forth the psychology of conversion, the inward process through which the soul passes in the act of turning to God; and of showing that this change, though supernaturally effected, takes place in accordance with the laws of mind. He wished also to show how it is consistent to call upon men to act, at the same time that their conversion is not to be hoped for without the divine operation. Whether his psychological exposition was altogether correct-whether, for example, the "self-love theory" is well founded or not is not now the question. New England theology, especially under Hopkinsian influence, was in a deplorable state on this great topic,-maintaining the natural ability of the sinner to love God and believe in the Gospel, but unable to give any rational account of the process of this possible change. Dr. Taylor set out to analyze this inward conversion, which, in common with all the New England theologians, he held that man is naturally able, but morally unable to effect. These four dissertations are among the ablest productions of the New England school of theologians. It is a shame that their true character and relation to the existing theology have been so frequently misunderstood.

The reception at New Haven of Dr. Spring's views in regard to native depravity, he makes another subject of complaint. He had some doubt about the propriety of preaching his dissertation on this theme in the College Chapel. "Whether wisely or unwisely," he says, "meekly or impudently, I did preach it in the chapel of Yale College, in the presence of President Day, and the professors and students." "It created no small stir. One of the professors in the medical department manifested his displeasure by abruptly and demonstratively leaving the chapel in the midst of the discourse. The dissertation was printed in New York in the year 1833. It was reviewed by the Rev. Professor Goodrich and others, in the fifth volume of the Christian Spectator, with needless severity, and little argument." Any of our readers who happen to have the fifth volume of the "Spectator" will gain a better idea of the character of Professor Goodrich's Article from perusing it, than from Dr. Spring's comment upon it. But what was Dr. Spring's doctrine, to doubt respecting which was a sign of heresy? It was not the Augustinian doctrine, the old doctrine of theology, that in every child of Adam there is from the beginning a latent principle of character which will unfold itself in sinful action when intelligence is sufficiently developed to render responsible action possible.

This doctrine he, in common with the New

Haven divines, rejected,-whether wisely or not, we will not here consider. Nor did he agree with the Old Schoolism of New England, with Woods and Tyler, that there is a "property" of the soul which is sinful. But Dr. Spring's doctrine was, to use the language of the "Spectator," "that every infant is a moral and accountable being, under a law which he knowingly and voluntarily transgresses at the very instant of his creation." In this proposition, he not only differs from Augustine, Calvin, Edwards, and orthodox theology generally, but he even went beyond Hopkins and Emmons, who did not express themselves on this point without doubt and qualification. Hopkins had said:-"As soon as they [infants] begin to act they sin, and though it cannot be precisely determined how soon this is," &c. Emmons had said:"It is certainly supposable that children may exist in this world some space of time before they become moral agents, but how long that space may be, we do not presume to determine." Dr. Dwight had said that "a great part of mankind die in infancy before they are or can be capable of moral action, in the usual meaning of that phrase." Dr. Taylor and Professor Goodrich held the opinion which is expressed by Hopkins. They held that all mankind begin to sin as soon as they are capable of putting forth moral preferences; and because they would not fix this date. at the moment of the infant's creation, Dr. Spring thought himself authorized to charge them with broaching "novel speculations," with teaching Pelagianism, and with like offenses! The "Spectator" showed conclusively that the "novel speculation" was on the side of Dr. Spring himself. A word as to the delivery of Dr. Spring's discourse in the Chapel of Yale College, and the exit of one of his auditors. As Dr. Spring was dilating on his theme, and explaining that the mother who clasps her babe to her bosom is little conscious that she is hugging a viper, Dr. Nathan Smith, Professor in the Medical College, a physician of high repu tation and a man of sturdy sense, taking a little grandchild with each hand, "abruptly and demonstratively," as Dr. Spring correctly states, marched out of the Chapel. Now, we cannot say. that if we heard such notions propounded, we should walk out of church, but if we knew beforehand that they were to be propounded, we should take care not to walk in. We have just at this point a question or two to propose. Who now preaches Dr. Spring's doctrine of actual sin coeval with birth? Did Dr. Shedd, who lately ministered in Dr. Spring's pulpit with so much power?

Does the able and excellent gentleman, who is at present associa ted with Dr. Spring, attempt to edify his hearers by long sermons on the particular form of the doctrine of infant depravity which Dr. Spring thought it expedient to recommend to the students of Yale College? Where is his doctrine heard in these days? We very much fear that the "novel speculations" of New Haven theology, or some other influence equally potent, have modified the taste of the religious public; and that the actual sins of new-born infants escape with little rebuke from the most orthodox preaching of the present day. The simple truth is that what Dr. Spring brought into the Yale Chapel was not a doctrine of the orthodox creed, but an offshoot of Hopkinsian divinity,-a provincialism which has had no acceptance outside of a small coterie of theologians. The New England divines had long before abandoned the dogma of the imputation of Adam's sin, whether in the form of real participation, as held by President Edwards, or of putative, constructive participation, as held now at Princeton. The foundations of the doctrine of strictly innate, or connate sin, were thus taken away. The Hopkinsians clung to the doctrine, however, and, in maintaining it, sometimes set up the novel and untenable theory of actual sin-of sinful volitions-contemporaneous with birth. On the premises of the New England theology, Dr. Taylor and his associates were much more rational and consistent. They held that sin begins in the individual with the beginning of intelligent, voluntarily agency; but they declined to commit themselves to the support of the proposition that such agency belongs to the new-born infant. This last doctrine and its corollaries were not found to be agreeable to the common sense of Christian men. Dr. Spring ought to be grateful that when he propounded these obnoxious tenets at New Haven, not more than one of his hearers walked out of meeting.

