fairly before his mind, and, by a great effort, choose right. This, as we understand it, is a description, not of an entire and radical change in the affections, but of a simple determination of the mind, founded on the single consideration of the adaptation of the object chosen to impart happiness. If I determine to seek one thing, because it will make me more happy than another, (and if any other consideration be admitted, as determining the choice, the whole theory is gone,) this is a mere decision of the mind, it neither implies nor expresses any radical change of the affections. On the contrary, the description seems utterly inappropriate to such a change. Does any man love by a violent effort? Does he ever, by summoning his powers for the emergency, by a volition, and in a moment, transfer his heart from one object to another? Was it ever known, that a man deeply in love with one person, by a desperate effort, and at a stroke, destroyed that affection and originated another? He may be fully convinced his passion is hopeless, that it will render him miserable; but he would stare at the metaphysician who should tell him, it was as easy to love one person as another; all he had to do was to energize a new volition and chose another object, loving it in a moment with all the ardour of his first attachment. As this description of an immanent volition, does not suit the process of a change in the affections in common life; as no man, by a simple act of the will, and by a strenuous effort, transfers his heart from one object to another; so neither does it suit the experience of the Christian. We have no idea that the account given in the Spectator of the process of regeneration, was drawn from the history of the writer's own exercises, nor do we believe there is a Christian in the world who can recognise in it a delineation of his experience. So far as we have ever known or heard, the reverse of this is the case. Instead of loving by a desperate effort, or by a simple volition effecting this radical change in the affections, the Christian is constrained to acknowledge, he knows not how the change. occurred. "Whereas I was blind, now I see," is the amount of his knowledge. He perceives the character of God to be infinitely lovely, sin to be loathsome, the Saviour to be all he needs, but why he never saw all this before, or why it all appears so clear and cheering to him now, he cannot tell.

We cannot but think that the impression made by the mode of representation adopted by the New Divinity of this important subject, is eminently injurious and derogatory to true religion. That the depravity of the heart is practically repre

sented as a very slight matter, that the change and the whole change necessary to constitute a man a Christian, is represented as a mere determination of his own mind, analogous to a change of purpose as to his profession; that a sense of his dependence on the Spirit of God is almost entirely destroyed, and of course the Spirit himself dishonoured. This latter evil results not merely from the manner in which the nature of the change of heart is described, and the ability of the sinner to effect it is represented; nor from the fact that this dependence is kept out of view, but also from the ideas of the nature of agency and freedom of the will, which, as we have before had occasion to remark, appear to lie at the foundation of the whole system, as it has been presented in the Christian Spectator, and from the manner in which the Spirit's influence is described by many of the most prominent advocates of the theory. These views of human agency are such that God is virtually represented as unable to control the moral exercises of his creatures; that notwithstanding all that he can do, they may yet act counter to his wishes, and sin on in despite of all the influence which he can exert over them consistently with their free agency. If this be not to emancipate the whole intelligent universe from the control of God, and destroy all the foundations of our hopes in his promises, we know not what is. When sinners are thus represented as depending on themselves, God having done all he can, exhausted all his power in vain for their conversion, how they can be made to feel that they are in his hands, depending on his sovereign grace, we cannot conceive. What the nature of the sinner's dependence on the Spirit of God, according to Mr. Finney, is, we may learn from the following illustration. "To illustrate the different senses in which making a new heart," says the reviewer, "may be ascribed to God, to the preacher, to the truth or word of God, and to the sinner himself, Mr. F. supposed the case of a man arrested, when about to step over a precipice, by a person crying to him, stop. And said, This illustrates the use of the four kinds of expression in the Bible, in reference to the conversion of a sinner, with one exception. In the case supposed, there was only the voice of the man who gave the alarm; but in conversion, there is both the voice of the preacher and the voice of the Spirit; the preacher cries stop, and the Spirit cries stop too." p. 28. On this subject, however, the advocates of the system profess not to be united. Mr. Finney and others maintain, that there is no mystery about the mode of the Spirit's operation; the review

er is inclined to think there is; the one says "there is no direct and immediate act;" the other, if he must adopt a theory, is disposed to admit that there is an immediate influence on the mind. The reviewer lays little stress on the difference, as both views, he says, have not only been held by many Calvinistic divines, but in connexion with a firm belief of the absolute necessity, and universal fact of the special agency of the Holy Spirit in producing conversion. We are aware of the diversity of representation as to this special point, among orthodox writers, but we are fully persuaded, that whatever may be the private opinions of those who preach as Mr. Finney is represented to have done in this sermon, the impression made on their audience of the necessity of divine influence, of the sinner's dependeuce, is immeasurably below the standard of the divines to whom the reviewer appeals in their justification. For an audience to be told, that all the Spirit does for them is to tell them to stop; that, antecedently even to this influence, they may and can do all that God requires; and, what is part of the system of the Spectator, that subsequently, or during the utmost exertion of this influence, they may and can resist and remain unconverted, is surely a representation from which those divines would have revolted, and which has a necessary tendency to subvert what the reviewer calls the fundamental doctrine of the absolute necessity of the special agency of the Holy Ghost in producing conversion.

