The New Divinity Tried [pp. 278-304]

The New Divinity Tried.
his sermon on Ability; by Mr. Duffield, in his recent work
on Regeneration, and we venture to commend it to the reviewer as the right course, and, if such a consideration need
be suggested, as the most politic. We have little doubt some
of the advocates of the New Divinity have suffered more in
public confidence from taking the opposite course, than from
their opinions themselves. And we suspect the reviewer's
pamphlet, will be another mill-stone around their nieck.
Another inference from the leading idea of this new system is, that regeneration is man's own act, consisting in the
choice of God( as the portion of the soul, or in a change in the
governing purpose of the life. Mr. Finney's account of its
nature is as follows:'"I will show," says he, "w'hat is intended in the command in the text (to make a new heart.) It
is that a man should change the governing purpose (f his
life. A man resolves to be a lawyer; then he directs all his
plans and efforts to that object, and that, for the time is his
governing purpose. Afterwards, he may alter his determnination, and resolve to be a merchant. Now he directs all his
efforts to that object, and so has changed his heart, or governing purpose." Again, "It is apparent that the change now
described, effected by the simple volition of the sinners mind
through the influence of motives, is a sufficient change,:'all
that the Bible requires. It is all that is necessary to make a
sinner a christian."
This account of making a new heart, the reviewer undertakes to persuade the public is the orthodox doctrine of regeneration and conversion. This he attempts by plunging at
once into the depths of metaphysics, and bringing out of these
plain sentences, a meaning as remote from their apparent
sense, as ever Cabbalist extracted from Hebrew letters. He
begins by exhibiting the various senses in which the words,
will, heart, purpose, volilion, &c. are used. We question
the accuracy of his statements with regard to the first of these
terms. He is right enough in distinguishing between the
restricted and extended meaning of the word, that is, between
the will considered as the power of the mind to determine on
its own actions, and as the power to choose or prefer. But
when he infers from this latter definition, that not only the
natural appetites, as hunger and thirst, but also the social affee.
tions, as love of parents, and children, &e., are excluded, by
Edwards and others who adopt it, from the will, we demur.
Edwards says, that "all liking and disliking, inclining or
295