present comfort, and who may be said to walk by feeling, rather than by faith.

"Another lesson, of the utmost possible importance, is to be deduced from this interesting subject: TO ADHERE TO THE REVEALED word of God, as your ground of hope and rule of conduct. This is the standard by which alone we have to try our sentiments, our feelings, and our actions; but alas, how defective is the use we make of this invaluable gift!-Remember, that in whatever manner you decline from the revealed will of God as your support and guide through life, and whatever you may substitute in its stead, it must in its degree be detrimental to your spiritual welfare. The snare of which I apprehend you are chiefly in danger, is the same which the experience of our deceased friend most solemnly warns us against; that of adopting your religious feelings as your ground of hope and rule of conduct. While he possessed his entire faculties, he carefully guarded against this temptation, to which his constitution might peculiarly have exposed him; but, in a greater or smaller measure, it is common to pious people, and I doubt not it has been severely felt by some of you. They who are liable to have their minds most sensibly affected with religious impressions, should the more carefully guard against substituting them in the place of God's word. Our lamented friend had long and eminently enjoyed the love of Christ shed abroad in his heart. His spiritual triumph and rejoicing had been unusually great. His distress and terror, that succeeded these enjoyments, were proportionably aggravated. So deplorable an alteration in himself, led him, during a suspension of his reason, to suppose that an equal change had taken place in the mind of God; and that, after having admitted him to a foretaste of heaven, he had doomed him to endless misery. Alas! how had he forgotten the delightful theme of his brighter hours.

'There is a fountain fill'd with blood
Drawn from Emmanuel's veins;
And sinners, plung'd beneath that flood,
Lose all their guilty stains.

Dear dying Lamb, thy precious blood
Shall never lose its power;

Till all the ransom'd church of God
Be sav'd, to sin no more.'

"Ought we to conclude, when we loose our comforts, that Christ has therefore lost his power to save? Was it for these, that we were accepted of God? If not, why must we be rejected when they are removed?"

"When you can derive neither comfort nor hope from your present feelings, and when all past enjoyment only enhances your present distress, recollect that the promises of God in Christ can suffer no change, that his power and grace are susceptible of no decay; 'hat to be deterred by your changeable feelings from seeking and trusting in Christ, is to place them in the room of his revealed word; and that it was time for the Lord to withdraw your religious comfort, when you were resting on that, instead of his infallible promise.

'You would but ill have enjoyed' says a sensible foreign writer, 'that which you know not how to part

with.'

p. 52.

One parting word from the Sermon, to another class of persons, and we have done. It is to those, (for such there are,) who too evidently would like Cowper better, had he not been so sound in' his faith, and so ardent in his piety; and who comfort themselves in their ignorance of experimental religion, because "the poet of Christianity, the monitor of the world," was so much "a man of

sorrows."

"The lesson afforded by his life, like those contained in his publications, have their foundation in scriptural truth, unbiassed reason, and indisputable fact. These authorities cannot be invalidated by the partial derangement of his mind. Beware not to make this a plea for inattention to things which concern your own eternal welfare; lest hereafter you should have to exclaim, 'We fools accounted his life madness, and his end to be without honor; but how is he numbered among the children of God, and his lot among the saints!' I fear I am addressing some whose case is precisely the reverse of Mr. Cowper's. He had reason to rejoice in hope, though he was deaf to the voice of consolation. Are there none of you who have cause to tremble, as Felix did, at the prospect of eternal judgment, who yet have hitherto been deaf to alarm and admonition? You can transact your business, enjoy your comforts and amusements, nay, indulge in sinful practices and pursuits; as if there was neither heaven nor hell; or as if the word of God had not declared that, except you repent and be converted, you must perish forever. Far better was it for our deceased neighbor, through so great tribulation to enter into glory, than for you, with stupidity and hardness of heart, to hasten every moment toward everlasting perdition. Why should you be more at ease than he was? or why so much as he? If the mere thought of damnation was such a terror to his mind, what should the actual approach of it be to yours? As yet, the longsuffering of God has been wonderfully extended to you. May you improve it to your salvation; lest there be indeed nothing left for you, but a fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries of God!" pp. 44, 45.

LETTERS OF AN ENGLISH TRAVELLER, TO HIS FRIEND IN ENGLAND, ON THE REVIVALS OF RELIGION IN AMERICA. Boston, Bowles & Dearborn. 1828. pp. 142, 18mo.

(Continued from p. 319.)

1. We have seen that, in his attack on revivals of religion, our author first assumes, without proof, the truth of a position, on which the decision of the whole subject depends.

2. On the strength of this assumption, he proceeds to ridicule the Orthodox, who differ from him, and to expose them, as irra

tional or superstitious, merely for acting according to their own principles.

