pear. And hence it is, that opposers of these seasons of religious interest always attack them in a general way. They do not go into an honest examination of particulars; they do not bring into view all the traces which revivals leave behind them-the transformations they have made, the sins they have blotted out, -the hopes and sympathies they have awakened, the purifications they have wrought in the moral atmosphere, the churches they have gladdened—and the souls they have saved. No man can do this, and then pronounce them an evil work. Nothing can be more defective, uncandid, or unphilosophical, than the judgments which many form respecting revivals. They seize upon some few things unfavorable, or which seem to them so, at the distance at which they keep, and overlook all the rest,—judging of them as one might be supposed to do of a summer shower, who should bring us an account of the small streams which it had overswelled, or of the small furrows with which it had here and there marred a hill-side, but should perceive nothing of the verdure of the reviving fields, nor of the healthful fragrance with which it had embalmed the atmosphere.

We are ready now for the inference. If such are the effects of revivals, (and that they are such, no man is able to disprove ;) and if you deny that the Holy Spirit has an agency in producing these effects, then you must adopt the extraordinary conclusion, that communities are indebted for many of their most important blessings, and thousands of individuals for their precious and immortal hopes, to the prevalence of a gross delusion. You must admit the monstrous consequence, that multitudes of such, apparently, asshall be saved, are added to the churches by means which God disowns and Satan favors. How then shall Satan's kingdom stand? If he has any agency in producing these results, he is engaged in that which is making a constant inroad upon his kingdom; and which of all things his human coadjutors are most stirred up to oppose.

In considering the nature of revivals, we should not omit the means by which they are promoted. These are the ordinary means of God's appointment,-the plain and pointed preaching of the word. It does not relieve the matter to say, that the word is preached very frequently and importunately, so as to overpower the judgment of the hearers. God has no where bid his ministers preach his word unfrequently and reservedly; but on the contrary, has required them to preach it in the most plain and earnest manner. "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long suffering and doctrine." And his holy prophets and apostles have set an example of such preaching. Paul preached, not only at set times,

and in consecrated synagogues, and in priestly robes, (if he ever wore them ;) but wherever opportunity offered,-at his lodgings, in the markets, in prisons and in court-houses, on the hill tops, in "upper chambers," "continuing his speech until midnight," and from house to house; and with an earnestness that often expressed itself in tears.

Nor does it help the objector, to attribute the effect produced, not to the word preached, but to the power of sympathy; for (besides that the mere operation of sympathy cannot account for the permanent effects on the consciences and moral dispositions and habits of the subjects of revivals) the word of God is preached to men as they are; and if it cannot be so preached frequently and pointedly without producing an injurious excitement upon those who hear it, then God has appointed means for the spiritual improvement of mankind which are not wisely adapted to the end, -which produce enthusiasm and fanaticism, rather than rational piety, and which cannot therefore be safely used.

Nor does it relieve the objector to say, that it is not the pure word that is preached, but such human modifications of it as give it a perverted effect. He must prove this. It may be true in regard to some excitements, which have been called revivals :"by their fruits ye shall know them ;"--but this is by no means true in regard to revivals generally. The doctrines preached in revivals, are the universal sinfulness and condemnation of man in a state of nature; the duty of immediate repentance, supreme love to God, and holiness of heart and life; the entire ability of every man to perform this duty; and his dependence on divine grace for a change of heart, as resulting wholly from the obstinacy of his own will. The motives urged upon the sinner are those which are derived from the command of God, the love of Christ, the rewards and punishments of eternity, and a regard to his own happiness in view of the essential wretchedness of sin and the essential happiness of virtue. The objector must show that these doctrines and motives are not from the Bible, or his objection goes for nothing. And, besides, if it is erroneous preaching which produces revivals now, what preaching was it which produced them in the days of the apostles; when Philip preached at Samaria, and "there was great joy in that city;" and when three thousand were converted in a day under the preaching of Peter and others, on the day of Pentecost?

The opposers of revivals, then, we repeat it, are presented with the same alternative, which was urged by Christ upon the Pharisees. If these reviled seasons of religious interest are a mere delusion, a work of the evil one, then is "Satan divided against himself." But if such a supposition is obviously absurd, then the

solemn truth should ring in the ears of every opposer, "the king dom of God is come nigh unto you." "He that falleth on thi stone shall be broken, but on whom it falleth, it shall grind hin to powder."

Our second argument is derived from the character of the friends and promoters of revivals. If you say that revivals are work of evil origin, and not of the Spirit of God, then it follow that all the promoters and subjects of them are either deludea themselves, or intentional deceivers of others.

Which of these two extraordinary suppositions do you choose to make? Are they deceivers? Who are these friends and professed subjects of revivals? They comprise a multitude of persons, in the present and past ages, which no man can number, out of every nation, and kindred, and people, and tongue, where the gospel has been preached.

