fritter down the agency of the Spirit in regeneration and sanctification? Is not this carried so far as to convey the distinct intimation that it is dangerous for the sinner to know that "God must do more for him than he is now doing," in order to his conversion? Does not the idea of regeneration by the influence of self-love tend to the same result? But it is needless to add to our previous remarks in confirmation of this point.

It is withal worthy of remark, that with the decay of a sense of dependance, all the Christian graces must proportionably languish. This is a direct and obvious result as regards prayer, humility, reverence, gratitude, submission, faith, confidence and love towards God, pity, compassion and forbearance towards men. It is moreover a sound principle, that it cannot be consistently maintained that man of himself, without the renewing work of the Spirit, is sufficient for producing within himself spiritual religion, without contracting that religion to the measure of his natural sufficiency. It is idle therefore to say that this is a mere doctrine having no relation to practice. The very doctrine itself respects practice, and goes to its vitals.

It deserves consideration how far such a scheme is likely to beget in those converted in accordance with it a sense of the wickedness of their own hearts; a humbling and mournful sense of their own corruptions; and the earnest conflict between nature and grace which distinguishes the Christian life. What room is left for the continuance of a principle of sin in antagonism to a reigning principle of holiness, when nothing is admitted to be sinful or holy in man but ACTS, when the same principle of self-love prompts the acts of the regenerate as well as of the unregenerate, and when man is as able by means of self-love perfectly to keep the law as to break it? Is it wonderful, under the prevalence of such views, that such multitudes are strangers to the Christian conflict, or that Perfectionism grows apace?

We would inquire whether, on this scheme, the longings and aspirations of the Christian will not be in the line of becoming happy, or obtaining a hope of salvation, rather than of being conformed and assimilated to God and his law? If all moral goodness consists merely in seeking the greatest amount of happiness, then the prime object must be to obtain that which will minister the largest gratification to our desires whatever they may be, instead of so purifying our desires that they can be gratified with pure and holy objects.

For by this scheme, holiness is made a mere subordinate to, and instrument of, happiness, instead of subordinating happiness to itself as the "ultimate end" and supreme regulator? We see not, if it be true, what exception can be taken to the holiness of the Mohammedan, who is pursuing with might and main the sensualities of his fancied heaven.

This suggests the great and comprehensive objection to the practical bearings of this scheme, which is fundamental and fatal. It makes Christian holiness consist in a love of divine things not on account of their intrinsic moral excellence, beauty and loveliness, but solely on account of some conceived relation, or instrumentality which they hold in the furtherance of our own happiness. Now no principle is more self-evident than that no affection towards another deserves the name of love, which does not delight in his intrinsic qualities for their own sake, aside from all consideration of his becoming a source of profit or happiness to us. We may value a person whose qualities we hate, as an instrument of profit or happiness to us, but we do not love him. The most profligate man on earth, loves his neighbour Christian who ministers to his advantage or comfort, considered as thus profitable to him, just as much as he loves his own. interest. Does he therefore exercise that love of the brethren which the gospel requires, and makes an infallible sign of saving grace? Obviously, this Christian love consists in a complacency of heart in the spiritual graces of the Christian, the love of which evinces a love of that God of whose moral attributes they are the image. Suppose then an individual conceives himself to love God, because he expects that he shall obtain eternal salvation from him, while he has no delight in his holiness, justice, faithfulness, and veracity: is this such a love as is pleasing to God, or accompanies salvation? Christian charity "seeketh not her own." "If ye love them that love you what thanks have ye? For sinners love those that love them." In accordance with these views, all standard writers on religious experience have made this their grand criterion of genuine and gracious religious affections, in distinction from those which are common and spurious that "their object is the excellence of divine things," and not any conceived relation which they bear to self-interest: while the hypocrite's affections arise from no higher source than self-love. President Edwards, in his Treatise on Religious Affections, occupies two chapters at the very threshold with establishing this principle, as his great guid

ing light in discriminating genuine from spurious religious experience. He says, "There is a kind of love or affection towards persons or things, which does properly arise from self-love. A preconceived relation to himself, or some respect already manifested by another to him, or some benefit already received or depended on is truly the first foundation of his love: what precedes any relish of, or delight in, the nature and qualities inherent in the being beloved, as beautiful and amiable. That kind of affection to God or Jesus Christ, which thus properly arises from self-love, cannot be a truly gracious and spiritual love, as appears from what has been said already. For self-love is a principle entirely natural, and as much in the hearts of devils as angels; and therefore surely nothing that is the mere result of it, can be supernatural and divine in the manner before described."t We might go on quoting passages equally explicit and decisive, but if besides showing his doctrine, we were to exhibit his proofs and application of it, we should be obliged to reprint the whole two chapters to which we have alluded. Our next authority shall be John Owen. In his Treatise on the Holy Spirit, speaking of the preparatory work of the Spirit, which is common to the regenerate and unregenerate, as distinguished from that which is special and saving, he says, “The effects of this work on the mind, proceed not so far as to give delight and satisfaction in the lively spiritual nature and excellency of the things revealed to it. True saving illumination gives the mind such a direct intuitive insight into spiritual things, as that in their own nature they suit, please, and satisfy it: so that it is cast into the mould of them, and rests in them, Rom. vi. 17; xii. 2; 1 Cor. ii. 13, 14; 2 Cor. iii. 18; iv. 6. But the work we have spoken of reaches not so far; the light it communicates may cause a man to like the gospel for its beneficial effects, as a way of mercy and salvation; but it will not give him such a spiritual insight into the mystery of God's grace by Christ Jesus, as that the soul in its first direct view of it should, for what it is in itself, admire it, delight in it, approve it, and find spiritual solace and refreshment in it."

