intention will thence be further augured, that we should not seek for absolute certainty upon so mysterious a point, but leave it -amongst "the secret things that belong unto the Lord our God:" whilst this will make it also strongly probable that our comforts as well as our motives for conduct are intended to be sought from other sources, which are certainly and infallibly revealed. The assertion of either side of the question as the precise truth, to the exclusion of the other, will further become on this ground a very hazardous and highly responsible measure: and, at least, the admonition to examine our motives for embracing or professing the one or the other, will become a very appropriate substitute for the argumentative statements, on which either may be of its fallible interpreters. We fully believe, that, however men may differ in their interpretations of it, Divine truth is in its own nature fixed and definite; and that to higher orders of intelligence, such as angels now are and men shall shortly be, the whole of the Sacred Volume exhibits one plain and consistent scheme relative to the high subjects under discussion -as far at least as it touches upon them. But this is obviously a very different thing from supposing that because the Scriptures are in reality consistent, and capable, when rightly understood, of but one fixed and infallible meaning, they must, therefore, necessarily in every case appear so to a being like man, compassed with innumerable infirmities both of the understanding and the heart. On the contrary, Revelation, though in other points like the sun diffusing light and heat and splendour in a world of darkness, may in this respect be compared to those planets which, though perfectly regular and uniform in their progress, appear to advance, stand still, or retrograde, according to the circumstances under which they are viewed. Why cannot we, then, in the one case as well as in the other, learn to attribute the difference of opinion to its right cause; and question our own powers of per ception rather than the honesty of our neighbour's intention, or the unity and integrity of the Divine word? supposed to stand. On the other hand, to hold either without obtruding our opinions upon others, or to maintain a suspended judg ment respecting them, will cease to be considered as a ground in itself either of censure or applause: it will be referred perhaps to the natural diversity of men's minds, or to their accidental circumstances; and the duty of all will stand out with pre-eminent and acknowledg ed force, to guard themselves and each other, not so much against the doctrinal system which either party may believe, as from the consequences to which, if improperly applied, it may lead. The principle of the Apostle, in things indifferent, will here be applicable in all its native and intended force:-" He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.......But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ." These sentiments we lay before the reader as in our minds the fair result of Mr.Cooper's most Christian and therefore most conciliatory reasonings upon this important subject. His object throughout these five letters may be most confidently asserted to be contained in that one word, conciliation: and if the principal part of them may seem to be taken up in a kind of apology to his supposed correspondent for those who hold the affirmative side of the Calvinistic question, we do not think it is with any view whatever to inculcate the opinion, but merely to gain for it toleration.— That such men as Hooker, and Hall, and Beveridge, and Leighton, and Usher should have held the doctrines of personal election and final perseverance (Letter IV.) can surely not be without its weight, (even though mechanically counterbalanced by opposite testimony;) in gaining some respect at least for the doctrines in question, That in the 3 mind of the Calvinist, Divine predetermination may be thought possibly reconcileable to human responsibility, as two lines, parallel to appearance, may possibly meet, if infinitely produced (Letter V.), is also a concession justly due from his opponents: though we own in this case the illustration borrowed by Mr. Cooper from the actual reconcilement of the two apparently contending attributes of Deity, his justice and mercy, in the scheme of the Gospel, does not appear to be happily chosen, inasmuch as they are reconciled in Scripture itself, which is the very thing desired in vain of the other two opposing principles. At the same time, we admit it to be a fact which will bear the severest scrutiny in all ages, that Calvinism, such as Mr. Cooper defines it, has ever stood connected with many shining and sterling fruits of Christian holiness in multitudes of its professors. (Vide Letter VII.) The following observation, conRected with this fact, deserves the serious and deliberate attention of our readers. "The fact is really this: The practical consequences, which appear to result from these doctrines, are not produced simply by the reception and profession of them, but by the state of heart with which they are received and professed. The seed, when it falls into good ground, will bring forth fruit. When the heart is really under the influence of the Spirit of God, then the Calvinistic doctrines, being received into a prepared and congenial soil, will be productive of good. They will aid the growth of every Christian temper and grace, and will tend to improve the tone and to exalt the standard of Christian practice. But where the soul is still a stranger to renewing grace, where the heart is still unoccupied by the Spirit of God; there the tenets of which we are speaking, being speculatively embraced by the understanding, and received into a mind unhumbled and unholy, will necessarily be productive of evil. They will be abused and perverted, and made instruments and occasions of sin." pp. 98,99, This observation we consider as capable of a very wide application: and certainly it is quite as true of the opponents of Calvinism as of its defenders. Let us look rather to the lives, tempers, ruling passions, and motives of men, than to those nice and perhaps accidental shades of doctrinal opinion, in which they may differ from each other; and, perhaps, we shall then have occasion to find that many are acting the worst Calvinism with the creed of Arminians, and not a few acting