leaves upon every mind the impression that the greatest and worst part of truth had been left unsaid; it closes with this remark: "that very many of the reported converts were like the stony-ground hearers, who endured only for a time, few, I presume, will at this day be disposed to deny." Certainly, but is it not so in every revival? Are not "many called, but few chosen?" Is there any evidence that less were savingly converted than in the corresponding labors of Mr. Nettleton? The real cause of the difficulty is betrayed in the following rather careless sentence: "He (Dr. Nettleton) found that Mr. Finney was unwilling to abandon certain measures which he had ever regarded as exceedingly calamitous to the cause of revivals;" and because "certain measures" did not meet with the approbation of Dr. Nettleton, he was necessitated to use his influence against the whole work. In this opposition he was sustained by numbers who either objected to the same measures, or were of different theological sentiments, or, for some reason, disliked the man. We will further quote from a letter of Dr. Nettleton to a friend, written in January, 1827. It will show what results Dr. Nettleton found fault with, and who were really to blame for those results. He says, "We do not call in question the genuineness of those revivals, or the purity of the motives of those who have been the most active in them. You doubtless are reaping and

rejoicing in their happy fruits; but the evils to which I allude are felt by the churches abroad, numbers of which have gone out to catch the spirit, and have returned, some grieved, others soured, and denouncing ministers, colleges, theological seminaries, and have set whole churches by the ears, and kept them in turmoil for months together."

Is the blame, then, to be attached to the principal preacher, or to the individuals who went home discontented and prejudiced? When, in a multitude of instances, the Almighty had set his seal to the work, is it to be considered spurious because a number of individuals could not extend to it their approbation? We find it stated on reliable authority, that "Dr. Nettleton afterward repented of his rashness," and although he had been aforetime very successful in his ministry, his usefulness seemed to die when he came out so bitterly against Mr. Finney. Dr. Lyman Beecher wrote to Dr. Nettleton, who had been sick about a year, that "his sickness seemed a judgment upon him for his opposition to Mr. Finney; if we are not able to keep up with the boys, why, let them go ahead; we will follow on and do what good In alluding to the matter, President Finney remarks, "I never had much to do with him in any way."

we can.

The work in which Mr. Finney was engaged progressed rapidly, and great success attended his ef

forts. His knowledge of human law made him more acute in perceiving, and ready in interpreting the divine law. His first volume of sermons was published in 1835, but some or all of them must have been written eight or nine years before, at the time of these revivals. The impenitent man who could fail to be aroused by such appeals as fill these lectures, must have been already stupefied by that torpor which is the precursor of eternal death. By their vigor and thrilling earnestness, thousands who had never before given a thought to the subject of religion, were awakened, and renouncing the service of Satan, entered the christian church. There are before us no statistics of the actual addition to the different de nominations, but it is certain that no revivals since the days of Edwards, were nearly as productive of benefit to the churches, in whose vicinity they occurred. In company with "Father Nash," as fellowlaborer, he discharged the duties of a successful evangelist in Rochester, Utica, Rome, Auburn, Buffalo, Troy, Boston, and New York city, and various other places of considerable importance.

I In 1832, Mr. Finney was settled over the Chathamstreet chapel, in New York city, where he discharged the duties of the pastoral office acceptably for two years. He then removed to the Tabernacle church, where he ministered for three years. In 1835, when he had been pastor of the Tabernacle one year, he

was elected professor of theology, at Oberlin, Ohio, and after two years, finding the double duties too much for his health, he resigned the charge of the church in New York, and removed to Oberlin. In 1836, he published "Sermons on important subjects," and "Lectures to Christians," in 1837. In the course of the next four years he published three other works, entitled, "Sanctification," "Revival Letters," and "Skeletons upon the subject of Moral Government." From the time he left New York, he was engaged in professional duties at Oberlin, and preaching in different cities in the Union, for a number of years. In 1846 and 1847 he issued his comprehensive work upon Systematic Theology, in two octavo volumes. They are the second and third of the series. In reference to the absence of the first, Professor Finney, in his preface to the second volume, says, "I have begun with the second volume, as this was to be on subjects so distinct from what will appear in the first, that this volume might as well appear first, and because it seemed especially called for just now, to meet a demand of the church, and of my classes." Any comment from us upon these works might appear assuming, and perhaps arrogant. The public are aware of the nature of the subjects therein discussed, and of his mode of discussion. Professor Finney has brought to the work a maturity of mind, a strength of purpose, and a logical acumen which is seldom

found. Professor Hodge, in his ill-fated review of them, says: "The work is, therefore, in a high degree logical. It is as hard to read as Euclid. Nothing can be omitted; nothing passed over slightly. * * * It is like one of those spiral stair-cases, which lead to the top of some high tower, without a landing from the base to the summit. The author begins with certain postulates, or what he calls firstclass truths of reason, and these he traces out with singular clearness and accuracy to their legitimate conclusions. We do not see that there is a break or defective link in the whole chain; if you grant his premises, you have already granted his conclusions."

The article by Professor Hodge, in the Princeton Biblical Repository for June, 1847, is the most like an attempt to combat Mr. Finney of anything we have seen, and this is an attempt only in appearance. After admitting that his premises must be wrong, or his conclusions right, one would suppose that unless Professor Hodge could deny successfully the premises, he must feel the force of the arguments, and admit the conclusions and positions established thereby. But no, he does nothing of the kind; seeing no place upon all the battle-field where he could erect a battery, he retreats behind the overthrown castle of Old School Presbyterianism, and barks at the author. It is indeed a pastime for a curious man to compare the work reviewed with the Review, to see how infinitely