One large portion of them are ingenuous and amiable youth; others are among the most intelligent and virtuous in middle life; and others are walking amid the shadows of advancing age, and are carrying with them the testimony of many years to their integrity and worth. For ourselves, we cannot envy the feelings of that man, who can doubt whether those warm hearted youth are too amiable and happy, and those maturer promoters of revivals in middle life too respectable, and those aged friends of them, too venerable to be known deceivers. We must add too, that the whole body of orthodox clergy in our country must take their character along with the rest, for good or bad,--who are all, (with few exceptions, and those, in too many instances, dishonorable exceptions,) promoters of revivals, and laborious in them to a degree which, in most cases, exhausts their strength, and in many, cuts short their lives.

Surely it requires an amazing stretch of uncharitable credulity to say, (as many do affect to say,) that a revival is an excitement got up merely by human management, since it involves such a mass of amiable and respectable characters in no less a charge than that of hypocrisy and imposition; and that too in the most momentous of human concerns!

If the objector take the other supposition,―that the friends of revivals may be honest in their views and measures, but are under a delusion as to their being a work of the divine Spirit, this supposition is little better than the preceding one. He may affect to say this of" weak women and children," as often is said, unhandsomely as well as uncharitably; but he must go farther than this if he ventures at all on this charge of delusion. It is not feminine and youthful minds only, that are concerned here: there are a host of strong men, not only of the clerical profession, but

of every other, who, with all the power of cultivated intellect, and all the ardor of great souls, are engaged in these revivals, and who, if revivals are a delusion, are as thoroughly deluded as the weakest of their advocates. There are among them, men who have written some of the ablest books which the human mind has produced, not only in divinity, but in science and literature; men who have delivered the profoundest decisions on the bench, and framed the ablest arguments in our courts and halls of legislation; men, in short, who have shone as luminaries in every department of life, and towards whom no one has been capable of feeling disrespect. What shall we say of these men? Would you choose to hazard the credit of your own understanding by calling in question the soundness of theirs? And yet if you say that believers in revivals are deluded; that they are enthusiastic, extravagant, or fanatical, in their notions about these supposed outpourings of the Spirit of God, you must include in your sweeping condemnation, a countless multitude of such men.

We have one or two more remarks to make, before we leave this subject. They are of a miscellaneous character, but not foreign to the argument.

The fact, that some among the supposed subjects of revivals lose their seriousness, and return again to their former vain or vicious courses, is often brought forward as an evidence that reviivals are themselves a mere delusion. But, properly considered, this is a strong testimony to their reality as a work of God. The very statement of the objection includes its own refutation. Some fall away! This implies that others persevere, and prove themselves to have been indeed the subjects of a spiritual renewal. And more than this, if these excitements are spurious, the effect of sympathy or delusion, we should expect the impression to subside in all minds, as well as in some. Especially should we expect, that the most cool, intelligent, and reflecting, would be the first to come to their senses, and the last to be thus imposed upon again. But instead of this, it is this description of persons, generally, who continue to manifest, throughout life, the most deep and uniform interest in revivals, if they have ever felt their power; while it is among the less intelligent and reflecting, that we usually find the defections alluded to above. The opposer of revivals must, we think, admit the force of this fact. Why, we ask him, are not the most intelligent and thinking, among the first to discover the deception? Why, if they entered on the rugged path of self-denial, from heated and sympathetic feelings merely, do not all, and not a few individuals, among the subjects of a revival, go back again to the world? Was it ever heard of in this fallen world, that mere sympathy or heated zeal made men permanently holy?

Once more; the objection made against revivals, that as to those out of the church, they are followed by as much coldness and levity as preceded them, is one of no weight. It is not usually true in fact. .They leave an impression on the moral feelings of the community which is not soon effaced. But if it were true, as it regards the unconverted, it is what might be expected. It is only the relapse of minds ever averse to seriousness, and anxious for relief from the inquietudes of conscience, into their old and settled courses. Revivals do not produce the levity of worldly minds. They powerfully interrupt it. For the time being, and commonly long after, the ball-room and bar-room are deserted, comparatively if not entirely; and groups of idlers, that were wont to gather at public corners on the sabbath, find their way to the house of God. Is it any argument against them, that the depraved heart, though awed for a time by the manifest tokens of the divine presence, can at last resist their influence, and turn like the children of Israel before the mount of God, to idols of its own choosing?

Let us pause now, and review the ground gone over. The point at issue is, whether revivals are the effect of a divine influence or not. Those who take the ground that they are not, must adopt, as we have shown, among others, the following conclusions; some of which are absurd, and others, to say the least of them, uncharitable and injurious in the extreme.

That the most surprising and happy effects on communities, families, and individuals, are to be ascribed to a work which can be explained only by the supposition of a diabolical agency, or else, of a most extensive and incredible human imposture, or blind delusion.

That the word of God cannot be preached, plainly and earnestly, without danger of producing, and in many cases actually producing, a religious delirium in the hearers.

That a multitude of your fellow-men, of your own and other times, and of every variety of age and standing, with every appearance of sincerity, and soundness of understanding, are nothing better than either impostors or madmen.

That the great mass of christian professors in our land are either not what they profess to be, or, if they are, that God is building up his church by means of extravagance and error.

All this length you must go, if you begin to question the reality of revivals as the work of God. If all these most improbable and most uncharitable conclusions you cannot hold, you give up the point. You admit the agency of the Spirit. And admitting that, the inference which our Savior made to the Pharisees is applicable to you. Then is the kingdom of God come unto you.