children of wrath? The Arminian denies any immediate action of the Holy Spirit on the heart in regeneration and sanctification, and limits it chiefly to the understanding. Why, then, do Calvinists perpetuate the controversy, by teaching that the heart is renewed by the immediate act of the Holy Ghost, and by praying, "create in me a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within me?" The Sadducee believes death to be an eternal sleep. Why, then, do others, regardless of peace, teach that the trumpet shall sound, and the dead be raised? The Universalist sets forth as the distinctive article of his creed, that all "the wicked shall be turned" into heaven, and declares that he will live in unbroken love with others, if they will reject the declaration, that the wicked shall go away into everlasting punishment. The same is true of every other doctrine. In the confession each is set forth in opposition to an errour which is fatal to the form of sound doctrine. No one of them can be yielded, without danger to the whole cause of truth and to immortal souls. The same regard for union, which invites us to abandon the doctrine of decrees, election, or regeneration by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit, will also claim the renunciation of the Trinity, the inspiration of the Scriptures, or even the existence of God. Every truth will in this manner be swept away, and every errour be allowed to reign predominant in the world.

There is one other circumstance, which, in our view, has contributed largely to the toleration of digressions from the form of sound doctrine. Theological errour was formerly deemed to be a civil crime, and in various nations was punished in the same manner as the most flagrant offences. This mode of refuting it is extensively renounced as inexpedient and unjustifiable. And because the state does not now treat it as a civil offence, a persuasion seems to have come into existence, that there is no criminality in deviating from the counsel of the Lord; and that an intellectual rejection of doctrines which he has inculcated, is not as certainly sinful, as the practical violation of the laws which he has made. Hence eological errour has waxed bold, and claims not only.ration by the state, but also, with the exception of certain gross forms, a hearing by the Church. It is willing, indeed, that we should regulate" public opinion" respecting sinful acts, but protests against any condemnation of the principles, which must terminate in gross departures from VOL. V.

6

religious truth and practical obedience. It requires, indeed, a reception of a few general articles of faith, but strenuously asserts, that beyond these no one is morally accountable for what he believes or rejects. Thus from the idea that religious errour is innocent, as well as from blindness to its legitimate effects, it has happened that aged divines and intelligent Christians were not duly heard, when they foretold the calamities which this toleration would bring on the Church. Those ministers and private Christians whose views were not clear respecting the nature of religious errour, or the dependance of one truth on another, did not appreciate their motives, and were far more ready to call these men uncharitable, than to second their cautions, and thus to reclaim from further errours, those who were beginning to rush into them.* Thus the voice of admonition was hushed, and the way prepared for the successful introduction of errour.

The author of the volumes before us, with several other men of the same school, seem to have adopted the principle, that whatever operates against their own views of human ability, is to be immediately rejected. Hence they have abandoned the great Christian doctrine of the depravity of human nature. They have held, that the "voluntary preference," "governing purpose," and consequent actions are sinful. When they were pressed with the fact, that the Bible, the catechism, and the ancient standards of faith in all orthodox churches, declare the nature of man to be depraved, they relieved themselves by affirming this to be the doctrine of "Physical Depravity." This is a name, whose meaning they seem not well to understand, and consequently give it to every thing, for which they have a theological horror. Were they to confine its use to the doctrine of Matthias Flacius, that "original sin is the very substance of man," or even to "something created with the mind itself," or to "a defect in the faculties," it would be easy to see the fiction against which they are contending, and desirable to join in the outcry against it. But when they so extend its meaning as to embrace the doctrine of " the depravity of nature,” it is time to record our dissent. This doctrine was unwaveringly held by Augustine, Calvin, Howe, Flavel, Edwards, and

* A Narrative of the Embarrassments and Decline of Hamilton College, by Henry Davis, D. D., President. pp. 144, 148.

all the opposers of Pelagianism and its various modifications. Observing the early, uniform, and universal prevalence of sin in the human family, they arrived at the conclusion, that human nature is depraved, and consented to the doctrine of the Apostle, that by "nature we are children of wrath." By this phraseology they intended to teach, that sin has its origin in our nature independently of the circumstances in which we are placed. And, as a consequence, they also taught that regeneration is a change wrought in the nature of man, in distinction from the circumstances in which he is placed; and which, in their turn, might work regeneration in him by moral suasion. We are not prepared to deny, but some of these giants in theology used the words physical depravity to denote the depravity of nature; yet we have no hesitation in saying that, while they did not hold the rude notions so injuriously imputed to the Fathers by Mr. Finney in his sermon on the "Traditions of the Elders," they explicitly taught a physical operation of the Spirit, in distinction from moral suasion in regeneration. But no one of them seems to have supposed, that this physical influence is used to regenerate "the very substance of man." Mr. Flavel, who inculcates a "physical," though not a "coercive" influence of the Spirit, says, "the natural essence and faculties of the soul remain still, but it is divested of its old qualities, and endued with new ones."* By "depravity of nature" no one of them meant, that any faculty of the mind is lost, nor by "physical influence" of the Spirit in regeneration did they mean, that any new faculty is created. They maintained, that in this work, a spiritual renovation only is accomplished. Now, though these terms in ancient theological writers, mean nothing else than is continually held and taught in orthodox schools and churches, and though only a very limited acquaintance with the phraseology of mental and theological science is requisite to understand the agreement, yet our modern explorators seem not to have discovered it. Owing either to their neglect of these writers, or to familiarity with misrepresentations of them, they seem to be mainly in the dark respecting their theology, and to be haunted by every gloomy image of it, which their own minds can form. Whenever they approach a subject which the strong intellect of former ages has discussed, they begin

