It may be premised that the controversy indicates a new position of Christian thought, a new atmosphere of theological feeling, as compared with that which had obtained in Commonwealth times and after the Restoration. The question raised did not relate to predestination, to the nature of Christ’s death, the extent of its efficacy and application, but to the mode of the Divine existence. It showed a retreat back to inquiries akin to such as agitated the Nicene Age. Oxford and London witnessed a revival of conflicts similar to those of Constantinople and Alexandria. Battles about grace, election, and free-will had been fought out, and the warriors were exhausted: some had passed away, some were growing old. The human mind now ranged over other fields long neglected, seeking fresh victories over old errors. Theological discussion is determined in a great degree by circumstances, idiosyncracies, friendships, and associations; but the spirit of an age is also a mighty force, acting with, and acting through all other influences. And it is not a little remarkable, that as the revival of the study of philosophy in the Christian schools of Alexandria was followed by controversies respecting the Divine nature, so the revival of the study of a similar philosophy at Cambridge was followed by a similar result. Whereas the logic, ethics, and politics of Aristotle have affinity with questions relating to the Divine government, the speculations of Plato connect themselves more with questions as to the Divine Being Himself. Accordingly, the Aristotelian logicians of the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and the Commonwealth, dwelt much upon predestination, justification, and the atonement; and the philosophical Divines of the Revolution, trained more in Platonic culture, devoted themselves to questions respecting the Trinity and the Person of Christ. [Sidenote: CONTROVERSIES ABOUT THE TRINITY.]