fifty years of age; he was small of stature; his eyes were sparkling and animated by an ardent and sombre fire, which made sinners tremble; his hair still black, gave to his countenance, already aged, something more manly and harsh. His words were revered by the people. He was deemed a holy man, and all the bishops of Italy trembled before his power. This was Gregory seventh, yet now only Archdeacon Hildebrand."

But why go back so far, enquires Villermain, for the inspiration of Dante. Because a man of genius having preached such a thing as the Inferno, it must have entered the popular mind, and repeated, amplified and exaggerated, gore down to posterity a vast legend, which another, man of genius afterwards transformed into the highest poetry. Gregory, indeed cared nothing for the poetry, but he wished to subdue incorrigible offenders and fix an indelible stigma upon the Germans, whom he hated. Listen to him.

"A certain German Count," said he, "died about ten years ago. After his death a holy man descended in spirit into the infernal regions, and there saw the abovementioned Count placed upon the highest step of a ladder. He affirmed that this ladder seemed to rise uninjured amid the roaring and eddying flames of the avenging fire, and to have been placed there to receive all the descendants of that race of counts. Beyond, a black chaos, a frightful abyss extended infinitely and plunged into the infernal depths, whence issued this immense ladder. This was the order established there among those who succeeded each other: the last comer took the highest step of the ladder, and all the others descended each one step towards the abyss. The men of this family coming after him were successively arranged upon the ladder, and by an inevitable law, went one after another to the bottom of the abyss.

The holy man who witnessed these things inquired the cause of this damnation, and why the Count, his contemporary, reputed to be an upright and worthy man, a rare circumstance among persons of that class, was thus severely punished. On account of a domain of the church at Metz, which one of his ancestors, of whom he is the tenth heir, had wrested from the blessed Stephen, all these have been devoted to the same punishment; and as the same sin of avarice had united them in the same crime, so the same punishment has united them in the fires of hell."'

Here we have the idea of the ten degrees or circles of the Inferno, which issuing from "that terrible mouth," which made kings tremble, might have floated about in the terrified visions of the multitude, until arrested by the glowing mind of Dante, was finally set in the framework of his immortal verse.

But speculations of this sort are more curious than profitable, except as illustrating the spirit of the age, and the possible methods of genius; for while Dante derived his materials from all sources, he alone possessed the power to construct them into that temple of

adamant, which is yet invested with all the gloom and glory of the middle ages; or to quote his own words,—

"the sacred song which heaven and earth

Have lent a hand to frame-which

Many a year hath kept me lean with thought."

In a word, the Divina Commedia, is one of those old Gothic edifices of the dark ages, with its many chambered cells, and even dungeons, its dim aisles and massive towers, fretted ornaments, old tombs and blazing altars, illumined by the rays of the setting sun, and echoing the soft tones of the vesper bells, a thing at once of dread and beauty, of stern asceticism and celestial devotion. In that old temple, " that great supernatural world cathedral," a modern, and a Protestant even, may linger in hallowed worship. There his spirit, subdued by solemn thought, may rise to the home of glory beyond the spheres, where the good of all creeds finally mingle; and if, by the grace of God, he should himself finally reach "the highest heaven of uncreated light," he will not be much surprised if, notwithstanding all the errors and imperfections of Dante, he should meet there the glorified Florentine. Would to heaven that in these days of skepticism and pride, of hollow religion and lofty pretension, when we scarce believe in heaven, to say nothing of hell, we had one half the clear vision, the steady faith, and the all-conquering love of the immortal poet. With our better views and softer piety, we might then set our foot upon the world, mount into the clear empyrean, and bathe our spirits in the very light of the eternal Sun.

ARTICLE III.

OLD AND NEW SCHOOL PRESBYTERIANISM.

By REV. SAMUEL T. SPEAR, Brooklyn, N. Y.

Differences between Old and New School Presbyterians. By Rev. Lewis Cheeseman: Rochester: Published by Erastus Darrow.

(Continued from page 41.)

THE Eighth Chapter of the "Differences," contains the following table of contents: "Tendencies of the new divinity-The new divinity rests upon one, or, at most, two assumptions, both of which are false-Tends to infidelity." This does not présent a very

lucid idea of what the author intends to accomplish. The main purpose, however, of this chapter, is to trace the "New School" heresies back to their "fountain," or source. In the estimation of the author, these "errors" sprang from the "Dissertation on the Nature of true Virtue," written by the Elder Edwards, clarum et venerabile nomen. He tells us that he has "MET with a treatise on the nature of virtue"-meaning the above "Dissertation." President Edwards did the mischief; he presented "a theory on this subject," which, by a process of philosophical and theological incubation, has proved the source of all this evil. The seminal error of the great metaphysician passed into the hands of Drs. Hopkins, Emmons, Edwards the Younger, Taylor, Mr. Finney, &c., infecting the theology of New England, and spreading its baneful influence over the Presbyterian Church. "After this manner, an error apparently harmless at first, and scarcely one hundred years old, and originating with a sound divine, and one of the greatest and best of men, has been gradually, and in various directions, evolving different and cardinal errors, which have ultimately mingled and spread into vast systems, and which now float, with their dark, pestilential vapors, upon Mount Zion, distributing everywhere the elements of decline and death." p. 187.

These are terrible effects of one mistake.

