An elegant bonnet excites certain desires in the mind of a young lady, let the fashion change and she views it with new feelings; let the customs of society change, so that it shall be a badge of disgrace, and she views it with feelings still different, but all the while it is the same bonnet. Two beggars solicit each a dollar as charity, they both will the same thing in appearance, but one really wishes nothing more than to gratify his appetite, while the other wishes for the relief of a distressed family. A person may desire a cane at a particular time to support his steps, or to defend himself, or to injure an enemy, or to make a figure, but these motives or volitions all have different ultimate objects, though in common conversation we say the cane is the object of them. The truth is, the acts of the innate moral affections, and those implanted by divine grace alone, are of a voluntary and accountable nature, and there are no other mental operations which have any claim to be considered of this character, or have ever even received a name.

Dr. Taylor, of Norwich, was as decided in his opposition to the doctrines of original righteousness, and original sin, as their present opponents, but more open in teaching selfdetermination. President Edwards, speaking on this subject, says, "The doctrine of original righteousness, or the creation of our first parents, with holy principles and dispositions, has a close connection in several respects with the doctrine of original sin; Dr. Taylor was sensible of this, and, acccordingly, he strenuously opposes this doctrine in his book against original sin." The language of Dr. Taylor was this, "To say that God not only endowed Adam with a capacity of being righteous, but moreover, that righteousness and true holiness were created with him, or wrought into his nature at the same time he was made, is to affirm a contradiction, or what is inconsistent with the very nature of righteousness." "Adam," he continues, "could not be originally created in righteousness and true holiness, be cause he must choose to be righteous before he could be righteous; and, therefore, he must exist, he must be created, yea, he must exercise thought and reflection before he was righteous." To this President Edwards replies, "If these things are so, it will certainly follow, that the first choosing to be righteous is no righteous choice; there is no holiness or righteousness in it, because no choosing to be righteous goes before it. For he plainly speaks of choosing to be

righteous as what must go before righteousness. So that by his scheme, all righteousness and holiness is at once shut out of the world, and no door left open by which it can ever possibly enter into the world."

Mr. Hutchinson observes, "the ultimate end proposed by common moralists, is the happiness of the agent himself, and this certainly he is determined to pursue from instinct. Now, may not another instinct towards the public, or the good of others, be as proper a principle of virtue as the instinct toward private happiness? If it be said that actions from instinct are not the effect of prudence and choice, this objection will hold full as strongly against the actions which flow from self-love."

President Edwards remarks of the same views of the origin of holy and sinful volitions which prevail at present, "It is agreeable to the sense of men in all nations and ages, not only that the fruit or effect of a good choice is virtuous, but the good choice itself from whence that effect proceeds is so; yea, also the antecedent good disposition, temper, or affection of mind, from WHENCE proceeds that good choice, is virtuous. This is the general notion, not that principles derive their goodness from actions, but that actions derive their goodness from the principles whence they proceed, Which supposes that a virtuous disposition of mind may be before a virtuous act of choice, and that, therefore, it is not necessary that their should first be thought, reflection, and choice, before there can be any virtuous disposition. If the choice be first, before the existence of a good disposition, what is the character of that choice? There can, according to our natural notions, be no virtue in a choice which proceeds from no virtuous principle, but from mere self-love or some animal appetites; therefore, a virtuous temper of mind may be before a good act of choice, as a tree may be before the fruit, and the fountain before the stream which proceeds from it."

ART. VIII. ON THE EFFECTS OF REGENERATION.

It has been with many a matter of no small speculation how that so large a portion of the Congregational and Presbyterian Churches could have been induced, within so short a period, to renounce the doctrines of original sin and regeneration, the two fundamental truths of the Christian system. Doubtless, a number of causes might have conspired to produce the result, but we think that we can name two which has a most decisive influence, and which are alone sufficient to account for the effect.