That he has done this will be evident from the following considerations. The general facts which occur during a revival of religion, are obvious to all. No one can deny that there are periods of unusual attention to religion; that Orthodox ministers are very active; that they excite their churches, and appoint frequent meetings, and preach earnestly, and warn sinners of their guilt and danger, and exhort them to repent and exercise faith in Christ. Nor can it be denied, that many, who were once thoughtless, are awakened, and convinced that they are great sinners, and in imminent danger of ruin; that they are alarmed and distressed, and that deeply; that they profess to find relief by confession of sin, and sorrow for it, and faith in Christ; that in many, this change is sensibly instantaneous, and that in all it is believed to be really so. Nor can it be denied, that society is divided into various classes, according to their moral character and condition; and that the unconverted, and the careless, and the anxious, and the converts, and church members, are called by names which are descriptive of the real state of their moral character, so far as men can fairly judge. Nor can it be denied, that there are visitations of churches, by pastors and lay delegates; and also visitations of families, by pastors and members of the church. Nor can it be denied, that meetings of inquiry are held, where those who are anxious can assemble to converse with their pastors, and also with other experienced Christians. It is also equally true, that the events of God's providence, especially cases of sickness and death, are often employed as means of instructing the living, and exciting them to prepare for death. It is also true that evangelists are employed, whose duty it is to arouse the attention of the churches, and to assist settled pastors in promoting revivals; and there can be no doubt that they have been very successful. But, what inhabitant of New England, who has ever heard or seen much of the religious world, does not know these facts? Did our author really suppose that they were unknown, until he had discovered and disclosed them? What Orthodox religious paper has not disclosed facts of this kind, for weeks, months, and years past? Why, then, cannot their own accounts be received? If the Orthodox have revivals, and have a plan and a system which they understand, why not rest satisfied with their own description? The reason is obvious; it was not so much a mere narration of facts, which our author wanted, as an opportunity to narrate these facts in his own way, and for his own purposes. Now the general facts being the same, there are two ways of narrating them. One ascribes them to God as the chief agent, operating by the truth, through human instrumentality. This mode the Orthodox adopt. There is another mode, which ascribes them to mere

human device, operating by passion and sympathy upon the minds of the weak, superstitious, thoughtless, irrational, and enthusiastic part of the community. This our author adopts. It is of course necessary, on this supposition, to assert, that so regular and extensive a system of operations is got up by leading men, especially the Orthodox clergy, and next to these, by the Orthodox churches. Now if a man narrates on the first supposition, his manner will be serious, and he will state the facts, and assign their cause according to his own views, and ridicule nothing, although he admits defects. If a man narrates according to the last supposition, he will state facts and causes according to his own views, and endeavor to expose the leaders and most active agents in such transactions to contempt. His manner of narrating will constantly betray the contempt or hatred which he feels for such proceedings. He may narrate the same general facts, but will color them according to the state of his own mind. So Gibbon has narrated many undeniable facts, as it regards the origin and progress of Christianity; but he has so interwoven his own views and feelings, that his narration is one of the most bitter attacks which was ever made upon Christianity. Our author has selected the same mode of narration. He has narrated some facts indeed, but his whole narration is colored with Unitarian unbelief, and prejudices, and bitterness. Just as Gibbon sought to explain, on natural principles, all the facts attending the origin of Christianity, so as to avoid the necessity of ascribing them to God, so does our author attempt to explain all facts relating to revivals, on human principles, so as to be enabled to deny the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit in producing them. And in addition to this, oblique hints, side thrusts, insinuation, and ridicule are employed to fill up the general outline of the picture. He says:

"To say nothing of the general effects of these excitements, I cannot help suspecting from what I have seen of them, that there is fanaticism always, and necessarily, at the bottom of them; that they are based upon false ideas, and upon this in particular, the root of all fanaticism, that they are the special work of God, the fruit of his supernatural interposition. Let these things be looked upon as the natural results of human feeling, let the idea of any thing extraordinary and preternatural be taken away, and I suspect that three quarters of that which supports them in the public mind would be taken away also. It is the work of God,' is the declaration that carries awe and contagious fear over the minds of the body of the people. This represses inquiry, silences doubt, spreads anxiety and apprehension among the timid, and emboldens the confidence of the forward and presumptuous." pp. 30, 31.

Now it cannot be denied that 'It is the work of God,' is the declaration which most deeply affects the minds of the Orthodox ; for they are sincerely convinced that revivals are the special work

of God, the fruit of his supernatural interposition. And take away this idea, and there is no doubt that not only three quarters of that which supports them in the public mind will be taken away, but the whole. But the question returns, how does it appear that revivals are not God's work? Is the assertion of our author good evidence?

On p. 6, he ascribes conversion to various causes. He speaks of working upon the imagination and feelings, and of overwrought passion, and of a bare physical emotion which is mistaken for a real spiritual change of views and sentiments. This may be a correct account of all the change which takes place in a false conversion of one who afterwards turns out to be an apostate; but how does it appear that there is no such thing as real conversion? Is our author's opinion good evidence? A man can indeed describe his own feelings, but how can he pronounce on "the forbidden" subject of his neighbor's heart ?"

On pp. 13, 14, he tells us how an Orthodox minister works himself up, so as to get into the spirit of a revival. He implies, that his views of religion are irrational, and not heartfelt, and that he is "restless and conscience-stricken," and that his "notion of religion is extravagant," and "that he is thinking of some unreasonable and unattainable state of feeling, as constituting religion." He speaks of his excitement of feeling as "effervescence," "a paroxysm," "a fever." Now, all this may be true of a false convert, who was once professedly an Orthodox minister, and who endeavored to feel as they say they do, and could not, and was, in his own words, "restless and conscience-stricken." There were such in the days of the apostle John, concerning whom he says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." But how does our author know that there are no ministers who have really been converted, and who feel as they profess to feel? Has he the power of searching all hearts? Or does he say, that it is irrational to suppose such a thing possible? If the latter, and what else can he say, then we have another specimen of his skill in begging the question. He has often asserted, but where has he proved, that conversion is irrational?

He speaks of revivals as observing the bounds of clerical influence:

"So true is this, that I have sometimes observed in a city, where the congregations of course are completely intermixed in residence, society, and relationships, yet the revivals will most exactly observe the bounds of clerical influence. Mr. A. has a great revival,'— for this is the very language they use,' in his congregation,' and Mr. B.'s congregation-who dislikes these things-is not touched. This is priestly power, indeed, with a witness." pp. 10, 11.

VOL. I,

48