from the whole existing mass of contrariety and folly an argument for doubting whether we shall be gin to be Christians at all, is, perhaps the most obvious and fatal danger of the whole. It is, then, as far as human means can go, first to remove these doubts, and to reconcile the sincere inquirer after truth to Christianity itself, deformed as it is by the multiplicity of existing sects and parties, and then to lead him step by step along his treacherous path, and point out, amidst a thousand errors, "the truth as it is in Jesus," that Mr. Cooper has engaged in the present work. He has chosen the form of letters to a supposed inquirer after truth, as being a sort of middle course, we presume, between the abruptness of dialogue, where the learner has half, and the dull continuity of essay where he bas no part, of the argument. Putting every suggestion of consequence into the imagined letters of his correspondent, he replies to the whole, in a well-sorted and unbroken series of his own; of which the following general summary shews the contents: namely, two letters "on certain difficulties in the way of the serious inquirer after Divine truth;" a letter "on the distinction between essential and non-essential points in religion;" five letters on the Calvinistic controversy;" two on regenera tion, and the controversy connected with it;" two "on Antinomianism;" one "on the visible and the invisible church of Christ;" and three "on the Bible Society."

66

We are persuaded no serious and inquiring reader, after casting his eye over these important contents, will think much of the trouble of accompanying us through a short detailed account, in succession, of the several subjects which they embrace; and on which we shall now accordingly enter.

Of the Letters I. and II. we have already, in a slight degree, anti

cipated the argument, in hinting above at the nature and magnitude of our own religious dangers at the present moment, compared with those of former times. We shall, therefore, only observe further upon these letters, that we cannot admire too highly the honest and intrepid avowal made in them of that spiritual agency, both evil and good, by which alone any difficulties in religion, and more especially those speculative and doctrinal difficulties to which we are at present exposed, can properly be considered, either as caused on the one hand, or permitted, and turned to good, on the other. "The tares amongst the wheat," afford one among many scriptural proofs of the existence, the agency, and the intentions of "the enemy." "The malice of Satan," as Mr. Cooper well observes, in the first letter, "in this instance, as in many others, defeats its own purpose." His interposition proves his existence; and his very attempt to resist and confound the truth betrays his conviction of its importance, and the fear which he entertains of its success. (p. 12.)

In the second letter, the Divine Spirit is, with equal ability, pointed out, both as to his operations and his intentions, in the permitted existence of those difficulties, those various and discordant opinions, which are shewn, throughout, to constitute our own peculiar trial. The letter contains some admirable illustrations of a text which has always struck us most forcibly, as if written in a spirit of prophecy for the very times in which we live:-"There must be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." The illustrations in this letter tend to shew how wisely and surely, though slowly and inperceptibly, the existence of wrong and illegitimate religious doctrines is made to operate, as by a Divine Refiner, in the separation of the vital and practical believer, from

tion. Hence, "in reference to matters of faith," Mr. Cooper properly contents himself with observing:

Having thus cleared the way before the sincere inquirer, by removing his first stumbling-block, arising from the existence of those diversities which we are compelled to behold in religious opinions; the third letter carries him forward to another important preliminary discussion: Whether, or not, absolute rectitude of religious opinion is essential to salvation: which again leads to another question; What are non-essential points in religion? and another, Are all controversies on these points unprofitable? If, of these three, the first two very delicate questions are not answered by Mr. Cooper, with all the distinctness that a very curious inquirer might be supposed to have wished, we are persuaded that they are met with all the fairness that candour would require, and all the fulness which wisdom would admit. The fact is, it is totally impossible to lay down the exact limits between a set of opinions which is sufficient, and one which is insufficient to salvation; and in defining what is vital and essential in Chris. tianity, it is far easier to state what are the essential ends and purposes to be produced on the nature of man by this Divine Revelation, than what precise points in theory embraced by that Revelation will necessarily or

ex

"In any system of religion, adapted to the present condition of human nature, the great object which it would profess to accomplish must be to recover the soul of man out of its fallen state, and to restore it to a capacity for finding happiness in the service and presence of a Just and Holy God. Consequently, whatever truths such a system proposes, the belief of which it should prescribe as absolutely necessary to the accomplishment of this object, would be essential truths. They would be truths, an assent to which would be indispensable to the salvation of the soul. But such a system might also contain many other propositions, either plainly declared in it, or by deduction and inference supposed to be fairly derived from it; propositions, which, though in themselves abstractedly true, yet might not be insisted on as articles of faith. They might be truths, the assent to which would not be absolutely necessary to the accomplishment of the great object in view; and which therefore in this light must be justly esteemed and denominated non-essential truths.” Pp. 35, 36.

