ciple [i. e. moral character belonging only to acts of choice] is inconsistent with the doctrine of original righteousness, is formally admitted. That it involves the denial of original sin, as the doctrine has been commonly held among Calvinists, is equally clear. According to the prevalent doctrine on this subject, original sin consists, first, in the imputation of Adam's sin; this, it seems, has been long exploded: secondly, in the want of original righteousness; this is gone too, for there never was any such thing; and thirdly, in the corruption of nature, that is, a tendency to do what God has prohibited, [and nothing else,] existing prior to all acts of choice, and independently of them; and now this is gone.'-p. 292. [Alas! for the tattered shreds of Calvinism!]

But to return to our subject. This theory not only overthrows the doctrines which we have just mentioned, but it throws the spirit's influences almost out of view.' We think the grace of God acts a part scarcely more conspicuous in all this scheme, than it does in the enumeration of the titles of an European monarch.'-p. 294. 'As to the point which Dr Cox thinks so 'intrinsically absurd,' and about which he says so much, whether man is passive in regeneration, it will be seen that, for its own sake, it does not merit a moment's discussion. It depends entirely on the previous question; whether there is not a holy relish,' taste, or principle produced in the soul prior, in the order of nature, to any holy act of the soul itself. To relinquish this point, will cost us a struggle. It will be giving up the main point of debate between the friends and opposers of the doctrines of grace, from Augustine to the present day.' We have no doubt Dr Cox believes these doctrines. What we lament is, that he should seem to advocate a principle which we fear is subversive of them all.'-pp. 295, 296, 297..

It is in such language that the 'new' Calvinists are rebuked by the 'old;' in such tones of reproach and warning, does orthodoxy at Princeton speak to orthodoxy at New York. So much for the boasted power of Presbyterian creeds and Presbyterian discipline, to secure uniformity of opinion and cordiality of fellowship! What does it prove, but the very thing liberal christians have all along been saying, that human formularies of faith, however cunningly devised, and how

ever solemnly imposed, are only, as it were, leader shackles, which, so soon as they begin to gall the wearer, are easily stretched to any convenient dimensions ; and that the tender mercies of religious bigotry, in certain communions, towards such as subject themselves to its yoke, while yet they resolve to think with any considerable freedom, and to speak as they think, are about the same as towards those, who, at the hazard of being accounted downright infidels, refuse to submit to its bondage at all?

Let it not, however, be inferred from any remarks of this kind, that we suppose Dr Cox, roughly treated as he has been by some of his brethren, is likely to throw off the shackles of his sect. He doubtless adheres to Presbyterianism as strongly as ever, and will continue to do so. Nor would we be thought to regard his views of christianity, in general, though on particular points he may seem to entertain more just notions than many of his denomination, as much preferable to those of the Princeton divines, considered either in relation to the principles of divine government, or in relation to the obligations of human duty. In both these relations, the two parties stand on the same false ground; so that, whatever may be said of their speculative and verbal distinctions as to parts of the system they are alike pledged to support, there is, in truth,* very little if any real and practical difference between them, in respect to it as a whole. Take, for instance, the doctrine of regeneration, about which they contend so earnestly. They agree in the opinion that the laws of human nature and of divine grace, are such, that no man ever has, and that no man ever will, be

regenerated, without the special interposition of God., Of what possible use, then, can it be, either for enforcing man's duty, or for vindicating God's equity, or for any thing else of the least practical consequence, to decide such questions as, whether the soul is active or passive in regeneration? or whether it does or does not take place prior to the soul's first holy act? or whether it consists in an act or in a disposition? These are as worthless points as were ever discussed, so long as the disputants, on both sides, hold to the common theory of human nature and divine agency.

Still it is not without interest, and some degree of pleasure, that we witness even such differences and discussions among our orthodox brethren. So long as error exists in a community, it is best that it should be multiform, and that its elements should war with one another. Solemn trifling as we consider to be the controversies, in which the 'old' and 'new' Calvinists are engaged, good, nevertheless, may come of them to theology, as alchymy proved useful to chemistry, and as mapping out the skull,' may subserve intellectual philosophy. However blind they may, for a time, be, to the extrinsic absurdity of their system, there is hope of its finally giving place to a better one, while they contend sharply about its intrinsic relations. Although, therefore, Dr Cox, and his brethren of the 'new' school, do not seem, as yet, to have stepped out of the magic circle described around them by education and authority, so as to view, from a distance, the external aspect of orthodoxy, and, by thus surveying its relations, as a whole, to truth and nature, to form an opinion of its real character; still they have done something to

encourage us, inasmuch as they have dared to look into its interior economy, to find fault with the connections of its parts, to force a discussion of points which others would fain shield from scrutiny, to make concessions which could not, how muchsoever desired, be any longer decently withheld, and to warn the community of the dangerous tendency of some of its most cherished principles.

When we began our remarks, we were not aware of the importance attached to Dr Cox's discourse, by the leaders of the two parties, into which our orthodox brethren seem to be divided. Besides the attack upon it by the Princeton divines, which has been noticed, we have just read a highly commendatory review of the same sermon, in the June number of the Christian Spectator, published at New Haven; and we cannot close this article without adverting to some of the topics it treats, relative to the controversy of which we have undertaken to give our readers an account. After eulogising Dr Cox as a powerful preacher,' bestowing great praise on his sermon, and bespeaking attention to the subject of it, as 'one of the most interesting and important in the whole range of christian theology,' the writer in the Spectator proceeds to one of the great questions at issue between the 'old' and 'new' Calvinists, viz. whether the soul is active or passive in regeneration; and in direct opposition to a remark we have quoted from the Princeton Repertory,' says: 'Perhaps the solution of this single question may be the pivot on which shall turn whole systems in divinity; the radiating point, from which may shoot off rays into whole regions of surrounding twilight and mid

night darkness.'-p. 348. For ourselves, we do not much care on what 'pivot' systems of divinity turn, provided they take the direction of truth; nor from what 'point' the light radiates, provided it dispels the 'darkness' with which not a few of our brethren, it seems to be acknowledged, are at present surrounded. That a partial illumination at least is beginning to fall even in Connecticut, on some grounds of theological controversy, will sufficiently appear to such as are much acquainted with Calvinism, from the extracts which follow.

The first we make relates to human nature. Undoubtedly the advocates of modern orthodoxy at New Haven, entertain opinions on this subject about as inconsistent with reason and truth, as their opponents of the 'old' school. Yet who recognizes any thing like Calvinism in this?

Representations of the character of man, as if there were some mass of corruption, seated in the constitution of the moral agent, or some concreated feebleness of faculty, or positive defect, or latent and terrible poison, in the structure of the soul, involving all the proclaimed condemnations of apostacy only by its existence there, even while it slumbers, are as much a violation of the dictates of common sense, and of the laws of the mind, as of the sacred scriptures.'-p. 346.

So, too, with regard to man's ability and God's agency in the process of regeneration, the conductors of the Spectator embrace a theory little more tenable, perhaps, on the whole, than that of the Princeton divines. Still, it is something that it is so different, in any respect, from the Calvinistic theory. After quoting such scriptures as these; seek and ye shall find;' 'come unto me and I will give you rest;' they ask: