am not aware that any article of the christian faith is more frequently brought into notice by the writers of the New Testament, than this. In the various forms in which we have considered it, it was a familiar subject of contemplation and remark with them. They attribute our progress in excellence to God, as the author of our being. They trace every christian virtue to Him, as through Christ, the source of faith and strength. And they again and again appear to me to speak of a direct influence, exerted by the Deity on the human soul,-in accordance with its perfect freedom, but still with the design of producing repentance and holiness. It is not easy in all, nor perhaps in most instances, to determine the particular mode of the divine agency, intended by the writer, and often they were all present to his mind, and the effects of their co-operation were signified by the terms, the Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit.

An argument of considerable weight may be drawn from the offices of devotion. We are taught to pray for God's spirit, for his assistance, his influence. If such directions do not involve the doctrine, that we may receive special aid from the Being to whom we address our supplications, are they not worse than nugatory? They lead us to expect what cannot be enjoyed; to ask for that which will not be given. If this view of prayer be correct, the proof of a positive divine influence, bestowed at different times and in various measures, is complete. With those who hold other notions of prayer, this argument may have little force; but they who interpret this service as I do, will feel the necessity of believing both in a particular providence, and in a special influence of the divine spirit.

As the first benefit which accrues from this doctrine, I should therefore name its relation to prayer, to which it gives a meaning, a force, an intensity, that it can have on no other theory. In the next place, I would notice the sense of intimacy between our Creator and ourselves, which it produces. We are brought to feel our dependence on God for spiritual blessings, and to acknowledge Him in all the concerns of the religious life. To him we are indebted for every good impulse; the thought of him is associated with every virtuous effort; he is the spring and support of all excellence. We may adopt the sentiment which the apostle uttered respecting the early preachers of the gospel, 'our sufficiency is of God.'

Another benefit flowing from this doctrine, is the comfort which it gives to them who are in any kind of trouble. To the solitary and afflicted, to the anxious and distressed, to the humble and penitent, to them who feel their weakness and lament their folly, the sentiment on which I have dwelt, comes as a voice from heaven, to encourage and solace them. It tells them that though feeble in themselves, they are mighty through Him who strengtheneth them; though oppressed, they are upheld; though alone, they are not without a Friend who will supply all their wants, and cause them to rejoice in his love; though sinful, they may be forgiven and sanctified. It lifts the soul to God; it makes a sanctuary for God in the soul; it silences complaint, assuages grief, and leads the contrite offender to the Being in whom alone is hope. It makes heaven on earth.

Finally this doctrine is of great value, as it gives a solemn interest to all the circumstances of life, and all

the exercises of our souls. Trifle not,-is its exhortation, with the events of your existence, however trivial they may appear. God may be speaking to you through them. Examine them with a deeper reverence than you would search papers written by a loved and departed friend, for they may contain lessons of heavenly wisdom. Trifle not, oh trifle not with your own consciousness. Let not holy thoughts pass idly from your minds. They may be inspirations of the Deity.

E. S.

REGENERATION, AND THE MANNER OF ITS OCCURRENCE.

Dr. Cox's Sermon before the Synod of New York. Princeton Biblical Repertory. New Haven Christian Spectator.

We have never before heard of Dr Cox. What his standing is among the clergy of the city of New York, where we understand he ministers, we of course do not know. That he is, however, in repute with a considerable number of his Presbyterian brethren, appears from his having been appointed preacher to one of the most respectable Synods in our country. His sermon, delivered before this body, last autumn, and accidentally met with by us, a few days ago, affords evidence enough, that, although not a good writer, nor a sound. theologian, he possesses, nevertheless, more than common vigor and independence of mind. We are induced to notice his discourse, chiefly for the light it throws on some doctrinal differences, subsisting between

the 'old' and 'new' schools of orthodoxy. It furnishes a remarkable instance of attack on Calvinism, by a professed Calvinist. The preacher selects 'regeneration' for his subject; and one reason he assigns for the choice is, that he is convinced that it is ill understood by some, who are viewed as the standards of doctrinal soundness.'-p. 3. That no one may be left in doubt as to the class of divines whose opinions he purposes to controvert, he tells us he means such as believe and teach, that 'a man has no ability to do his duty;' that 'the work of the creator, as such, is not good,' but lays the foundation, in the very entity of the soul, for all its overt acts, and for the necessity of regeneration ;' that 'regeneration is the implantation of a certain kind of principle of holiness, which precedes all active mental holiness, in which man is no agent at all, but only a passive receiver of the mysterious gratuity, and which is the happy contrary of a principle of sin, concreated with us;' that God is the sole agent in regeneration ;' that the important use of the means of grace, and the gospel itself, are 'to illustrate the strength of our invincible depravity,' and 'to signalize the prodigious efforts and labors of Omnipotence, in this department of constant miracle working.' 'These dogmas,' with others of a kindred character, I know,' he adds, 'their advocates would represent differently; but, as I believe, without altering their nature, or making them intrinsically any better than I have briefly shown them.'-pp. 6, 7.

Previously to sketching in so free a manner, the features of old fashioned Calvinism, the author, aware, as it would seem, that the attack he designed to make on

this system, might offend a class of his Presbyterian brethren, thought it expedient, in his 'introduction,' to offer what he has called an apology;' a part of which we have in the following spirited remarks.

For the personal worth of some who differ from me on points and positions treated in this discourse, no man, perhaps entertains a higher veneration than myself. I regret to say any thing that may wound their feelings.' 'But truth is no respecter of persons.' 'This is my apology for great plainness of speech, that affects the approbation of God. It is no contempt of others to forget them, personally, in the investigation of eternal principles, where to court their favor were impious. I am anxiously afraid, however, that there is much of this in the formation of theological sentiments. The love of popularity, or the sickly and cowardly fear of having one's orthodoxy questioned, or the servile regards that overestimate a sanction from high places in the church, have probably an uncomputed influence with many who seem to believe by engrossment, to investigate nothing, and to be orthodox by conformity. Such persons are sometimes found to dread investigation as if it were the pioneer of heresy, and the high way of infidelity. But what is this itself but a deeper infidelity? Can he be a believer in christianity, who is afraid that something will rase its foundations, and expose its fallacy, or justify skepticism?'-p. 3.

We like the tone of this. If such sentiments are often expressed with impunity by orthodox ministers in Presbyterian churches, our hopes for the truth are better than our fears have been. But what are Dr Cox's own views of regeneration? They are implied in the pointed interrogatories which follow.

Are we regenerated before we love God and obey the gospel?" 'Can regeneration be defined so as to restrict it substantively to the agency of God?' Does God any thing in the process apart from bringing us, through the gospel, to understand, believe, approve and worship him in his ways? Is not the change entirely coincident with the laws of accountability, with self reproaches for its postponement? Is it not wholly moral, in contradistinction to physical, in its nature? Is it not (looking through words to things; from books to facts; at nature, not theory,) is it not intrinsically absurd, and