent, and then cease. As to the manner of repenting they have no explanation to give; they know of no manner: they insist upon repentance, and warn against all exercises of mind and body, but those of repentance itself, or that flow from repentance. The reason of their doing so is, that they suppose all such exercises to be necessarily sinful; and it cannot be right to encourage sin in any case or in any way. Nor can sinning be the way to repent, or doing evil the way to do good. But it is not true that man is capable of no exercises before repentance which are not essentially and necessarily sinful. He is capable, and is in fact, the subject of instinctive and unavoidable exercises and operations, which, in themselves, are

Q

neither sinful nor holy. All such are those which, in the nature and necessity of the case, are in order and have a tendency to holiness. These exercises and actions are not holy, for they are in order to holiness. Neither are they sinful, for what is sinful cannot have a tendency to holiness. They are necessary, indispensable, and that is their vindication. They are the true means of repentance. To say that there are no means of repentance; that nothing can be done before, and in order to repentance, which is not sin; is to condemn not the sinner's doings only, but, to a certain extent, those also of the minister of the gospel. He ought not to call sinners together to hear the word, for they cannot come together but in sin. He ought not to require doubting men to examine the evidences of christianity, for that is requiring them to sin. He ought not to urge consideration on his hearers, for that too is rebellion. He cannot proceed a step in his work, as a messenger of God to sinful men, without making himself, on this supposition, the minister of sin. But he is not so in fact. The things which men must do in order to meet and hear him, and accept the overtures of the divine mercy, are not sinful, because they are absolutely indispensable. Men must do these things or remain and die in sin.-Nor are ministers only inculpated. God himself calls on perishing men to hearken to the gracious voice which, through the sacred ministry, speaketh to them from heaven, and to frame their doings to turn unto Him; and does He necessitate men to sin as preliminary to their repentance?

PROFESSOR STUART'S POSTSCRIPT TO HIS LETTER TO THE EDITORS OF THE BIBLICAL REPERTORY.

An edition of Professor Stuart's Letter to the Editors of this Journal, published in our last number, has recently been published, to which is attached a Postscript of sixteen pages.

We deem it necessary to make a few remarks, in order to remove from Professor Stuart's own mind, and from the minds

of our readers, an impression which we think injurious. At the commencement of the Postscript, a complaint is made in the following terms, viz:

"The above letter was written, and forwarded to the Editors of the Biblical Repertory for publication before the close of last September. After waiting a considerable time beyond the period when the Repertory was expected to make its appearance, it was at length received, and the foregoing letter was found to be accompanied by thirty-seven pages of Remarks' upon it, purporting to be made by the Editors."

"That the Editors of any work have a right to control the manner of its appearance, and to select the matter which it shall contain, is in the abstract a very plain principle, and one which I should be among the last to question. But after inviting discussion on a point of deep interest to the religious public, and having given in very strong terms their own views respecting it, that they should refuse to publish a reply which held up to view a different side of the question, and in such a way as to let it take its course in the same manner as the original review had done, the friends of the American Education Society could hardly have expected."

With regard to the delay in the publication of the strictures here complained of, we would say that the work was hurried through the press with all possible expedition. The time of publication, for more than a year past, has not been the first, but from the middle to the close of the month on which the number is due. Professor Stuart's article was received, we think, about the 28th of September, and the number was out a little more than three weeks after that time. There was no delay occasioned by preparing the reply; it was ready before the printing of the other article was finished. We were kept waiting for one of the previous articles, which was the real and only reason why the number appeared a day later than usual. If the number did not reach Andover about the first of November, any delay beyond that time is to be attributed to the fact, that the great mail passing through this place is often so heavy that pamphlets cannot be forwarded immediately.

As to inviting a discussion of the merits of the American Education Society in the Repertory, we would say that an invitation was not otherwise given, than that the Editors, at the request of a gentleman connected with that society, consented to publish a reply to the review in the July number.

To the complaint that we did not permit the letter of Professor Stuart to take its course and have its full effect,

unobstructed by any remarks in reply, we answer, that we thought we were doing as much as could reasonably be expected of the conductors of any work, in giving up more than forty pages to an article which tended to present the conductors themselves in a most unfavourable light before their readers, which contained severe censures on the course they had taken, and heavy charges of misrepresentation and unfairness. We felt bound, in duty to ourselves and to the cause, not to permit these representations to go forth with an implied assent on our part to their correctness.

The spirit of the article which Professor Stuart received, was, as he readily admits, as mild as could be expected. We had, therefore, reason to hope that the objections to the American Education Society would be met and answered in a corresponding manner. The strictures, however, charged us with ignorance, misrepresentation, exciting sectarian jealousies, filling the mouths of infidels with arguments, &c. They were written in such a manner, that it became as necessary to resist the spirit, as to controvert the reasonings. We feel ourselves called upon to make this remark, because Professor Stuart gives, as one of his reasons for declining a continuance of the discussion, the severity of the reply to his first communication. If we have transcended the limits of a proper resistance to the spirit manifested in the strictures, we are willing to make every becoming acknowledgment: but as far as we have yet learned, the impression made by the two articles, is generally in favour of the comparative mildness of the reply.

As to the fact that the remarks of the Editors were published in the same number with the strictures, we observe, that the character of the strictures constrained us to take this course, which we considered as perfectly consistent with established usage in such cases. In the third number of the Christian Spectator, we find a letter, addressed to the Editor of that work, criticising the spirit of the articles on the subject in discussion between Dr Taylor and Mr Harvey, and followed by remarks intended and adapted to meet the objections of the writer of the letter.

Before leaving this unpleasant part of the subject, we wish to make a single remark on an additional reason assigned by Professor Stuart for declining to continue the discussion, viz:

"That he has given his name to the public, and thus stands directly and avowedly responsible for all that he says: but the reviewer and

the writer who comes forward in the name of the Editors, have declined doing this, and consequently have shunned to meet the discussion on equal terms of responsibility."

We doubt not Professor Stuart had satisfactory reasons for giving his name to the public, and while we readily admit, that to do so is "evidence of his sincerity and of his full persuasion that his cause can be honestly supported," we can see other reasons than "caution" why the name of the writer on the other side was not publicly avowed. The articles in the Repertory, as in other periodical works, are anonymous, and as Professor Stuart's letter was originally signed "A Friend to the A. E. Society," we were not authorized to know the writer until two-thirds of the reply was written, and part of it in the printer's hands; and it could not reasonably be expected that we should then change the whole form of expression and address. And, indeed, if the name had been originally given in the communication, it could not materially have changed the purport of our remarks. Whatever be our respect for the character of that gentleman, and it is truly great, we could, in such a discussion, have known him only as he appeared in the letter before us. We may also add, it was our wish that the important subject discussed, might be impartially examined and decided, according to its real merits, by the christian public, unswayed by the influence and authority of names*.

We duly appreciate the fourth reason for not pursuing the subject, expressed in these terms, viz:

"That, having been long in the habit of the most brotherly and confidential intercourse with some of the gentlemen whom I suppose to be among the Editors of the Biblical Repertory, and cherishing towards them the most unfeigned respect, confidence and fraternal affection, it would be a sacrifice, to which nothing but the most imperious duty would force me, to trespass on their affection and confidence by dispute."

The Editors to whom reference is here made most sincerely and cordially reciprocate these kind sentiments, and beg leave to assure Professor Stuart, that no one concerned in conducting this Journal cherishes towards him any other

• If, however, it would be any gratification to the friends of the American Education Society to know who is personally responsible for the articles in question, we are authorized to name the Rev. Dr Carnahan, President of the College of New Jersey.-Ed. Bib. Rep.