pertinently introduced and forcibly illustrated. 'Whether it is better for unregenerate men to use the means than to neglect them,' is a question which he answers according to the different import of which it is capable. If it mean, whether they perform any duty, he answers in the negative. If it mean whether they commit more sin in one than in the other, he answers that God only can decide. If it mean whether they who use them are more likely to be saved than those who neglect them, he answers in the affirmative.

To some things advanced on the pages whose contents we have briefly described, we should make exceptions, had we set ourselves to the minute animadversions of eager criticism. The manner in which we should modify some of Dr. Spring's positions will be obvious from the subsequent discussion. We therefore pass to the subject in respect to which chiefly, we have introduced this treatise to the attention of our readers, viz the directions to be given by ministers to persons who inquire, what they must do to be saved. We entirely approve and cordially recommend what Dr. Spring has said on this important topic. It is apparent that he has, (whether all his positions on the general subject be consistent with it or not,) a deep and strong practical conviction, that to preach the gospel to sinners, ministers must testify repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ; that he has not by any philosophy respecting the mode of the sinner's dependence on grace, nor by any imagined necessity of harmonizing the fact of dependence with the sinner's obligations or with the practicability of immediate compliance, been led to keep back the summons of God to the immediate performance of known duty; and that he has learned in this respect to preach the gospel as our Lord and his apostles preached it, without a suspicion that by any modifications of his own, he can preach it better than they.

His views on this subject will be seen in the following pas

sages.

I need not say, there exists both in theory and practice, two different and opposite views on this interesting point. There are those whose views of human depravity are such, that they feel great embarrassments in addressing the requisitions of the gospel to the hearts and consciences of unrenewed men, and therefore fail in enforcing those requisitions, and leave them satisfied with their use of means. On the other hand, there are those, whose views of human depravity, though equally humiliating, are such as to present no embarrassments in urging these requisitions upon the sinner, as the commandment of the everlasting God, and as the most powerful means of conviction and conversion. These two different modes of thinking and acting are never brought to the test so thoroughly, as when ministers are laid under the necessity of answering the inquiry of distressed and

convinced sinners, who with all the weight of their sins upon them, and all the horrors of eternity before them, ask, Sirs what must I do to be saved?

The question is, Shall they be told to do any thing which implies the neglect or postponement of immediate reconciliation to God,—or shall they be cut off from every refuge, and urged without delay, to repent and believe the gospel?

To this we reply, The only proper direction to be given them is, REPENT AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL. Nothing should relax the force of this pressing obligation. pp. 43, 44.

The preaching of the gospel loses its weight and authority, if ministers feel embarrassed in addressing the requisitions of the gospel to the hearts and consciences of unrenewed men. Many a minister is spoiled because in this most important part of all his duty, he does not know how to engage in his Master's business. And every minister may be satisfied that he has fallen into some error in doctrine if he feels this practical embarrassment. It is the business of a minister so to preach as to leave the impression on the minds of sinners, that he has a right to expect that they will at once cease to do evil, and learn to do well. In such a course of duty he feels strong. He knows that God is with him, and that the consciences of his hearers are with him. And he feels that the truth he utters holds a dominion over the consciences of men, and exerts an authority upon them which nothing can gainsay or resist. p. 47.

We cannot deem it an unimportant matter, that ministers faithfully discharge their duty in this particular. There is no danger in directing men at once to repent and believe the gospel. This is the direction, the wisdom of which is fortified by sound experience. This is the direction of the Bible. Witness the conduct of Peter on the day of Pentecost. Witness the interview between the apostles and the anxious jailor at Philippi. Witness the direction of our Lord to a class of men who superseded the obligations to inward holiness by their external observances, when he said, ·Cleanse first that which is within." Witness his reply to the question, "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?" when he said, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ." Witness the entire Scriptures. This comprehensive direction may be followed, and the sinner may do his duty. This may be followed, and the sinner will be safe. p. 49.

We may not vary from the spirit of these injunctions. There are a thousand ways that lead to hell; there is only one that conducts to heav

en.

We have nothing to do with conducting our hearers in the way to hell. We may not take upon ourselves the responsibility of deciding which of the numerous ways that lead to that dark abode is the safest and best. God has not decided. The best of them is the way of sin and death. So long as there is this one way to heaven, our business is to direct them thither in this only way. It is a straight and narrow path, but there is no other. Except they repent, they shall all likewise perish. And they have no time to lose in fruitless exertions. The next admonition they hear may be, cut it down. The next place they occupy may be the mansion of the dead. The next assembly to which they are convoked, may be the congregated universe before the Son of Man. p. 50.

Decisive as the reasonings of the author on this point must be, to every mind not more attached to its own philosophizings

than reverent toward the word of God, we cannot but regret that he has not rendered more apparent the consistency between the course he so earnestly and justly recommends, and the doctrine of the sinner's dependence. To exhibit this consistency for the purpose of overthrowing the standing objection of many unrenewed men, that they have nothing to do because all they shall do will be either vain or sinful, and of bringing the obligation and the practicability of immediate duty clearly before their minds, appears to be the only important end of discussing the subject. What minuteness of discussion and particularity of statement however are requisite for this purpose, is an inquiry which cannot fail to interest every one, at all acquainted with the different forms in which the subject has been presented.

