ently prove he is not aware that this Internal Light leads every experimental witness of its divine efficacy, into great humilityinto an entire trust and dependance upon God for every religious qualification. It appears from his last communication, that they who reject the teaching, the leading, and guidance of the Holy Spirit, can preach, and pray, and sing psalms, and sprinkle their converts, and talk on religious subjects, just when they pleasein a word, that they can act without divine influence-can retail their notions and opinions just when and where their own carnal Reason may dictate. In this they clearly manifest the wide difference between them and the divinely commissioned Apostles of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. "If any man speak" said the Apostle "let him speak as the oracles of God." In this sentence the Apostle alludes to the oracle of the SANCTUARY-the most holy place wherein the ark of the Covenant was deposited, where from between the Cherubims, God himself gave answers to his people when they consulted about momentous and important matters. See 1 Kings v. 16. "If any speak let him speak as this oracle;" that is, let him speak as the Instrument through which God communicates divine counsel to his people-let him be so influenced by the Holy Spirit, that he may give to others, not his own carnal notions, not the opinions which he may have received in Colleges or Theological seminaries, put the pure counsel of God-" if any man minister let him do it as of the ability which God giveth," not which man giveth, not which his education giveth, but which the HoLY SPIRIT giveth. This and this only is a pure Gospel ministry, let the dark letter-learned medler in scripture phrases, say what he may to the contrary.

That this was the ministry of the primitive church is manifest, from many parts of the Apostolic Writings. "Now we have received not the Spirit of the world," not that Spirit which makes a mock of divine things, which treats the most solemn truths in a light trifling manner "but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." Here the Apostle clearly points to the only infallible means of attaining the true and saving knowledge of the things of God, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth," not in the words and phrases of a heathenish divinity, with which my opponent's communications abound, "but which the HOLY GHOST teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the SPIRIT OF GOD, for they are foolishness unto him," and, therefore he speaks contemptuously of them-" speaks evil of those things which he knows not"-" neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned," 1 Cor. ii. 12. Jude 10. "My speech and my preaching" says the divinely illuminated Apostle, "was not with enticing words of man's wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power," 1 Cor. ii. 4. Now, I lay it down as an incontrovertible truth, that just so far as any ministry resembles the ministry here described, so far it is a Gospel Ministry, and no further, let those who contend for "Internal darkness," assert what they may to the contrary.

It is observable in my opponent's last Letter, that he passes over all the arguments in my former Essays to prove the reality and universality of Divine "Internal Light"-to prove its sufficiency for salvation to all mankind-My arguments were all drawn from clear Scripture testimony-from evidence which I consider irrefutable-from a source which my opponent calls the "supreme and only standard of religious truth." As he has not attempted to refute them by his own standard, I shall consider them as a monument of the truth of our principles, as well as an evidence that the tenets of my opponent are unscriptural. Instead of answering my arguments, instead of " keeping to the points in controversy," my opponent takes a course that better suits his purpose. He makes a great number of weak or groundless charges, and leaves them unsupported by evidence. By gratuitous assertions and begging the questions in controversy, he is enabled to make a great parade of consequences, which no more result from our principles than from the plainest Scripture doctrines. This course might have succeeded some four or five centuries ago, when a blindfolded priest-ridden people, were persuaded to put their souls under the care of a selfish clergy, who took care to get their money, but cared for nothing else. But it ought to be remembered that we live in other times!-in times when many are not only disposed to seek the truth for themselves, but, under the blessings of civil and religious liberty, have grown up into a capacity for reflection, and a maturity of judgment, which will secure them from such puerile attempts to impose upon them.

I am much mistaken, if on religious subjects, my opponent be not a century or two behind many of his cotemporariesCalvin who lived two hundred and seventy years ago, had some views on the subjects now in discussion, which prove, that he had much clearer light than "Paul"-which furnish evidence that his mind was illuminated to make a truer estimate of the nature and effects of Divine "Internal Light" than my opponent seems capable of doing. "We say," says Calvin, "that " we have received not the spirit of this world, but the spirit "which is of God, by whose teaching we know those things that "are given us of God- the Apostle Paul accounts those the "sons of God who are actuated by the spirit of God-but some "will have the children of God actuated by their own spirits "without the spirit of God. He will have us call God Father, "the spirit dictating that term to us, which only can witness to " our spirits that we are the children of God. These, though "they cease not to call upon God, do nevertheless dismiss the "Spirit, by whose guiding he is rightly to be called upon-He de"nies them to be the sons of God, or the servants of Christ, "who are not led by his spirit, but these feign a Christianity " that needs not the spirit of Christ!-He takes away the hope " of a blessed resurrection unless we feel the spirit residing in "us, but these feign a hope without any such feeling," See Calvin, Inst. Chap. 2.

What Calvin has said of some who in his own time "feigned a Christianity that needed not the spirit," applies with equal force to all modern feigners of the same kind. If my opponent had had as much light as Calvin on the subject, he would not have written to us against a doctrine, which is the peculiar glory of Christianity-a doctrine which elevates it above any other Religion that was ever promulgated since the fall of our first parents from their paradisical state. His essays against this doctrine are so many Witnesses, commissioned by that awful Instrument, "THE PRESS," to go down to posterity, the Evidences of his dark and carnal state, whilst professing to be a Teacher of that Religion whose peculiar characteristic is " DIVINE INTERNAL LIGHT." [This Letter was here divided in the REPOSITORY.]

