semblance of truth in what is said; and if it had been correctly explained, and carefully guarded, it might pass. But, with the interpretation which the general tenor of the discourse requires, and with the meaning which hearers and readers generally would understand, in its connexion, and under the circumstances in which it was preached, it is a bold attempt to carry the new measures out, into all their legitimate consequences. It has the semblance of truth; because a minister may give offence by the clear and faithful exhibition of the doctrines of the Bible; or he may displease the soundest members of his church by refusing to exhibit them. But it is not the preaching of the doctrines which is here intended. Plain preaching, and preaching the truth, in the vocabulary of those who adopt the new measures, do not mean preaching the doctrines clearly and abundantly; with which offence I believe they ought not to be charged. It has reference to the manner in which people are addressed, "the spirit and pungency, and fire," with which the preacher "glows, and blazes, and burns upon them." It has reference to that of which people complain, as harsh and abusive treatment. Those who are the best friends of the plain exhibition of the doctrines of the gospel, and those who have been long known as the best friends of revivals, have complained of this; and here is an attempt to assign the reason. It is because they "will not enter into the spirit of a revival:" that is, they do not enter into the new measures, they do not give way to this class of animal feeling, nor suffer their judgment to be overborne by the violence of passion. And the minister who does, and cannot bring his people up to it, must leave them. But if the church enter into this spirit, and the minister does not, "let them shake off their sleepy minister." This is certainly taking a bold stand; and is going one step farther than Davenport and the old Separates. They only withdrew, and separated themselves from those they denounced as "cold and sleepy ministers," in their day. But, times have altered; and it is much easier now to "shake off" a minister that is disliked, than it was then. So that this is the first thing to be attempted; and if this attempt should not succeed, they may then separate themselves, as a last resort. If an individual awakes, that is, if he adopts these new measures, and gets full of that kind of animal feeling which they promote, he must try to bring his minister into the same spirit; and if he cannot succeed, he must go about and try to raise a party to "shake him off." I have heard of such advice being given privately to individuals, in particular cases, but this is the first time I have ever known it to be publicly preached and printed, as serious advice in all cases. And what is the rule by which individual church members.

*It was when the Presbytery were about attending to difficulties which had grown out of the introduction of the new measures, at the place where they were met, and where the discourse was preached.

may know when it is their duty to set about this work, and try to "shake off their sleepy minister ?" No rule is given in this immediate connexion; but perhaps one is found on the 12th page. "If the matter of preaching is right, and the sinner is pleased, there is something defective in the manner." If the unconverted part of the congregation are generally satisfied with the minister, it is a certain indication that he is a "sleepy minister," and ought to be "shaken off.” Individuals, then, have only to ask whether the congregation are generally in peace, and satisfied with their minister; and if they are, it is their duty to commence measures to drive him away. For advising less than this, in Boston, Davenport was indicted by the grand jury, as a disturber of the peace, and acquitted on his trial, solely on the ground of being insane at the time. And when he afterwards 46 came to himself," he made and published a confession for it; which, though it had a good appearance as it regarded his own piety, did not stop the progress of those evils which his disorderly measures had introduced, and the permanent effects of which remain to this day. And instances are not wanting, in our own times, of those who have acted upon the principles of this sermon. Some have already arisen to "shake off their sleepy ministers," and have succeeded in their attempts. Others have endeavored to do it, and have failed.

Again, page 10. "We may see that carnal professors and sinners have ho difficulty with animal feeling.”

Page 11. "Adopt a strain of exhortation or preaching that is calculated to awaken mere sympathy and animal feeling, and you will soon see that there is a perfect community of feeling among cold and warm-hearted Christians, and sinners; they will all weep, and seem to melt, and no one will be offended." "But change your style, and become more spiritual and holy in your matter, and throw yourself out in an ardent and powerful manner, in direct appeal to the conscience and the heart-their tears will soon be dried, the carnal and coldhearted will soon become uneasy and soon find themselves offended." I think this is not exactly so, even if explained according to the key before mentioned. Let us paraphrase it. The class of animal feel ́ing condemned, is the tender, weeping class. What is called spiritual and holy feeling, is the martial class. Mere tragic painting will excite the one class; "they will all weep, and seem to melt, and no one will be offended." But, different constitutions have this kind of sensibility in different degrees; and those who are full of the martial kind of animal feeling, have, for the time, very little of this, and are often displeased to see it. Let an assembly, however, be deeply affected with this disposition to weep; and then "change your style, and become more" martial “in your matter, and throw yourself out in an ardent and powerful manner, in direct appeal to" the other class of animal feeling, that is, the martial class, "their tears will soon be

dried," those who enter into this spirit will not weep, they will burn and blaze. Those who do not enter into it, "will become uneasy, and soon find themselves offended." But those who have the war spirit, will be offended at the tragic painting, which was addressed to the weeping sensibilities, and with which the other class are gratified, as much perhaps as those who have the tender kind of animal feeling are offended at the martial fire, in this case. And both on the principles illustrated by the effects of the two kinds of music mentioned on the 5th page of the sermon. In this place I see not how to reconcile the author with himself, any better than with facts.

Again, page 11. "We learn how to estimate apparent revivals where there is no opposition from the wicked."

