can churches, accord with the sentiments and observation of very many in America, who have been "witnesses of these things." "The New Divinity and the New Measures, have greatly coalesced, and they have given for the time, currency to each other. Many pious and ardent persons and preachers, from the causes to which I have adverted, were disposed to think that the new opinions had all the advantage in a revival, and this gave them all the preference in their judgment. Where they in connexion with the New Measures have been vigorously applied, there has, indeed, been no want of excitement. The preacher who firmly believes that the conversion of men rests on the force of moral suasion, is not unlikely to be persuasive. And the hearer who is told he can convert himself,' that it is as easy for him to do so as to walk,' that he has only to resolve to do it and it is done,' is not unlikely to be moved into self-complacent exertion. But it may be asked, does either the preacher or the hearer possess those sentiments which are likely to lead to a true conversion, and to bring forth fruits meet for repentance?"

"By their fruits ye shall know them. There has certainly been good done where there has been much evil, for with this evil there has been a large portion of divine truth. But I fear not to say, that where there has been the largest infusion of the New Divinity into the New Measures, there has been the greatest amount of unwarrant

able extravagance. There has been great excitement, much animal emotion and sympathy, high resolves, and multiplied conversions, but time has tested them and they have failed."

CHAPTER IX.

A CONTRAST BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY, BY WAY OF REVIEW, AND A NOTICE OF THE PERFECTIONISM OF MR. FINNEY.

THAT the reader may see at a single view the most prominent points of difference between the Old and New Theology, we shall exhibit them in few words by way of contrast:-in doing which we shall take a kind of retrospect of the volume, and exemplify some of the principles which have been noticed, by a few additional quotations.

1. The Old Theology places God upon the throne of the universe, and makes him competent to say concerning all creatures and events, "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." The New makes him so dependent upon the volitions of moral agents, that he is liable to suffer disappointment and to have his happiness diminished, by the uncontrollable agency of men:—and this not only in the present world, but in the

next. Prof. Fitch affirms that God's "purpose was to confer on the beings composing his moral kingdom, the power of volition and choice, and to use the best influence God could use on the whole to secure the holiness and prevent the sin of such beings, who themselves, and not he, were to have immediate power over their volitions." Again: "We affirm that the causes in kind which originate sin, being inseparably inherent in a moral universe, may so accumulate in DEGREE under every system of Providence and government which CAN be pursued, as to render sure the occurrence of sin. If in a universe of such beings, no possible system of Providence adopted and pursued THROUGH ETERNITY can shut out all occasions of the outbreakings of sin, it is easy to see, that as to his preventing it, sin is unavoidably incidental to the acts of the Creator in creating and governing such a kingdom.”.... “The causes in kind which are known to originate sin in the present universe, must necessarily be present in any possible universe of moral beings." "If the causes of defectibility are thus inseparable from the existence of a universe of moral beings, is there not a ground of probability that they will lead to actual defection in every possible system as well as in this?"-Review of Dr. Fisk's Discourse on Predestination and Election, and a Defence of that Review in the Christian Spectator. What low and unworthy views does this statement convey con

cerning the Deity! What dismal prospects it presents to the expectant of future and eternal bliss!

2. The Old Theology regards the fall of man as a catastrophe so direful in its effects, that no power less than Omnipotence is adequate to "quicken sinners who are dead in trespasses and sins." The New treats it as a calamity, which the sinner is able, since the introduction of a system of mercy through Jesus Christ, to repair himself. Says Mr. Finney, "Now suppose God to have come out upon Adam with the command of the text, 'Make you a new heart, for why will ye die? Could Adam have justly answered, Dost thou think that I can change my own heart? Can I, who have a heart totally depraved, can I change that heart? Might not the Almighty have answered him in words of fire, Rebel, you have just changed your heart from holiness to sin, now change it back from sin to holiness."-Sermons on Important Subjects, p. 13. See also Mr. Barnes'

remarks on the text, "When we were without strength, Christ died for the ungodly," in chap. vii. We shall likewise give one or two additional quotations in the present chapter, under the head of Ability.

3. The Old Theology maintains that Adam was the federal head of his posterity, and that, by breaking the covenant under which he was placed, he involved not only himself, but all his posterity in sin and misery-the guilt of his first sin being imputed to them,

or set over in law to their account; so that they all come into the world with depraved and sinful natures. The New denies that we sustain a covenant relation to Adam; and maintains that he was only our natural head and father-from whose sin it results as a matter of fact, according to the common laws of human society, and that all his posterity become sinners when they arrive at moral agency; before which time they are neither sinful nor holy; and that they become sinners by their own voluntary act, after a trial, it would seem, similar to what Adam had. Says Dr. Taylor, in reply to a supposed objection, "Why render this universal sinfulness of a race, the consequence of one man's act? why not give to each a fair trial for himself?" "I answer, God does give to each a fair trial for himself. Not a human being does or can become thus sinful or depraved but by his own choice. God does not compel him to sin by the nature he gives him. Nor is his sin, although a consequence of Adam's sin, in such a sense its consequence as not to be a free voluntary act of his own. He sins freely, voluntarily. There is no other way of sinning. God, (there is no irreverence in saying it) can make nothing else sin, but the sinner's act." Concio ad Clerum.

Mr Barnes observes: "If it were a dogma of a pretended revelation, that God might at pleasure, and by an arbitrary decree, make crime pass from one individual to another