"If any man speak, let him speak as the ORACLES OF GOD."

1 Pet. iv. 11.

For Amicus, both as a writer and as a man, the author of these Letters entertains an unfeigned esteem. Towards him and towards the other members of your Society, whatever you may think, he feels nothing but benevolence. Of the piety of some of your members, I do not permit myself to doubt; but your farfamed morality I attribute, principally to your rigid discipline. To the intended aspersions and insinuations of Amicus against the character of his supposed antagonist, no other answer need be returned than a quotation which I hope, for the sake of himself and his readers, he will remember: "As I shall attack no one's person, arraign no one's motives, but simply oppose principles and doctrines; no one need expect me to notice personal invective, hard names, suspected motives, nor any thing but sober arguments." Letter I. For your doctrines I confess, I have not the least partiality, and from them I will not promise to with hold any epithet which I think they deserve.

I have lately been struck very much with the similarity of your doctrine in regard to the Scriptures to that of the Socinians. Like them you profess a great respect for the Bible, but make little use of its contents farther than they suit your purposes. Like them you. admit a degree of inspiration and Divine guidance, but deny a plenary inspiration. Like them you set up a standard superior to the written word; they idolize Reason, you Internal Light. They deny the perfection of the present Canon; so do you. They are always prating about "false translations," "various readings," the "ignorance," " prejudice" and "mistakes" of the Apostles; so are you. They reject the Mysteries of Scripture, the Trinity, the Atonement, Everlasting Punishment, at least they say nothing on these subjects; so do you. (There is every reason to fear you agree with them in the doctrine of Universal Salvation. I never yet saw or heard a sentiment in your Books or Sermons which implied your belief in eternal condemnation. And I call upon Amicus to avow your sentiments on this important subject. I challenge him to deny the charge contained in this parenthesis.)

In my last communication, besides bringing twenty-one Arguments against your doctrine of Internal light, (but one of which has Amicus even essayed to answer,) I showed the tendency of your doctrine in six particulars. With this statement your advocate finds great fault, and yet not a single charge does he explicitly deny! In the first place, I asserted that it led you to "deny the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, and to attribute as much inspiration to Christians now as to Peter and John.” He rejects the word " plenary" as unscriptural, and substitutes the equivocal word "sufficient;" but with regard to the latter clause, says not a word! Is not this a tacit admission of its truth? Again; I charged you with "neglecting the Bible as not necessary to a knowledge of the will of God." He says, as the Socinians also do, we do not neglect the Scriptures, we have a high respect for the Bible, and inculcate its perusal on our people; but he does not say they are necessary to a knowledge of the will of God. The third charge of " questioning the authenticity and correctness of our present Bible" he does not touch, because it cannot be denied. Again; I charged you with denying to the Bible the names of the Gospel," " Revelation," "Word of God;" and Amicus admits you give them no higher title than the "Holy Scriptures," and "Scriptures of truth." The charge of rejecting some part of the Bible as not inspired, he does not deny. The charge of denying the leading doctrines of the Scriptures, to wit, Total Depravity, Vicarious Righteousness, Trinity, Resurrection, Everlasting Punishment he answers by calling them "heathenish divinity!!!"

Yet, gentle reader, this is the very man who after fearing explicitly to deny a single charge, and after leaving twenty of my arguments unanswered, can accuse me of making "groundless charges," and not answering two or three of his last objections! Whether I have not generally taken all suitable notice of his arguments, and answered them effectually, let the public judge. Nothing but want of room prevented my answering those to which with such confidence he refers. Reader, here they are.

Obj. 1. "In opposing the doctrine of Internal light, you oppose the Holy Spirit, the two being one and the same." (This is a general objection running through the whole of your essays.) No such thing. We adore the Holy Spirit, and acknowledge Him as our only Teacher; we oppose what you call "Internal Light," as a Pretender, Impostor and Usurper, whom your Society and others have set up in opposition to the Spirit. The Holy Spirit teaches us through the Scriptures and according to their plain and obvious import; Internal Light teaches you without the Scriptures, and as a necessary consequence, often against the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit commands us to bring Internal Light to the bar of the written word; Internal Light refuses to pass the ordeal. They are by no means the same.

Obj. 2. " Christ promised the Holy Spirit to his disciples to teach them all things." John xiv. 26. True, and the promises extend to us as well as to the Apostles, but in a very different sense. As the Apostles were to lay the Foundation of the gospel church;-to make many new revelations and utter predictions of events for centuries to come ;-as the most important truths they were to teach, were not yet committed to writing, and could not therefore be known by them in an ordinary way,the Spirit was promised to them as an immediate, extraordinary and independent Teacher. In this they were as highly exalted above us, or above common Christians, as Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel were exalted above their cotemporary saints. Moreover, as the Gentile converts (not having as yet a written gospel) could not come to the knowledge of the truth in an ordinary way, upon them also was conferred an extraordinary portion of the Holy Spirit. Hence gifts of Miracles, Tongues, Prophecy were granted to many besides the Apostles in that day.

But since all that the Lord Jesus and his Apostles taught, has been under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, committed to writing, the same extraordinary inspiration is no longer necessary. We need only the common illumination of the Spirit to show us the truth, the beauty and excellence of the written word. To call this common influence " Inspiration," is belittling the term and confounding what is ordinary with what is extraordinary. The gifts of Tongues and Miracles have ceas