Page 12. "That extitement which does not call out the opposition of the wicked and wrong-hearted, is either not a revival of religion at all, or it is so conducted that sinners do not see the finger of God in it." And further. "Those means and that preaching, both as to matter and manner, which call forth most of the native enmity of the heart-are nearest right." Here again, is some appearance of truth, but so exhibited as to make a wrong impression. The clear exhibition of the doctrines of the Bible is adapted to excite the enmity of the carnal heart, and often does, in a high degree. But it is not the clear exhibition of the doctrines of the gospel, that this discourse is designed to defend, it is something very different. The new measures have excited much opposition; and that opposition is to be accounted for, in such a way as to make it prove that the new measures are nearest right. And the impression is also to be made, that those revivals which are taking place without the new measures, are wrong, because they excite less open and violent opposition. The truth, doubtless, is, that in some places, the doctrines of the gospel have been so long and so clearly preached,that the congregation in general have the conviction that they are true, and that they are the appointed means of the conviction and conversion of sinners. Their selfish desire of being happy hereafter leads them to wish to have those doctrines preached, by means of which alone they have any hope that they shall ever be saved. And when they are so far awakened, and have so much conviction of sin, as to fill them with deep distress, and make those doctrines painful to them, they yet wish to have them kept before their minds, on the same principle that a man wishes to have the surgeon apply his probe or his amputating knife to a diseased limb, as the means of saving his life. In such cases, where the right means are used with the greatest fidelity, but yet with the tenderness and kindness which the gospel requires, no open opposition is to be expected. And it is to me a pleasant circumstance, when I read an account of a revival in a place where I think the people have correct instruction, to find it stated that there is no open opposition. I infer,

that the consciences of the impenitent are so kept on the side of truth, that they are disposed to give it a favorable hearing; and that there is consequently some reason to hope it will yet be made effectual to their conviction and conversion. Instead of concluding "it is not a revival of religion at all, or that it must be so conducted that sinners do not see the finger of God in it," as the author does, I draw the contrary conclusion, and am led to hope for its longer continuance, its better permanent effects, and its being followed by a less injurious re-action when it has passed by. As it is the great object of the sermon, however, to justify the new measures, and to turn the objections which are made against them into proof of their being right; all those measures for promoting revivals which are not thus opposed must be condemned as wrong; and all those revivals, which are now taking place without the new measures, and without the opposition they excite, and without "making a great deal of noise in the world," under such measures, as have been in use for the last thirty years, and sanctioned by the name of a man who is deservedly dear to all the friends of pure revivals, must be put down, as "no revivals of religion at all, or so conducted that sinners do not see the finger of God in them."

The remainder of the discourse is principally directed to this object, and especially what is said of the preaching of Christ and the Apostles, and the opposition which it excited. A cursory reader, who did not carefully attend to his Bible, would be led to suppose that the preaching of Christ and the Apostles was always opposed with great bitterness;' and that if any preachers now are not thus opposed, it proves that they are not like Christ and the Apostles. And the comparison is not obscurely made between those "professors of religion," who were then "often leaders in the opposition, the religjous teachers and learned doctors" of that day, and the professors of religion and ministers of this day who oppose the new measures.— And the idea is plainly communicated, that the complaints against the advocates of the new measures, of being "imprudent; their preachtoo overbearing and severe," and there being "something wrong in their management of revivals," might have been as justly made against Christ and the Apostles; and are rather to be considered as evidence of a striking likeness between these men and Christ and the Apostles. And there is a very offensive insinuation of "great spiritual pride,” and the study of " carnal policy and management," and a "hypocrit ical suavity of manner," made against some of the most experienced promoters of revivals, at the present day, in consequence of what they have said about "the theory of revivals being better understood now" than in the days of Davenport, and the preference they have given to measures which are mild and gentle in their nature, and silent and still in their operation, over those which are ostentatious and noisy, and adapted to stir up opposition; as if they pretended to be more pru

dent and wise than the Apostles, instead of merely claiming, as they do, to understand the management of revivals better than Davenport and his insane followers. And the concluding sentences are, "let us not be puffed up, and imagine that we are prudent and wise, and have learned how to manage carnal professors and sinners, whose carnal mind is enmity against God,' so as not to call forth their opposition to truth and holiness, as Christ and his Apostles did. But let us know, that if they have less difficulty with us, and with our lives, and preaching, than they had with theirs, it is because we are less holy, less heavenly, less like God, than they were. If we walk with the lukewarm and ungodly, or they with us, it is because we are agreed: for two cannot walk together except they be agreed."

The principle upon which all this is founded, is, that an impenitent sinner, could not be pleased with the preaching or conduct of the Lord Jesus Christ, nor with any preaching or conduct that is right.— If a Christian lives as he ought, and if a minister preaches as he ought, it cannot fail, according to this theory, to give offence. The author says, "If the matter of preaching is right, and the sinner is pleased, there is something defective in the manner." And not only must right preaching give offence to some sinners, but it must give offence to all sinners. And it must not only give offence to every sinner at some times, but it must give offence to every sinner at all times. For, whenever the sinner is pleased with any thing in the Christian, it proves that that thing is wrong. If any exception is admitted to this rule, it will destroy the whole discourse, and defeat its object entirely. A few examples will suffice to show its fallacy; and any child, who reads his Bible, can find others in abundance.

"Herod heard John gladly," and was induced by what he said to do many things." What was the defect in John's preaching? Was it wrong in matter, or wrong in manner, that Herod was pleased? Afterwards, when he was disposed to put John to death, to gratify a wicked woman, he feared the multitude, because they counted John as a prophet. John had gained so strong a hold on the affections of the multitude, that Herod was afraid his putting him to death would excite an insurrection. Will it be said, the multitude were saints, or that John had been unfaithful? When Christ asked the chief priests and scribes about the baptism of John, they were afraid to say it was of men, and this was the reason, "If we say, of men, all the people will stone us." According to the principle of this discourse, John must have been a very bad men, very unfaithful, to have excited such feeling in his favor among the mass of people, that the chief priests and elders were afraid of being stoned, if they should say a word against him. To those very Jews who were seeking his life, Christ said of John, "He was a burning and shining light; and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light." What was the fault of John, which they were pleased with, and rejoiced in? No fault at all; they rejoiced