First, a spirit of bold speculation on theological subjects had infected the church. Dr. Thomas Scott had predicted that this alone would lead to infidelity. The writings of President Edwards had doubtless produced a taste for metaphysical discussions, but ere long those discussions became presumptuous. Subjects were attempted which were evidently beyond the powers of human reason. Divines attempted to tell how sin came into the world, almost as circumstantially as at the present day. But this was not enough; to carry out some favorite positions, the first principles of common sense and theology were assailed, the great principle of Hume's Scepticism was adopted by Christian divines, and the human soul made out to be a mere series of perceptions and exercises. But still these men had a high respect for the great evangelical system, but they were fostering a spirit of bold speculation among their pupils, exalting human reason as a source of truth at the expense of the Bible, and leading Christians to defend the doctrines of revelation with the same weapons, and the same spirit with which heretics opposed them. And it is remarkable that men who had the highest respect for the truths of the Gospel, have furnished the fundamental principle of the new heresy. The New Haven divines acknow. ledge that their's is what is called the "exercise system." It is at least true, that they borrow most of their reasoning from Dr. Emmons, as they obtained most of their early ad

herents from his followers, but they reject with abhorence his views of the divine efficiency in the production of holiness. It was not till reason had been to a very great extent substituted for revelation as a means of attaining theological truth, that the new system ventured to make a public appearance.

The reason above assigned may account for the appearance of these bold speculations, but it is far from accounting for their rapid and extensive circulation. We believe that the influence of partial and unscriptural views of regeneration tended to prepare the way for the reception of these errors, by producing spurious conversions and spurious revivals, and thus changing the character of the church itself. Such an undue proportion of attention had been directed to the doctrine of divine sovereignty to the exclusion of other points of Christian doctrine, that it had entirely changed the face of practical religion. All religion was resolved into submission to the divine will, and Christianity seemed to have become a purer kind of Stoicism. We say that these subjects received not so much an undue as a disproportioned attention, which threw other subjects into the shade. Other truths and branches of Christian character were almost overlooked. Long before the new views in theology began to prevail, it had become very common to present the most distorted and defective views of regeneration from the pulpit. Of the revivals of those days, we say that they differed entirely from the scenes of artificial excitement, and deliberate and systematic deception and delusion which have of late prevailed; but still, in conversing with those who entertained hopes, we were compelled to entertain and express our fears that a very great portion were deceived, and deceived by the preaching too often, and subsequent events have given too much confirmation of the justice of our suspicions as to a great portion of those conversions.

With regard to those who have secretly renounced the doctrines of original sin and regeneration, as the church has always understood those truths, we believe that the direct and only tendency of their preaching, is to delude and ruin immortal beings. But even among those who have not given up these precious truths, we believe that there exists either great unfaithfulness, or great obscurity in presenting Scriptural views of the effects of regeneration.

It is not enough, in general terms, to teach that regenera

tion must be the work of divine power-a supernatural work. This may be taught in words, and instantly denied again, by describing conversion as something which requires no such influence-something which every man of common sense will instantly pronounce to be quite within human powers, something in harmony with the corrupt principles of the natural heart, and which almost any man may have who will but set about it, and this without any remarkable exertion of his powers.

We believe that he, who, while he gives orthodox views of the nature and efficient cause of regeneration, fails to make it a radical change, manifesting itself by an entire new life and conversation, is guilty of ruining souls. Or, if in his private instructions and conversation with those who are seeking a hope, the preacher contradict his public ministrations, if he consult his feelings at all or his interests; if he fail to encourage, guide, and assist the person to selfexamination; if he do any thing calculated to send a soul into eternity with a false hope, he is accessary to his ruin, and incurs a guilt which no imagination can measure. Much more criminal is he who habitually in the pulpit sets aside the Scripture views of conversion, and gives such a modified and reduced standard of piety as must allure immortal beings to eternal perdition. What will be the condemnation of him who has abused the office of ambassador of Christ to co-operate with the enemy of souls, who has been supported by a confiding people, and spent his days in deluding and ruining them? But we have reason to fear that this is a criminality which is common, we had almost said general. We believe that even where the true doctrine of regeneration by the Holy Spirit is taught, that the most partial and delusive ideas of the nature of the change are exhibited; that there is great unfaithfulness in dealing with anxious sinners; that such exhibitions ruin immortal beings, and by corrupting the church, eventually make way for the admission of heresy.

We have been compelled to come to this conclusion, partly from the fact that so large a portion of professing Christians have so readily, and even greedily, embraced fundamental error, but chiefly from observation of the present condition of the church. Is not family prayer greatly neglected, secret prayer, perhaps, commonly, are not family government, family instruction in religion fallen into dis