In defining the corresponding points of Christian practice, we find Mr. Cooper laying down as essential, in "addition to those universal rules of obedience which (as resulting from the natural relation between the Creator and his intelligent creatures) are of eternal and immutable obligation, certain other specific duties, as enjoined by Christianity, in subserviency to its general design." These, which "being prescribed by positive institution, are to us equally binding with the requisitions of the Moral Law," he instances in "the observance of a day of holy rest, the attendance on public worship, and the administration of the sacrament." Of those which, as being "left to the exercise of human judgment," "may be regarded, in reference to salvation, as non-essential," the instances alleged are, "the mode of conducting public

worship; the peculiar form of church government; the manner in which the sacraments ought to be administered." pp. 38, 39.

The superior distinctness with which Mr. Cooper lays down these latter classes may perhaps, though on the whole deserving approba tion, yet serve also to shew the diffi eulty in which such questions are involved. For we doubt not that, under circumstances which might be specified, each one of his instances on points of practice might be made to change sides and become the contrary to what he affirms it to be. Would he, for instance, essentially exclude from the pale of salvation such of our own church as, with Heylin and others, consider the observance of a day of holy rest no more obligatory on the Christian church than other fasts and festivals enjoined by it upon its own authority? Or would he ne cessarily shut out from hope all Quakers, who are brought up in the persuasion that sacraments are unnecessary, except spiritually and figuratively, and therefore never observe them? On the other hand, though forms of church govern ment, modes of sacred ministration, &c. may be in themselves so far indifferent as not absolutely to tie the attainment of salvation to one form or mode, exclusive of all the rest; yet do not these very points become of essential consideration, when they are connected with a spirit of bigotry on the one side, or of schism on the other? Are not "divisions" on these very points sometimes essential proofs of our being " yet carnal"? And is it not absolutely necessary, that such views and habits be entertained with respect to the subject of church discipline and church union, as shall secure at least "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace?" We consider indeed the near connection, if not convertiblé nature, of things essential with things not essential, as the real ground on which we must justify

temperate controversy in the latter as well as the former. They have a mutual dependence; and surely the out-work must be earnestly defended, which, when occupied by the enemy commands the citadel.

Mr. Cooper having thus judiciously cleared his ground of pre liminary questions, proceeds, in the five next letters to the first grand and never ending point of debate in the Christian world, the Calvinistic controversy. On this important subject, particularly in connexion with Mr. Cooper's ob servations upon it, we scarcely know how so to shape our own, after all that has been advanced, and still remains to be said, as not to incur the blame either of saying too little or too much. We wish never to lose sight of the polar star which has hitherto presided over our track since the first dawn of our public life; namely, neutrality upon the questions at issue between real Calvinists and their opponents. At the same time, in recurring to the term "real Cal vinists," we perfectly coincide with Mr. Cooper's preliminary remark in Letter IV.—

"There is scarcely any term, which in modern times has been so misapplied as this has been, and used in a sense either so indefinite, or so foreign to its original meaning. Instead of having been restricted to the peculiarities of the Calvinistic system, it has been applied to all those essential doctrines of Christianity, which Calvinists hold in common with other professors of evangelical proached with the name of Calvinists, truth and many persons have been rewhose opinions have had no nearer connexion with the exclusive tenets of Calvin, than those of the persons who cast the reproach. That this misapplication of the term may have sometimes originated from inattention, inaccuracy, or defective information, may be readily supposed; but that it has not at other times been studiousiy adopted with the express design of throwing obloquy on some offensive doctrine, or on some

theological opponent, cannot be conceded without ascribing to the parties who have so misapplied the term, a