What then is the "theory," the "error" of President Edwards? "True virtue most essentially consists in BENEVOLENCE TO BEING

IN

GENERAL, Or perhaps, to speak more accurately, it is that consent of the heart to being in general, which is immediately exercised in a general good will." "When I say true virtue consists in love to being in general, I shall not be likely to be understood, that no one act of the mind, or exercise of love, is of the nature of true virtue, but what has being in general, or the great system of universal existence, for its direct and immediate object: so that no exercise of love, or kind affection to any one particular being, that is but a small part of the whole, has anything of the nature of true virtue. But that the nature of true virtue consists in a disposition to benevolence towards being in general, though from such a disposition may arise exercises of love to particular beings, as objects are presented and occasions arise." Edwards takes special pains to discriminate between natural sentiments, affections, self-love, conscience, &c., and that love of which he is speaking in the definition of true virtue. The latter is not an instinct, but subsists in connection with reason, and the grace of God producing it. It comprehends "being in general," as it is capable of application to all beings; in respect to whom it seeks whatever is their summum bonum, a question which not it, but reason and revelation determine. In eight consecutive chapters, Edwards elaborates, qualifies, and establishes this view-showing 'Edward's Works, New York edition, vol. iii., pp. 94, 95..

himself to mean what Paul and John mean by "aɣán" This is the cardinal "error," unattended with the arguments and explanations of its illustrious author.

What Edwards intended to say, and did say, will not be clearly understood by a mind that fails to appreciate the wide distinction. between two different departments of spiritual ethics. We doubt whether Mr. C. apprehended this distinction. All ethical inquiries belong to one or the other of two great provinces of thought. The first is the province of objective principles or truths: the second is that of subjective facts, existing in the bosom of a moral agent. In the first, we ask, what is right objectively? in the second, what is that in a moral agent which conforms to the law of right. In his "Dissertation," Edwards has the latter question in view. He applies his discriminating analysis to this single point: What is that subjective condition of a moral agent, whose presence constitutes that agent truly virtuous, and whose absence determines it to be vicious? The ultimate objective grounds of moral distinctions formed no part of his inquiry; his research was limited to the phenomenal fact of true virtue as a state, condition, or exercise, of a moral being. What is that state? Edwards answered-LOVE -defining its qualities and its objects.

Our author, not pleased with the doctrine of Edwards, had before him a very fine field for argument, embracing two demonstrations; namely, that the "theory" was an "error; and that this "error," in the downward tendency of error, has generated the "New School" heresies. He does not, however, seem to have thoroughly.comprehended the logical wants of his subject.

In regard to the first question, whether Edwards was wrong in his analysis of subjective virtue? he offers no argument, not one solitary proof. He does not condescend to tell us what is the true light on this vital point. Had he given us his definition, we might then have compared notes with him. He has left us to see an error, without the benefit, either expulsive or attractive, of the opposite truth. The only relief from this uncertainty is to gather his theory by inference. If the theory of Edwards is totally wrong, then is the exact opposite of his affirmation right? If so, then Mr. C.'s theory of true virtue is, that it consists in NOT loving being in general. This is the only clue by which we can imagine what is the view of the author. Would it not have been respectful to the "sound divine" to have paid to his error the compliment of a "sound" refutation? The name of President Edwards is a "tower of strength" among those who appreciate talent and piety. Most men would think a little proof not out of place, when attacking the opinions of such a divine.

The author informs us that this theory is "scarcely one hundred years old." On this point we think he is not a little in "error," as to a matter of fact. Those acts or exercises, or

states of mind, which God requires must contain the essence of all true virtue; in them it consists. What are the fundamental principles of the Divine requirement? We give the judgment of the great Expounder: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." We subjoin the authority of an inspired apostle as to the nature of true virtue: "Love is the fulfilling of the law." We recommend the brother to read his Bible once more, especially I. Cor., chap. 13, and the I. Epistle of John entire. We need not fortify the views of Edwards with any reasonings of our own: the above authorities with Christian men will be sufficient. We cannot, however, withhold the expression of our astonishment, that a Christian writer should describe such a doctrine, as containing consequentially "the elements of decline and death." The picture he means to give is truly hideous. Strange coloring for such a hallowed groundwork! Where were his recollections of the Bible! His thoughts of the well-established tendencies of true love in the universe of God! We feel offended, for truth's sake, that he should so caricature this grand sum of human virtues. If it be a great "error" to place virtue in true love, so great that the idea leads to all forms of heresy, then there must be something very bad in true love.

Let us, however, attend to the other point, i. e. the question of fact, whether these "heresies" sprang from the treatise of Edwards? Our first remark is, that Dr. Lord, the endorser, and Mr. C., the author, are not agreed as to their source. The Dr. informs us in the "Introductory Chapter," that they are "the ancient heresies"-revived-extending back as far as the days of Luther, Augustine, and even Paul himself. Not at all; says Mr. C. He has MET with a treatise on the nature of virtue," containing an error "scarcely one hundred years old," which has done all this work! Who is right? Where did these "heresies" come from? We hope these brethren will try to be a little more harmonious-remarking that when men draw on their fancy for facts and relations, they ought to be exceedingly cautious in the exercise of it.

66

Our second observation is, that the author's principal difficulty with the "Dissertation" of Edwards is, not that virtue consists in benevolence or love, but that this love is an exercise, a preference, an active state of a moral agent. In his conception, it carries along with it the theory which commences all moral distinctions with the commencement of moral preferences;" the admission of which idea in respect to holiness or virtue, would

Mat. 22: 37-46.

Rom. 13: 10.