L

And how utterly impossible in this way to institute a fair and thorough examination of the sentiments of a preacher? Little more than the heads and sub-divisions of his sermon can, of course, be given. And no one needs be told how different the meaning of these often appears, and is in reality, when stated in the abstract form of a skeleton, from their obvious import when heard or read with their accompanying illustrations. In the case before us, there were three whole classes of important omissions in the abstract as first printed, which were supplied by a correspondent in the next 'number of the Volunteer, and have been incorporated into the Abstract as given in the pamphlet; omissions so important that the editor is constrained to express his "regret" that they occurred, and to grant that a recollection" of them" would have precluded some of his remarks ;'* and it ought to have precluded the principal charges of "unscriptural and dangerous" error which he has preferred.

66

Fairness, moreover, requires that unfavorable representations and condemnatory remarks, concerning the statements of their opinions by others, should be made only in a similar form to that in which the statements were made. It would be evidently wrong to comment upon and condemn in a sermon or public address, statements and reasonings which have been offered only in private conversation. No less unfair is it to comment upon and condemn, in print, and thus, it may be, before the whole community, statements and reasonings offered in an oral discourse to a single congregation. And if the editor of the Volunteer may pursue this course in regard to the preaching of Mr. Finney, he and other editors may pursue it, as they can, in regard to all the sermons, on the sabbath and at other times, of all the clergymen throughout the country. And what would be the effect upon the preaching of our country, prepared for and delivered with the feeling of constant exposedness to such a course of proceeding? What would be the influence upon the occupations and the usefulness of ministers, to be looking after continually and endeavoring to counteract, as they would be constrained to, the innumerable misapprehensions and misrepresentations of them that would be spread through the land? The practice ought, manifestly, to be met at once, and put down, by the marked reprobation of an enlightened and honorable community.

But the whole of the impropriety of the editor's course in regard to this sermon of Mr. Finney is not yet stated. On the back of the pamphlet is printed an "Advertisement," in which is the following sentence. "Since its [the article's] first appearance, the abstract of the sermon has been amended from the skeleton used by the preacher on its delivery." Now what would a person, who has not seen the two articles in the Volunteer in relation to this sermon, and has only read the pamphlet, understand by this assertion? Why, clearly, that Mr. Finney had seen the abstract, and corrected it. by his skeleton, or had lent his skeleton to the editor for him to supply the needful corrections; so that the abstract as published in the

* Volunteer, p. 189,

pamphlet has his sanction. But the facts were, that the editor never had or sought any intercourse with Mr. F. on the subject. A third person, who had heard the sermon, after reading the abstract as at first published and noting in it some important deficiencies, determined to supply them in a communication to the Volunteer ; and to aid his memory in doing it, borrowed of Mr Finney the skeleton he had used in delivering the sermon—such brief notes as can be written, in a hand not remarkably small, upon one side of a blank card. The communication thus prepared was not shown to Mr. Finney, nor did he ever see it till it appeared in the Volunteer. So that, in fact, he never in any way, directly or indirectly, tioned the correctness of the abstract, or its publication.

sanc

But the course, unjustifiable and improper as it is, has been taken. And in this way the grave charge of "frequently preaching before this community sentiments subversive of the Gospel in their results," has been publicly preferred against Mr. Finney. (Volunteer, p. 188.) Other Orthodox Congregational ministers in the city are implicated in the charge. And these "unscriptural and dangerous views," it is said, (pamphlet, p. 13,) " are somewhat prevalent in Orthodox congregations at the present time." Weighty assertions, truly; which ought, most certainly, to be made only by one who perfectly understands the subjects on which he speaks, makes his statements with clearness and consistency, supports themn by the most conclusive proof, and has an evident call of duty to make and publish them. Qualifications all of which we shall proceed to show are not found in the instance before us.