the best Arminianism with the creed of Calvin;-that many talk evangelically who think legally; while some talk legally who think evangelically. We are unwilling unduly to extend this article: we should otherwise have gratified our readers with an extract from Letter VIII. relative to what seems the conclusion of the whole matter in Mr. Cooper's as well as his correspondent's mind; a the former permitting it to be received as his opinion, that belief of the Calvinistic doctrines is not essential to salvation;" the latter, though professing himself an anti-Calvinist, yet owning that he is decidedly convinced his salvation must be entirely of grace. See PP. 109-111. In passing on to Letters IX. and X. "on Regeneration, and the Controversy connected with it," we feel ourselves standing on different ground to that which we have hitherto assumed, having strongly, fully, and deliberately declared our sentiments upon the subject: and we must own, upon the whole, with Mr. Cooper, that in our opinion, "the point here in dispute is one of vital and essential moment; and which, with great propriety, may interest the feelings, and call forth the energies of all those, who would'contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints."" Whilst, however, we say this, we desire not to forget, any more than Mr. Cooper has forgotten, the main object of his whole work, which is to display a spirit of con ciliation, to promote general harmony and good-will, and, if possible, to lay a foundation for the reconcilement of the most discordant parties who shall be found either desirous or capable of peace. We should, therefore, at all events, here decline a renewal of old hostilities, (even were we disposed towards them,) upon "regeneration, the spiritual grace of baptism," &c. &c.: and we shall much more gladly recur with our excellent author to the first principles, the "ima fundamina" of the controversy; and, delivering with him an honest testimony on that point, we shall most cheerfully forbear from any personal application of our remarks to any one more than to another specific class of religious controvertists. Mr. Cooper had properly represented Christianity as "a system of religion, the design of which is to recover the human soul out of its fallen state, and to restore it to a capacity for finding happiness in the presence and service of a holy God." To this he as properly adds, in substance, that such a recovery and restoration imply a change in the spiritual faculties of the soul; the extent of which change we shall estimate in proportion as we estimate the extent of the depravation which rendered it necessary. "If, on the one hand, we think but lightly of the soul's spiritual depravation, we shall of course regard the change, which a restoration to its original condition implies, as slight and inconsiderable. But if, on the other hand, we look on the depraved state of the soul as amounting to a total extinction of its spiritual faculties, it is plain that, with these views, the change to be accomplished in its recovery will appear to be great and momentous." pp. 117, 118. Now this change, he apprehends, in the meaning of all parties, is regeneration. Equally does he imagine that all parties ascribe it to the operation of the Spirit of God. But some annex this change necessarily and essentially and exclusively to the due administration of the sacrament of baptism: others deny a necessary connection between the two events, but hold that regenera tion may take place at the time of baptism, before it, after it, or not at all. This, then, being the ostensible ground of difference between the two parties now at issue on the question-and honest men on both sides seeming to collect their respective opinions alike from Scripture and the church Mr. Cooper is led backward to a higher, and what he deems the real, ground of difference between them. We imagine his total view of this real point of difference may be summed up in one important question-"Which of the two opinions respecting the dependency of regeneration on baptism is congenial to the more extended views of the nature of the spiritual change signified by it, and which to the less extended view of it?" The answer implied by Mr. Cooper is most obvious. Those who think a little and an easy change of natural character sufficient to the purposes of religion, will find no difficulty in supposing it to take place at baptism: but in proportion to the supposed extent and difficulty of the regenerating change from sin to holiness, will be the slowness to believe that it has taken place universally at baptism*. To use Mr. Cooper's own words, "The real, but concealed, object of this controversy has been the nature of *We are aware that the doctrine of congenialities and affinities, though very admissible in chemistry, is of very slippery application to the science of theology. As a proof of this may be alledged the simple fact of an attempt lately made, invidia causâ, to charge the opponents of a doctrine which necessarily ties regeneration to baptism, with a leaning to Calvinism. Now it appears that the very father of genuine Calvinism, St. Austin, has spoken most strongly in a way to favour the opinion of a necessary connection between regeneration 1817.] Review of Cooper's Letters to an Inquirer after Divine Truth. 725 true religion. Its spirituality has been the actual matter in dispute. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration has been viewed with jealousy and resisted with vehemence, because in the opinion of those who have thus opposed it, the practical tendency of the doctrine is obviously not only to lower and degrade the spiritual standard of Christianity, but in fact to alter, and even to destroy, its peculiar nature, character, and objects. For if (as the advocates for this doctrine contend) that renovating change, in which the soul's recovery from its natural depravation consists, uniformly takes place at baptism; then it follows, that every baptized person is naturally capacitated for participat ing the duties and pleasures of true religion. But great numbers of those who have been baptized, evidently shew that, notwithstanding their supposed change, they are still as far gone from original righteousness,' and as much'alienated from the life of God.' as those who have not been baptized. To maintain, then, this doctrine, to insist that this change-a