the New Haven divines, and their opponents, "are far less than is generally supposed," and it is "fervently" wished that President Day's book "may prove a common ground, on which brethren who have differed, may meet in peace." How fortunate, sometimes, is a poor memory; and how convenient a pliable conscience, which can shape itself to the exigencies of an agitating controversy!

President Day has our sincere thanks for the volume which has now come under our review. As the questions discussed by him are vital in their relation to evangelical doctrines; we cannot but hope that he will continue to favor us with the productions of his luminous pen, on similar subjects, and that he will be sustained in his efforts, till he shall witness the complete recovery of the seminary under his care, to the pure faith of former days. Let him not be alarmed at the possible insinuation that he is sowing discord among brethren. "The boasted peaceableness about questions of faith, too often proceeds from a superficial temper, and not seldom from a supercilious disdain of whatever has no marketable use or value, and from indifference to religion itself. Toleration is an herb of spontaneous growth, in the soil of indifference; but the weed has none of the virtues of the medicinal plant, reared by humiilty in the garden of zeal. Those who regard all religions as matters of taste, may consistently include all religious differences in the old adage, "De gustibus non est disputandum."*

Of the venerated author of this book, we have a far different opinion. He, we trust, loves Christian truth for its own sake; and should thousands around him prove treacherous to the principles they have professed, may he be prepared, like

"Abdiel, faithful found,

Among the faithless."

to hear at last, the sentence of approbation from the mouth of his Saviour,

"Servant of God, well done; well hast thou fought The better fight, who single, hast maintained,

Against revolted multitudes, the cause

Of truth,

* Leighton, as quoted by Coleridge. Aids to Reflection, p. 65.

ART. VI. REMARKS ON PRESIDENT DAY'S WORK

CONTINUED.

BY THE EDITOR.

In common with the friends of evangelical truth in most parts of our country, we have hailed with feelings of peculiar satisfaction, the appearance of correct views on the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel from New Haven, and like them, have felt disposed to make it the subject of gratitude rather than criticism. The present work is so opposite to the writings of those divines, in its spirit, is so strongly characterized by a manly ingenuous train of thought, is so free from studied ambiguity, is so accurate in its definitions, so clear in its statements, so cautious in its deductions, it is so immensely above their usual theological disquisitions, in power of thought and literary merit, that we are disposed. to feel as though any thing but commendation would be misplaced; like most of those with whom we have conversed on the subject, we are strongly inclined to dismiss every fault without censure.

We rejoice in the appearance of this work; that it appears at this juncture, and that it comes from New Haven. That place seems to have been destined to furnish both the poison and the antidote. It is an able and unanswerable refutation of the errors of modern Pelagians. It was with exclusive reference to this, that we had determined to notice it; and we had fully concurred with the writer of the last article, in the propriety of passing the "dangerous admissions" of which he speaks, without particular comment. But after some consultation and mature deliberation, we have reluctantly changed our opinion. We think the book evidently destined to survive the errors which it has combatted; that the character of the author, and the high literary merit of the work may give currency to positions which we think have dangerous connections; above all, that the writer has given his sanction to too much of that indeterminate phraseology, which at present is used to conceal or teach, as the case may be, errors which have an important

bearing on the Christian system; but we extend our notice of the work, in part, for the reason, that it furnishes us with an opportunity for introducing certain detached observations on these subjects, which we could not well reduce to a distinct head.

That the treatise before us was not designed to supply the deficiencies, correct the reasonings, or overturn the principles of Edwards' great work on the Will, is evident to the most superficial reader. The writer has almost uniformly adopted the principles and reasonings of President Edwards and his son. It has not, to any great extent, a claim to originality either in its reasonings or conclusions. It must evidently be regarded as having a direct reference to some of the popular errors of the day: there is no doubt that much of it was aimed at some of the most dangerous errors of the New Haven theology, and that it has most triumphantly overthrown them. It is to be regretted that the author has not mentioned the errors which he combats but in the most cautious way, that the persons teaching them are not named, that he states his own opinions either hypothetically or interrogatively; the consequence will doubtless be that it will be considered as an abstract discussion by one part of the community; that another will pass it in silence; and that those whom it really opposes, will be the last to call public attention to subjects which they can manage best by private discussion; above all, will they avoid a controversy which might call for a premature avowal of their sentiments. They are well aware, that, from these religious excitements which have filled our churches with the unconverted, there has issued a class of young men of their own persuasion who are on their way to the ministry, and that they have but to wait a little, and error will be triumphant without a struggle. We think, however, this book will have some influence even in New Haven and its vicinity. We could never seriously believe with the Christian Spectator, that President Day had been guilty of forming a kind of confession of faith, couched in such ambiguous language, that persons of the most acknowledged opposition of views could unite in it; much less could we compliment him on such a feat; we think he could not even have persuaded himself of its feasibility, had he been capable of such a purpose.