We renew the expression of our regret that anything in these volumes should call for unfavorable criticism. But it is high time that the disrespectful manner in which Dr. Taylor is habitually treated by a class of writers who lay claim to superlative orthodoxy should be condemned as it deserves; and we do not intend to let this class of critics prosecute their business any longer with impunity.

BISHOP HORATIO POTTER AND HIS RESPONDENTS.* This is another phase in the old dispute of High Church and Low Church. Bishop Potter prints a letter to the Episcopalian clergy in his diocese, "touching the law of the Church," which he judges to have been violated by certain individuals in two particulars. In the first place, Episcopal ministers have allowed non-Episcopal divines to preach in their houses of worship; and, in the second place, Episcopal ministers have themselves preached on particular occasions without reading the liturgy beforehand. Dr. Budington had been invited to preach, and had actually preached on a Sunday evening in Dr. Canfield's church. Dr. William Adams had done the same thing for Dr. John Cotton Smith, and Drs. Muhlenberg and Dyer, by the request of Dr. Adams, had read the service on the occasion. The Bishop gives no names, but it is well understood that he had reference to these occurrences. Dr. Tyng, and perhaps some other prominent clergymen, who had been implicated in similar transactions, also felt themselves censured by the Pastoral. This document is on the surface quite smooth and courteous. Bishop Potter professes to write with great reluctance and from a profound sense of duty to "the Church." Yet he throws out the remark that some of the offenders" may have acted hastily," which in the case of veterans like Drs. Tyng and Muhlenberg is hardly probable. He alludes to the same offenders also as persons who please themselves "with beautiful visions of fraternal union," rush out of their "legitimate sphere, and violate the laws of that sphere;" and adverts to the solemnity of their ordination Vows, enforcing his observations by a liberal use of italics and capitals. Yet, in the main, the style of the circular is as decorous and affectionate as it could be, considering the doctrine which he set out to inculcate. The Bishop's own position was somewhat embarrassed by once or twice having himself authorized Dr. Muhlenberg to invite Dr. Schaff, a minister of the German Reformed Church, and of course without Episcopal ordination, to preach for him. He expresses regret, however, for having done so, and promises never to be guilty again of a like impropriety. He had, moreover, allowed a vagabond Greek priest to celebrate

* Pastoral Letter of the Rt. Rev. H. Potter, D. D., D. C. L., with the Replies of the Rev. S. H. TYNG, D. D., Rev. E. H. CANFIELD, D. D., Rev. JOHN COTTON SMITH, D. D., and Rev. W. A. MUHLENBERG, D. D. New York: John A Gray & Green, Printers. 1865.

Mass in an Episcopal edifice; but for this, as Father Agapius was ordained by a Bishop, he has no regret. He plants himself on several canons, the most essential passages of which, as far as his reasoning is concerned, are the following:-"No man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in this Church, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereto, according to the form hereafter following, or hath had Episcopal consecration or ordination." "No person shall be permitted to officiate in any congregation of this Church, without his first providing the evidence of his being a minister thereof," &c. "Every minister shall, before all sermons and lectures, and on all other occasions of public wor ship, use the Book of Common Prayer, and in performing such service, no other prayers shall be read than those prescribed by the said book."

The first-taking the Respondents in the order in which they stand in the pamphlet before us-to open his batteries on the Bishop's admonitory epistle, is Dr. Tyng. He begins by saying, that as the canons only authorize the Bishop to deliver charges to his clergy, and send pastoral letters to his people, and as Bishop Potter's letter is neither the one or the other, it can only have the force of a personal communication. The main facts on which the Bishop animadverts in his reproof, are "the use of extemporaneous prayer, and the union with other denominations of Christians in religious worship." Dr. Tyng plainly implies that the Bishop has played into the hands of a High Church faction, and turned against his friends, to whom he owes his election to office. He characterizes the letter as follows:

"It opposes with admonitions, perhaps with threats, of needless severity, a general tendency and spirit of our time, which is not only in itself harmless and entirely tolerable, but is, in its purpose and desire, manifestly in the line of divine truth and example, adapted to edify rather than to destroy the best interests of the Gospel and the Church of God. It throws your influence and yourself on the side of an exclusiveness of partisan judgment and action, which I am sure is not the spirit of the New Testament; which can never be acceptable or welcomed in the Christianity of our land; and which, in its relations to our own Church, can only tend, as it has always tended, to retard its growth, to limit its influence, to discredit its character, and make it unpopular and repulsive in the apprehension of the people whom it seeks to gather and to bless." pp. 4, 5.

Dr. Tyng refuses to govern his conduct by the doctrines of the letter. First, he takes up the history of the claims which are press