change which still leaves the subjects of it in such an evident state of incapacity for true religion is the whole of that spiritual renovation which the soul requires, is, in the opinion of the opposite party, to inculcate very low and defective notions of what religion really is; and, in fact, virtually to divest it of every thing pure, elevated, and spiritual." pp. 124–126. a If, as Mr. Cooper well observes in continuation, the advocates for baptismal regeneration mean change of some other kind, and not that which restores to the soul its spiritual fitness for seeing and serving God, then the opposing party will withdraw from the combat, and leave their antagonists in quiet possession of their opinions. An obvious exception against all and baptism: whereas Burnet, to select one name only amongst a host of modern Arminians, is a most strenuous opponent of any such necessary connection, and considers it a vital principle of Protestantism to deny it. If, then, affinities are to be mentioned at all, the true statement is that already alluded to, of an affinity between the higher views of spiritual religion, and a denial of its necessary and universal attainment at the moment of baptism, this from the mouth of an objector, is well put by Mr. Cooper into the supposed reply of his correspondent at the beginning of Letter X. "You accuse me with having 'passed a sentence of condemnation in my last letter on all who espouse the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and with having. represented them as persons destitute of all spiritual religion."" p. 129. The answer of Mr. Cooper is equally perspicuous and conciliatory. He states, that his aim is not to strike at men, but at principles; that he certainly considers the opinion of baptismal regeneration as naturally connected with lower views of spiritual religion; but that still many persons possessed of those views, "widely as they may appear in these respects to differ from such as maintain the higher standard, are in reality far more remote in sentiment from those who reduce Christianity to a mere composition of forms, ceremonies, and ordinances, totally destitute of life and vitality. "And this is one peculiar feature in the present controversy. Many of the persons, now engaged in opposition to each other, really approximate much nearer in their opinion than several of those, who are ranged on the same side. For even they who admit the lowest degree of spirituality in religion, must have far more community of feeling and interest with those who contend for the highest, than they possibly can have with such as virtually exclude all spirituality." pp. 130, 131. That none but such as virtually banish all spirituality in religion are by our author excluded from his wide pale of Catholic unity, must be obvious from the foregoing quotations. We cannot, however, refrain from giving one passage more, * See Vossius "de Baptismo," and others, "In answer to this statement, I would ask, from what cause has it arisen that this divine seed has experienced in these persons so much inattention and neglect, so much opposition and resistance? Has it not been from the prevailing indispo sition of their heart to spiritual things; from the soul's predilection to the works of the flesh, and to the pomps and vanities of the world; in other words, from the depravation of its spiritual faculties, from its natural incapacity for participating the duties and pleasures of true religion?" pp. 134, 135. Then, supposing this admission to be made by a person seeing the necessity of some real spiritual change, the inference, according to Mr. Cooper, is most plain, "that in these persons the soul has not been really and radically changed; the depravation of its spiritual faculties still continues; and consequently the operation wrought in baptism was not that spiritual renovation, which the opposers of baptismal regeneration have in view, when they talk of the new birth.' That operation, whatever it may be, must evidently be something very distinct from this spiritual change; something, which its advocates will surely not deem an object worthy of serious contention, when they consider, that at the best, even on their own admission, it leaves the soul still under its prevailing indis position to spiritual things, still under its natural incapacity for true religion." 136. asserting that the change there effected is real regeneration, in the sense of real conversiou of the heart to God, that "the only real ground is the degree of spirituality to of difference between these parties which the standard of true religion should be referred." (p. 137.) For if baptismal regeneration be once considered as distinct from the spirit of vital religiou afterwards to be attained, then we apprehend it may be consistently held to take place uniformly at baptism, even by those who hold also the strongest views of that spiritual religion subsequently necessary to the soul. It is only to those who maintain that no other spiritual change, except that which accompanies baptism, is necessary that we appre hend Mr. Cooper's remark fully applies. The former characters certainly differ from their oppoments, as to "the degree of spirituality to which the standard of true religion is to be referred." Yet even them we would place in a far different rank from the others, who deny all internal spiritual conversion of the soul whatever, either at baptism or subsequently, ("as the manner of some is,") and most cordially would we invite them, with Mr. Cooper, to join hands with the advocates of a still higher spirituality in religion, and "mutually laying aside their conten tions and jealousies, draw near to each other in Christian fellowship and love. Keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,' let them combine their force against the common enemies of Christianity of its highest glory and exboth, against those who would spoil cellence, the internal beauty of holiness. Against adversaries like these, let their united zeal and activity be exerted: nor let them suffer any lesser differences among themselves, by disturbing their unanimity, to weaken their efforts in the common cause, or to excite a suspicion of their countenancing an interpretation of Christian truth so erroneous and de structive as that which many of the advocates of baptismal regeneration are evidently attempting to establish.” pp. 139, 140, |