The New Divinity Tried [pp. 278-304]

( 278 )
ART. X.-THE NEW DIVINITY TRIED.
Rieview of" The New Divinity Tried;" or, dn Examina tion of the Rev. 3Ir. Rand's Strictures on O Sermon de livered by the Rev. C. J. Finney, on making a new
Hleart. Boston. Pierce & Butler, 1832. pp. 44.
WE learn from this pamphlet, that the Rev. Mr. Finney
delivered, sometime last autumn, a sermon on makling a new
heart, founded on Ezek. xviii. 13. The Rev. Mr. Rand,
being one of his auditors, took notes of the discourse, which
he published, attended with a series of strictures, ins a periodical work of which he is the editor. As these notes, in the
judgment of Mr. Finney's friends, presented an imperfect view
of his sermon, one of their number obtained the outline used
by the preacher himself, and sent the requisite corrections to
Mr. Rand, who availed himself of the aid thus afforded. The
notes and strictures were afterwards published in a pamphlet
form under the title, "The New Divinity Tried." It is the
review of this pamphlet, by an anonymous writer, of which
we propose to give a short notice.
We are not prepared to justify the course pursued by Mr.
Rand, in thus bringing Mr. Finney before the public without
his knowledge or consent. Tile considerations which evince
the general impropriety of such a step are obvious, and are
forcibly stated in the Review. That there may be cases in
which the evil produced by a popular preacher constantly presenting erroneous views in his discourses, is so serious, that
the usual etiquette of literary proceedings should be sacrificed
in order to counteract its influence, we do not doubt. Nor do
we question that Mr. Rand felt the present to be such a ease.
As the publication has not only been made, but noticed by the
friends and advocates of Mr. Finney, there can be no impropriety in our calling the attention of our readers, for a few
moments, to the contents of this Review. It is an elaborate
production, distinguished both by acuteness and research, and
pervaded by a tone of moderation. These are its favourable
characteristics. On the other hand, it is lamentably deficient
in open, manly discussion. Instead of a clear and bold statement of the distinguishing principles of the New Divinity, and
a frank avowal of dissent from the Old Divinity of New Eng
A;