life, and then assure them that such compliance is utterly out of the question, and to be wholly despaired of. The opposite impression, however, is not uncommon; and it is an error not less fatal to immediate repentance, than the fond hope of repenting hereafter. Both are to be destroyed; and he who does not preach the gospel in that manner which tends to destroy both, preaches it but imperfectly. “In the earlier revivals of this country, great prominence was given, in the preaching, to the doctrine of dependence, in the forms of regeneration, election, &c. This was what was to be expected from the Calvinistic preachers of the time, in view of the prevalence of Arminianism. In the more recent revivals, however, a similar prominence seems to be given to moral agency, in the forms of present obligation to duty, its present practicability, &c. The preaching, thus distinguished in its more prominent characteristics, has been undeniably owned and blessed by the Spirit of God, although we are very apt to believe that what is true of one kind of preaching at one time, must be true of it at another. Now, I believe that both the doctrines of dependence and moral accountability must be _admitted by the public mind_, to secure upon that mind the full power of the gospel. I also believe that greater or less _prominence_ should be given to the one or the other of these doctrines, according to the prevailing state of public opinion. When, at the earlier periods alluded to, the doctrine of dependence was dwelt on chiefly, (I do not suppose exclusively,) the public mind believed enough—I might say too much—concerning the free moral agency of man, and had not so well learned as since to pervert the doctrine of dependence to justify the waiting attitude of a passive recipient. And, then, both doctrines told with power on the mind and the conscience, and, through God, were attended with great and happy results. But the prominence given to the doctrine of dependence, in preaching, was continued, until, if I mistake not, it so engrossed the public attention, and so obscured or weakened the doctrine of responsibility, that many fell into the opposite error of quietly waiting for God’s interposition. Hence, when this prevailing error is again corrected by a more prominent exhibition of man’s responsibility, in the form of immediate obligation, &c., the power of both doctrines is again combined on the public mind, and we see the same or even greater results in revivals of religion. Nor would it be strange if the latter kind of preaching should, in its turn, prevail so exclusively and so long, that the practical influence of the doctrine of dependence should be greatly impaired, to be followed with another dearth of revivals and a quiet reliance of sinful men on their own self-sufficiency. On