In doing this, however, we would say distinctly, that we are not to be understood as defending or approving every shade of theological opinion, or mode of statement and illustration, advanced and employed by Mr. Finney, in his preaching generally, or in the sermon commented on in this pamphlet. With the sermon as delivered, and as presented in this abstract, we should have been better pleased if the preacher had somewhere, perhaps in the beginning of his sixth remark, stated formally and distinctly, (what Mr. F. fully believes, and often asserts in his preaching, and what was plainly implied in this sermon,) that, notwithstanding the perfect ability and obligation of men to make themselves new hearts, not one of them ever has done it, or ever will do it, without the special and effica. cious influence of the Holy Ghost. We could have wished also that in speaking, in his second remark, of "the idea of a sinner's being passive in regeneration," he had been careful to exempt from the censure he pronounces, those who use such language (as many do) meaning by it, not at all that men are not active in turning from sin to holiness, but simply that they are undeserving recipients of the influence of the Holy Ghost which brings them to turn. And we dislike the attempt, in the sixth remark, to explain the mode of the Spirit's operation in changing the heart. We do not object to the declaration, The Spirit "does not come, and take right hold of the heart, and perform an operation upon it;" nor did we object, when listening to the sermon, to the lucid expansion and illustration that were given of this thought; for we know that many sinners

It

quiet themselves in their inexcusable stupidity and unbelief, with the imagination that there must be something like the Spirit's "taking right hold of their hearts and performing an operation upon them," before they can have any power to repent; and this dreadful delusion must, if possible, be torn from them. But we cannot accord with the addition, "Many have supposed that he [the Spirit] moves by a direct and immediate act, either upon the motive to give it efficiency, or upon the mind to make it willing. But there is no mystery about it." No mystery about it, when the Saviour expressly declares that the method of it is as unknown as were the principles which regulate the changes of the wind to the Jews of his time! is, indeed, certain that the ground of the necessity of the Spirit's influence and the mode of his operation, whatever they may be, are such as not at all to interfere with the sinner's agency or responsibility. But who can say that the omniscient Spirit may not move," in perfect consistency with these, by an "immediate act upon the mind;"* not to create in it certain exercises, but to excite and increase its susceptibilities to the truth presented? No man can prove that he cannot. And if we were under the necessity of adopting a theory in regard to the mode of the Spirit's operation, we should adopt this, for it seems to us most consonant with those numerous passages of Scripture which speak of our being God's workmanship, quickened by the Spirit, created in Christ Jesus, &c. But we admit that these representations do not decide the point. Nor do the Scriptures, we believe, any where decide it. And, we think, our Saviour has plainly intimated that it is not to be decided, by declaring, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit." And how obvious is it that, as unembodied spirits influence one another in ways different from those which embodied spirits use, so the uncreated Spirit may, not to say must, operate in moving created minds in ways different from both? If, then, you have discovered and stated a method of the Spirit's operation which seems to correspond with all the phenomena of conversion and sanctification that come under our observation, there is no certainty that it is the true method. On this point, therefore, we cordially adopt the language of the author of the pamphlet before us on p. 16. "If we are required to say what kind of influence the Spirit does exert in effecting this change [the conversion of a sinner], we can only refer the reader to John iii. 8. We are satisfied, knowing that he does not infringe human liberty; that he does not excuse human guilt; that he vindicates the work of the Mediator and all the ways of God to man; that his wonderful grace affords a ground of hope to the guilty, and enslaved, and despairing sinner; and that every converted soul will joyfully adore the Agent who made him willing in the day of power." We wish we could as fully and sincerely accord with the other representations of the pamphlet. But this we cannot do, and must now return to the unwelcome task of pointing out its defects and errors.

To move upon the motive—the truth or reason presented, (though such language is sometimes heard) evidently has no consistent meaning.

II. There is a want of distinctness and accuracy in respect to the meaning and use of theological terms. The necessity of this in all important discussions is obvious. But in no departments is it so indispensable as in mental philosophy and doctrinal theology, as these sciences are of higher importance than any others, and there is great variety in the usage of their technical terms, which is a principal cause of the unhappy divisions which exist among the friends and promoters of vital piety; they use the same terms in very different senses, and thence conclude that there is between them a wide difference of meaning, when, in many cases, a few moments employed in settling definitions would satisfy them that they are in fact of one opinion. Hence every man who undertakes to discuss questions in mental philosophy, and especially in doctrinal theology, is bound, where important terms have a well understood and commonly received meaning, to adopt that meaning; or, if he is under a necessity to adopt a different meaning, to notify his readers of the fact, and give an accurate statement of the sense which he attaches to the terms; or, if terms have different senses among theologians, to state definitely which he adopts: and he must be careful to use important terms in the same sense throughout his discussion, unless he is under unavoidable necessity as he proceeds to take a different sense, and gives distinct notice of the change. There are fundamental rules of theological disquisition, and especially of theological controversy. They have not been observed by the author of the pamphlet under review.