We believe that the characteristic tendency of this mode of preaching, is to keep the Holy Spirit and his influences out of view; and we fear a still more serious objection is, that Christ and his cross are practically made of none effect. The constant exhortation is, to make choice of God as the portion of the soul; to change the governing purpose of the life; to submit to the moral Governor of the universe. The specific act to which the sinner is urged as immediately connected with salvation, is an act which has no reference to Christ. The soul is brought immediately in contact with God; the Mediator is left out of view. We maintain that this is another Gospel. It is practically another system, and a legal system of religion. We do not intend that the doctrine of the mediation of Christ is rejected, but that it is neglected; that the sinner is led to God directly; that he is not urged, under the pressure of the sense of guilt, to go to Christ for pardon, and through him to God; but the general idea of submission (not the specific idea of submission to the plan of salvation through

Jesus Christ,) is urged, or the making a right choice. Men are told they have hitherto chosen the world, all they have to do is to choose God; that they have had it as their purpose to gain the things of this life, they must now change their purpose, and serve God. Our objection is not now to the doctrines actually held by these brethren, but to their characteristic method of preaching, the effects of which we have had some opportunity of learning. Conviction of sin is made of little account; Christ and his atonement are kept out of view, so that the method of salvation is not distinctly presented to the minds of the people. The tendency of this defect, as far as it extends, is fatal to religion and the souls of men. The happiness is, that sinners are not under the influence of this kind of preaching alone; their religious character is not entirely formed by this mode of representing what God requires; but, when excited by the pungency and power with which these brethren frequently address the conscience, and when aroused to the necessity of doing something to secure the favour of God, they are influenced by the truth already lodged in their minds, or derived from the immediate perusal of the Scriptures, and hence, under the influence of the Spirit of God, instead of following the directions of their teachers, which would lead to God, in some other way than through Christ, they feel their need of the Saviour, and go to him as the Gospel directs. It is in this way, we have no doubt, much of the evil of this lamentable neglect of the grand doctrines of the Gospel is prevented. But just so far as this defective mode of representing the mode of salvation has any influence, it is to introduce a radically new system of religion. We again remark, we do not doubt, that if these preachers were asked if they meant to leave Christ thus out of view, and to direct sinners to God without his intervention, they would answer, No. But we are not speaking of what they may believe on the subject, but of the manner in which, both from the press and the pulpit, the great duty of the sinner under the Gospel is presented.

It was our intention to call the attention of our readers to the panacea which the reviewer has discovered, (or rather undertaken to recommend) for the cure of all doctrinal dif ferences. But our notice of his pamphlet has already been protracted to three times the length we originally intended, and we therefore have time to say but little on the subject. His prescription is, to draw a distinction between the doctrines of religion and the philosophy of the doctrines, which

he justly remarks, is an important distinction, which it is of the highest moment should be understood and properly applied. The doctrines of religion are the simple facts of Christianity. The philosophy of the doctrines is the mode adopted of stating and illustrating those facts, in their relations to each other, to the human mind, to the whole character and government of God. From this distinction, results the following most important practical principle of Christian fellowship and of theological discussion. All who teach the leading facts or doctrines of Christianity are orthodox, though they differ greatly in their philosophy of those doctrines." p. 31. The reviewer gives these passages in italics, to note his sense of their importance. We are constrained, however, to think, that although they contain a very obvious and familiar truth, they are of little consequence for his purpose. The truth they contain is, that there is a distinction between the essentials and not essentials of a doc

We care little about his calling doctrines facts. But how is this to aid any one in deciding on what is heresy, and what is not? The reviewer chooses to say, that the fact which all the orthodox must receive respecting sin is, that it exists, and that it is a dreadful evil. But how its existence is ac

counted for, is philosophising about it. But if I assert, it exists by the immediate efficient agency of God, do not I assert a fact, as much as when I say it exists? Or, if I say it exists because God cannot control a moral agent, do not I assert a fact? Again, the orthodox fact about man's natural character is, that in consequence of the fall of Adam, men sin and only sin, until renewed by the Holy Spirit; the philosophy is in accounting for it. But is it not obvious, that when the Church declares, that the universality of actual sin is to be accounted for by a sinful corruption of nature, she means to declare, that the Scriptures account for one fact by another? When it is said, we are condemned for the sin of Adam, is it not a fact again asserted? We think, therefore, the reviewer's distinction between facts and the philosophy of them, perfectly futile. The use he would make of it, is still worse. "All who teach the leading facts of Christianity, are orthodox." But what are these facts? Let the reviewer state them, and then he is orthodox; let Edwards state them, and he is a heretic. The substance of the fact regarding man's character, is, that somehow, in consequence of the fall, he sins and only sins, &c. Is not this a bald petitio principii? That somehow may be the very thing which the Scriptures clearly