We have long known President Day by reputation; we

have felt a due veneration for those high intellectual and moral endowments, for which he is so deservedly distinguished and though we have known that these high and commanding qualities have served to shield, to give countenance and support to the enemies of evangelical truth, and thus to introduce and give currency to the most dangerous error in one of our important seminaries, yet we could never suppose that President Day was fully aware of the nature and influence of those opinions which were thus springing up and spreading under the influence of his indirect patronage. But seriously, after the opinions of that school have gained the ascendency in the Congregational Church, after they have divided the Presbyterian Communion, after their true nature and influence have been so long tested, and so fully developed,in the disorders,licentiousness, radicalism and scepticism, that they have wrought,, we should have expect ed, bolder and more explicit avowals; we should have expected that the writer would tell us plainly, and not by hypothesis or interrogation, what is truth; more, that he himself is on the side of truth; we should have expected a more open developement of his sentiments, and to see him giving the most severe and pointed rebukes, as well as the most decided opposition to the contrary errors.

Whilst we fully concur in the opinions expressed in the preceding review, we feel it our duty to remark some things in the work of President Day, which we cannot but regard serious defects.

The fundamental propositions which this book establishes, as well as the most important of those which it opposes, are all put in an interrogative or hypothetical form.

"Executive acts MAY depend on a predominant purpose; and the purpose MAY depend on antecedent emotions. A general purpose MAY look to some distant end. But that which excites the emotion itself, MAY be an object without the mind an external motive."

If these propositions are self-evident, or have been demonstrated, in either case, it is improper to represent them as doubtful, particularly where succeeding propositions are made to depend on them. Such cautious statements cast an air of doubt over all the conclusions, and must seriously detract from the influence and effect of a work in which they are habitually employed.

Again, we object to some points of this work, not that the

sentiments are Arminian, not that the philosophy is incorrect, but that Arminian terms and phrases are, we had almost said, studiously used, carefully explained indeed, we allow, but then frequently used in a sense different from that which they once bore, and which they still bear. It might seem to be a very harmless thing to adopt the peculiar phraseology of errorists, provided we attach a meaning to it consistent with truth; but what object can we have for adopting such language, which has already a definite signification, when we must always accompany the terms with an explanation? What useful end can be attained by the frequent use of terms which have always been employed to teach a most dangerous error, and which have already an established meaning? We refer to President Day's ascribing seli-determination to the will, and that in several different senses.

"What is it," says he, "that determines, not only that there shall be volitions, but what they shall be? First, if the question be whether the man himself decides between the objects of choice presented before him, there surely can be no doubt on this point, if it be admitted that he wills at all. For to will is nothing more nor less than to decide in favor of an object of choice. It is he himself that determines. Motives may influence him to lie and steal. But motives do not lie and steal. Man himself chooses. He is the author of his own volitions. This is one signification of the term self-determination. And a power of choosing, is in this sense a self-determining power."

The amount of all this is, that every act of willing, is an act of self-determination, i. e., in every action, it is the agent himself, and not another person who acts; and therefore it must be proper to regard every act of voluntary determination, as an act of self-determination. Every action may be presumed to be performed by some agent, and so we may, with much propriety, say that it is self-performed. We would barely observe, that this is changing the established meaning of words, and that to a very poor purpose. The term self, when compounded with a word which signifies action, is the object, and not the agent of that action. It would hardly be proper to say of the act of him who sacrifices a goat, that it is an act of self-sacrifice, because the man himself performs the act; or that an act of love to God, is an act of self-love, merely because there is an agent in the case. But this would be no