I. He states it, p. 4, to be one of" the most prominent views in mental philosophy presented in this discourse, that a nature cannot be either holy or sinful." And page 7, he pronounces the representations of Mr. Finney that "the nature of Adam at his creation was not holy," and "that the nature of God is not holy," an arrogant assumption of knowledge." And he follows up the condemnation with this severe and indignant rebuke,

39.66

Hast thou seen God at any time, and soared beyond the display of his attributes and the revelation of his counsels, into the ineffable secrets of his eternal nature? When he laid the foundations of the earth and formed man upon it, and made him a living soul, wast thou there? Dost thou know that Adam had no moral direction given to his primeval powers, which ensured his love and obedience to his Creator, when he saw his glory, and began to will and to do?

An awe comes over our minds as we listen to these majestic and authoritative appeals, for they seem to indicate that the Almiglity is speaking, and pronouncing sentence upon some rebellious worm. But no; it is the decision and rebuke of a mortal upon a fellow mortal. And we venture to inquire, What is the meaning here attached to the word nature? Does the editor use it in the same sense in which it was used by Mr. Finney? Has Mr. F. in fact advanced any sentiment in regard to it which the editor does not hold? The pamphlet furnishes no answer to these vitally important questions, for it does not even intimate that there are different senses of the word nature as applied to moral beings, and says nothing about the sense in which it was used by Mr. Finney, and is used by the editor. We must look elsewhere, therefore, for aid in the

solution of the questions just proposed. And, fortunately, there is no great difficulty in finding it. The word nature is used in three well understood senses as applied to moral beings.

First, it indicates something which is an original and essential part of their constitution, not resulting at all from their choice and agency, and necessarily found in them of whatever character and in whatever circumstances. Thus, it is the nature of all minds to think, and will, and feel. The natural perfections of God are self-existence, eternity, &c. which involve no moral quality. Angels are immaterial in their nature. It is the nature of men, during their existence in this world, to hunger, and thirst. Men have natural ability, i. e. all the faculties requisite, to repent, and love God, &c.

A second sense in which the term is often used is chiefly negative, indicating that the persons to whom it is applied are not regenerated by the Holy Spirit, designating the period of their moral existence prior to their conversion. Thus Paul says, of himself and all Christians, "We were, by nature," i. e. in our unregenerate state, "the children of wrath, even as others; but God hath quickened us" and again, "The natural man," i. e. an unregenerate man, "receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; but he that is spiritual judgeth all things." And we frequently speak of persons as ' in a state of nature,' meaning that they are unconverted. In all such cases of the application of the term, however, there is an implied reference to yet another meaning now to be stated.

A third sense of the term is, an expression of the <7c< that there is something in the being or thing spoken of, which is the ground or occasion of a certainty that it will, in all Its appropriate circumstances, exhibit the result or quality predicated of it. Thus when we say of a particular species of tree, that its nature is to bear a certain kind of fruit, we mean that there is something in that species of tree which is the ground or occasion of the certainty that it will, in every soil and however treated, while it bears any thing, produce that kind of fruit. So when we say of men, since the fall, that they are sinful by nature, or naturally depraved, we mean that there is something in all human beings since the fall, which is a ground or occasion of the certainty that, until they are renewed by the Holy Ghost, they will only sin in all the various circumstances of their moral existence. And so we may say of God, that it is his nature to be just and good; of angels, that it is their nature to love God; of fallen spirits, that it is their nature to hate God; meaning that there is in them some ground or occasion of the certainty that they will, in all circumstances appropriate lor such manifestations, exhibit these moral qualities, or put forth these moral acts.*

*See Edwards on Original Sin, Part 1, Chap. 1, Sect. 2. Dr Woods' Reply to Dr. Ware's Letters to Trinitarians and Calvinists, Chap. 3; IV Tavlor's Consc'o ad Clerum, 1828. pp. 13, 14. Christian Spectator for 1823, p. 197. 4c. President Kdwards stares. very clearly, what it is, in his view, that is the ground or occasion of the certainty that all human beings sin, and only sin, till renewed by the Holy Spirit. "in order to ac count," he says, "for a sinful corruption of nature, yea a total native depravity of he heart of man, there is not the least need of supposing any evil quality infrted, implanted or wrought into the nature of man, by any positive cause or influence whatsoever, either from God or the creature; or of supposing that man is conceived and born with a fountain of evil in his heart, such as is anything positive. I think a little attention to the nature of things