Method of Grace. Sermons IV., V.

to be agitated, and to demur at views, which are associated only in their own minds with its phraseology, and to make such denials as imply, that others hold certain doctrines which they regard as contemptible.

Thus Mr. Finney, in opening his sermon entitled "Sinners bound to change their own hearts," seems to be contending with other theologians, and disclaiming doctrines which by some mighty influence had been wrought into all the practical views of religion. Having chosen as his text Ezek. 18: 31." Make you a new heart and a new spirit, for why will ye die," he proceeds to show; "what is not meant by this requirement." And he says, 1st. That it does not mean the fleshly heart, or that bodily organ, which is the seat of animal life. 2d. That it does not mean a new soul. We have one soul and do not need another. Nor, 3d. Are we required to create any new faculties of body or mind. We have now all the powers of moral agency. We are just as God made us, and do not need any alteration in the substance of soul or body. Nor, 4th. Does it mean, that we are to bring to pass any constitutional change in ourselves." In these four negations Mr. Finney is evidently contending with some real or supposed antagonist. Were it possible to believe, that he had ever heard of Matthias Flacius, or Cyriac Spangenberg, we might conjecture that he had a remote reference to them. But as this is highly improbable, we ask, with whom is he contending? Do not his negations imply, that these physical depravities exist in the theology which some of his hearers have been taught? Or are we to understand, that his own mind is entangled in the physics of matter? If this be his view of the "depravity of nature," and he has ever tried to regenerate himself, we do not wonder that he pronounces it "an impossible dogma." By a strange notion that the doctrine of the depravity of nature implies an overthrow of all the faculties of the mind-an earthquake in the original constitution of the soul, overwhelming perception, reason, affections and memory in one common ruin, and reducing man to mere idiocy Mr. Finney and his coadjutors have been led to declare war against it. And because it is evident, that these faculties are not annihilated, and that man has all the powers requisite to obedience, they triumph. Next, they confound the meaning of the term "powers," when used to denote the faculties of the mind with that of "power," when used to de

note the ability of the will in unregenerate men to use these faculties in the service of God; and thus they suppose themselves to have demonstrated, that the nature of man is not depraved. They seem to believe, that the doctrine in question involves the loss of these faculties; and to these they give the name of physical depravity," and this they represent in various ways as the "tradition of the elders," or the doctrine of the fathers and of those, who coincide with them. Hence they seem to feel, that they do valiantly for truth, religion, and the human constitution, if they reject this doctrine and render it a "by-word and a hissing." In the whole circle of approved Christian writers not a single individual had been found, who teaches, that fallen man has not a soul, or that he has not perception, reason, affections, and memory. Who ever denied their existence? In what author is it possible to find the doctrine of an annihilation of these faculties? In our limited reading we do not recollect to have found the terms depravity of nature used to denote such a destruction of the human powers. Those who employ them in theology do not intend thereby even to intimate the absence of these faculties, but only of a heart, or will to use them in obedience. By "inability" they mean, that there is no "POWER," notwithstanding the existence of these "POWERS," to obey God. Their declaration has no reference to the

*"For if the nature itself be depraved, if depravity is constitutional and something created with the mind itself, then regeneration must be physical. It must remedy the defect in the constitution." Sermons on important subjects, p. 81. The phrases in italics are doubtless intended to be synonymous. This is evidently true of "nature itself," and "constitutional." What Mr. Finney means by a constitutional change may be learned in the eighth page. It is there described as the "re-creation of the faculties," "the implantation of a holy taste." See pp. 5-8 compared with pp. 81, and 82.

+ President Edwards and others, who strenuously held the doctrine of the "depravity of nature," but deny "natural inability," thus explain their meaning. "We are said to be naturally unable to do a thing, when we cannot do it if we will, because what is commonly called nature does not allow of it, or because of some impending defect, or obstacle, that is extrinsic to the will, either in the faculty of the understanding, constitution of the body, or external objects. Freedom of the Will, Sec. 4. The doctrine of "ability commensurate with obligation," Edwards unequivocally rejects. In his work on Original Sin, p. 516, he quotes Dr. John Taylor as saying, "when men have not sufficient power to do their duty, they have no duty to do." We may safely and assuredly conclude, that mankind in all parts of the world have SUFFICIENT power to do the duty which God requires of them, and that he requires NO MORE than they have sufficient powers to do." "God has given powers equal to the duty which he expects." On these and similar passages, Edwards says, "these things fully imply,