That the above objection should be fairly met and refuted is certainly important; and in our own view, this is done on the general and incontrovertible principle, that the sinner without using the means of regeneration, (whatever this use may be) will never be regenerated, and that by using them he may be. By the exhibition of this simple principle, the sinner is shown to stand in the same relation to the motives to effort in this highest human concern, as that in which he stands to motives in most, not to say in all instances of voluntary action. On this simple principle depends the entire activity of this busy world. Absolute knowledge of success cheers no human effort; and without affirming that some degree of uncertainty is indispensable to secure in man the utmost exertion in any enterprise, it is obvious that to make it a reason for total inaction would be madness; while in many cases the mere possibility of securing an important end is deemed a sufficient reason for the most strenuous exertion. A more decisive reason then, for using the means of regeneration, and of course a more decisive refutation of the sinner's objection that he has nothing to do, cannot be demanded than are furnished by the simple principle now stated. The question then naturally arises, why not stop at this point; if the objection be thus summarily refuted, and by so simple a process, why pursue it farther; why agitate so many minute questions about the propriety and sinfulness of unregenerate doings? We are ready to say that we think it would have been well, if many who have ventured far and boldly into this region of theological disputation, had been satisfied to stop at the point specified. Better far had it been, to state a general principle which is true though liable to perversion, than by false specific statements to occasion real embarrassment,and authorize valid objections to the truth. There are however obvious facts, which create, at least in many cases, strong reasons for

greater particularity of statement than is involved in the general principle adverted to. The sinner, averse to duty and ingenious to misapprehend and pervert truth, especially in the form of general propositions, is prone to make false and fatal inferences from the very principle designed to prevent them. When the insufficiency and dangers of one ground of quiet in sin are exposed, he is almost sure to fabricate another, and from the general truth that he can do that with which through the grace of God his regeneration may be connected, he frequently derives the inference that his salvation is in such a respect in his own hands, as to quiet all his anxieties in continued sin. This kind of reliance of sinners who cannot otherwise wholly pacify conscience while they do nothing, is not we apprehend duly estimated by the ministry, either in respect to its extent or its influence. It is this, if we mistake not, which combined with the conviction of the uselessness of present efforts directed to the performance of duty, holds the multitude of the ungodly in our orthodox congregations, in those slumbers of death which no thunders of wrath disturb. It is not merely that they are doing nothing now because they intend to do something hereafter, on the assumption that death and judgment will consult their future convenience in this concern; but it is that they are supposing that to be using the means of regeneration which is not. They imagine that reading the Scriptures, hearing the gospel preached, and seeking (praying they are wont to call it) for renewing grace, with the heart as actively devoted to the world as ever, is doing what renders their regeneration highly probable, if not what interests them in the promises of grace and salvation; or at least, they are quite sure to regard such doings as all that are either necessary or useful in respect to the end, and are hence equally sure never to use the means of regeneration as they must use them or die. And what greatly augments the evil is, that there are ministers of the gospel who directly countenance and advocate these false and dangerous, not to say fatal views of the doings of unregenerate men. Hence it often becomes an imperious duty to expose by specific statement, those errors which result from the perversions of truth when presented in a more general form. Nor are there perhaps any errors in the evangelical portion of the church, which more need a thorough and faithful exposure-none which more impair the efficacy of the ministry or hinder the effusions of the Holy Spirit. In reading the Christian Observer, the sermons of Dr. Chalmers, the writings of Mrs. More, and many others of like distinction, as well as in hearing many of the ablest preachers in our own country, we have frequently to lament exhortations and encouragements

addressed to impenitent men, to depend on their own sinful doings for regenerating grace; and it only causes us to grieve the more, that these things exist to mar so much excellence, and to countervail so much talent. The evil is not simply, that the power of such writers and preachers is not brought unimpaired to the point of urging sinners to the immediate performance of duty, but that they virtually excuse the neglect of it, and thus furnish a resting place for rebellion against God. Fortunately indeed such preachers can be, and often are, inconsistent with themselves; and we doubt not that their inconsistency in uttering truth often counteracts in no inconsiderable degree the true tendency of their errors. After all, we so estimate this tendency, we are so confident that sinful men will die in sin if they continue to cherish this dependence on their sinful doings, that we have rarely felt, on witnessing any attempt to take it from them, the reproaches and hostility often occasioned notwithstanding, that matters are the worse for it. Dr. Spring we doubt not has witnessed the errors we deplore, with their practical results in the ministry of brethren whom he reveres and loves; and much is due to him for his faithful attempt to correct opinions so fraught with calamity to the souls of men.

It is however much to be desired, that in attempting to correct some errors we do not fall into others; and if we may judge from what has been done, peculiar care is requisite that the effort made to extricate the present subject from some difficulties, does not involve it in others scarcely less to be regretted. Here we feel obliged to say, that Dr. Spring, who in most of his leading positions is so entirely correct, has fallen into some inadvertencies. Highly as we approve of the general course of argument by which he opposes the errors to which we have adverted, and confident as we are that what he has said concerning the directions to be given to sinners is truth of the utmost importance, we still believe that he has advanced some positions which, if followed into their legitimate consequences, would leave the subject in inextricable embarrassment. When he says that "God requires men to use the means of regeneration only as expressions of the heart," it seems to us to be equivalent to saying, that God requires sinners to use the means of a new heart with a new heart-or to use the means of commencing holiness with holiness already commenced; a requirement which in our view would not only be quite useless in respect to the end proposed by it, but would be no remote approximation to the solecism of requiring that the end precede the means, or the effect the cause. We do not believe it possible under such a