In accordance with this is the general testimony of ortho

* Works, vol. v. p. 130. New-York edition.

t "There is a natural love to Christ as to one that doeth thee good, and for thine own ends: and spiritual, for himself, whereby the Lord only is exalted."Shepard's Par. of the Ten Virgins, P. I, p. 25.

Page 142. Edition of the Presbyterian Board of Publication.

dox divines, as we might readily show if we had the space. Unless, then, such divines as Owen, Shepard, and Edwards, were utterly mistaken as to the fundamental distinction between true religion and hypocrisy, there can be no doubt where to rank that sort of piety which accords with the principles we have been examining.

We pass now to the consideration of certain measures which have been much employed for the purpose of promoting religious excitements, and are in perfect correspondence with the views of Christian doctrine and experience which have been under review. Although some of them have been occasionally adopted by men of sound views, yet they always seem unnatural and awkward in their hands. Sound doctrine is uncongenial to them, and encumbers them with so many fetters, that they cannot be plied with much tact, vigour, or celerity. Indeed the two are so essentially contrary and repellant to each other, that they seldom keep company long before one overmasters and extirpates the other. An orthodox man using these measures, seems like one who has thrown aside his spiritual weapons of celestial edge and temper, to try the clumsy and untempered armour of man's fashioning; and if he is thus tempted to go down to Egypt for help in any crisis, he usually repents it bitterly enough, to prevent a repetition of the experiment. These measures have usually flourished in connexion with those erroneous doctrines of which they are the offspring.

It ought however to be borne in mind, that many who have been foremost in plying these means for the production of revivals, have never gone into those refined and astute metaphysical processes, which are interwoven with the scheme of divinity we have been considering. Many of them are too crude and uncultured to master any subtleties in logic or metaphysics. Many of them have never penetrated into the subject so far as to see that self-regeneration by the natural man is impossible, except on the supposition that all the exercises of piety are prompted by self-love. But without minding the chasms which intervene, they leap headlong to the great conclusion, which is the basis of all these operations; viz. that unrenewed men are endowed with every quality requisite for complying with the gospel, even without a transforming work of the Holy Ghost in the soul. Without always waiting to inquire whether it be self-love or something else, they hold that there is some taste or pre-disposition in the natural man, which, if brought into

proper contact with the truths of the gospel, will be won and charmed to love and obey them. They repudiate and abjure in the most fierce and intemperate strain, as fatal to their operations, every mode of belief which does not imply in man a perfect capacity and aptitude to be savingly affected with the truths of the gospel, whether regenerated by the Spirit or not; if he will only resolve to be a Christian. this point, we suppose that no man is a more standard authority with all this class, or a more correct representative of their opinions, than was Mr. Finney before he got mired in the abyss of Perfectionism, on the verge of which, judging from the following and. many other passages, he must have been for a long time treading with fearful presumption and temerity. We quote from his Lectures on Revivals, which must of course be taken as a formal and authentic exposition of his sentiments on this subject. He says, p. 351, “And I am persuaded there never would have been such multitudes of tedious convictions, and often ending in nothing after all, if it had not been for those theological perversions that have filled the world with cannot-ism. In Bible days, they told sinners to repent, and they did it then. Cannot-ism had not been broached in that day. It is this speculation about the inability of sinners to obey God, that lays the foundation for all the protracted anguish and distress, and perhaps ruin, through which so many are led." It is enough to say of this wild raving, that it can reach none for whom it was intended, without first dashing against Paul and Christ as their shield. Says Paul, Rom. viii. 7, 8, "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, NEITHER indeed CAN be. So then they that are in the flesh CANNOT please God." Says Christ, John vi. 44, "No MAN CAN come unto me except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him.” Now we submit whether the above extract be any thing better than a railing accusation against the word of the Lord. We beg our readers also to observe how the preparatory law-work of conviction of sin is scouted as not only needless but pernicious, and likewise how evident it is that Mr. Finney gets rid of this by dint of his doctrine that there is nothing in spiritual religion which man cannot at once bring to pass by the might of his own will. Again he says, p. 352, "Afraid of sudden conversions! Some of the best Christians of my acquaintance were convicted and converted in the space of a few minutes. In one quarter of the time that