Trifle not,-is its exhorta

the exercises of our souls. tion,—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.

1 REGENERATION, AND THE

MANNER OF ITS OCCUR

RENCE.

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

therefore impossible, that passive regeneration should exist? that we should be regenerated in order of time, or nature, or correct thought, or any other order, before we do our duty? And if this be absurd, is not its absurdity the best part of it? What is its moral effect, and moral promise, and moral history, in respect to the selfcomplacent ease lovers that live among us by thousands, abusing the means of grace, pretending to be waiting for the spirit, and rectifying their creed to the consolatory standard of passive regeneration?'-pp. 4, 5.

This, to us, is new orthodoxy, indeed. No doubt Dr Cox holds opinions respecting human nature and divine agency, widely different from our own. The ser

mon itself contains some views on these topics, in Yet the sentiments implied

which we do not concur.

in the language we have quoted, are certainly remarkable, as coming from a Presbyterian preacher, addressing a Presbyterian Synod. the reproach of heresy?

this

Can he expect to escape He seems to anticipate an

evil of this sort, in the remark-it is sometimes objected by the patrons of passivity, that our views of great matter are Arminianizing.'—p. 5. It is true he pleads not guilty to the charge; but would the unerring 'judicatories' of his sect, in the case of a trial, pronounce him sound in the faith?

Since writing the above, we have received the April number of the Presbyterian 'Biblical Repertory,' edited at Princeton, New Jersey, which contains a review of Dr Cox's sermon, suited to our purpose of giving some account of the controversies that prevail among our orthodox brethren, and which therefore we shall freely use. The article recognizes the distinction of

'old' and 'new' Calvinists, and leads us to infer, not only that the differences between the respective parties are deemed by them of great importance, but that their disputes are carried on with sufficient warmth. The review begins with this ominous sentence:

Voltaire, in one of his historical works, sneeringly inquires, "How were the priests employed while the Saracens were desolating the fairest portions of their church?" "Disputing," he answers," whether Christ has one will or two!" It will be well, if theologians of the nineteenth century do not furnish occasion to some future infidel historian for a similar taunting remark.'—p. 250.

To place reproach in the front of argument, is a capital point in the tactics of certain theological combatants. But what is Dr Cox's crime, that he should seem to his Princeton brethren, deserving of such an admonition? Not, surely, that, in their opinion, he has been wasting his time and talents about worthless matters of mere speculation, while the Saracens [Unitarians, perhaps] were devastating the church; for they agree with him in saying that the point he labors chiefly to establish, is one of vital importance, affecting deeply our views of the whole system of divine truth, and our manner of preaching; involving the high questions of the grounds of man's accountability, the nature of sin and holiness, and of human liberty.'-p. 266. What, then, is it that has called forth so severe a rebuke from the Presbyterians of Princeton? Why, in the first place, they say, p. 254: 'Belonging as we do to the class, which, for the sake of convenience and distinction, we have called Old Calvinists, we feel ourselves aggrieved by such representations, as he has made of their opinions.' Aggrieved! why so? Are not the representations true? No,' they reply, and go