collect from the fact of two answers having been already put forth, in reply to its statements; but a more decisive proof still is to be found in the admission which is made by the Authors of the rejoinders; one of whom explicitly states the extensive circulation which the pamphlet has obtained, as the reason for his having thought some reply to have been necessary; and the more so, in consideration of the high character for private integrity which it is allowed that Mr. B. Cooper deservedly possesses. Of this last recommendation we are unable to speak; but the pamphlet bears evident traces of a highly cultivated mind. Of the subject of divinity, indeed, both general and particular, the extent and accuracy of Mr. Cooper's knowledge, has often surprised us; and in no other point of comparison does he appear with more advantage over his opponents, whose lucubrations, like those of most of the school to which they belong, are very poor performances on the score of ability, and on the score of learning and knowledge hardly deserving of notice.

Mr. Cooper commences his Letter with some remarks on the general character and tendency of that scheme of religion, which took its origin with Calvin; and he justly remarks, that "if any doctrine could drive a man away from Christianity, it would be that which is to be found in the Articles derived from his school."

Mr. C. then proceeds to animadvert upon the practical fruits of these doctrines, as evidenced in the history of the 17th century; and with this part of the Letter his opponents are particularly angry. What! say they, are all Calvinists to be considered as rebels, and anarchists, and regicides? Certainly not but when men make religion their pretext for rebellion and anarchy, and the murder of their Sovereign, it is, at least, natural to examine what the character of that REMEMBRANCER, No. 72.

religion is; and if it should be found that its professors were ready, and supposed themselves able to justify their misdeeds by the religious tenets which they had embraced, surely there is a strong presumption against those tenets, when considered as forming any part of Divine Revelation. There certainly never was a period in the history of this country, in which religion exercised so powerful an influence over the minds of men, as during the civil wars in the reign of Charles the First. And if it be admitted, as no loyal and good man will deny, that at no period of our history were acts of injustice, cruelty, and oppression more frequent and avowed; either we must suppose that the majority of the nation at that period had embraced a fanatical interpretation of the doctrines of Christianity, or else we should be forced to the far more objectionable conclusion, that Christianity itself, when fairly acted upon, is an institution less favourable to the temporal welfare of mankind, than has been commonly imagined.

We forget what statesinan it was who used to say, speaking of what are called "moderate Calvinists," that one might as well talk of a "moderate tiger." The principles of Calvin are, by definition, not moderate; just as a tiger is by description an animal whose nature is not tame; nor can we change the nature of either in this respect without changing the things themselves. Either a man is a free agent, or he is not a free agent. Either God elects those whom he will save from all eternity, or he does not. Either a Christian after Baptism, assisted by God's ordinary grace, and before actual sin, has the power of serving God acceptably, or he has not. In questions of this kind, in which the laws of God's dealings with mankind are concerned, it is in vain to talk of any middle line of belief. A man must either think with Calvin, and 5 A

if he is able to reason with him, must follow him all lengths, or he must think as the Church of England teaches her disciples to believe, on these subjects. As to what are called moderate Calvinists, they are merely men who are not able to understand the true character of the points at issue, and whose assumption of what are most offensively (as far as regards their brethren) called Evangelical principles, indicate, in fact, nothing more than a strong disposition to dissent from the principles of an Established Church for except it be in this single principle, we should be glad to have a definition of what it is that we are to understand by Evangelical Religion, as distinguished from that which is taught by the great body of the English Clergy. Do the Clergy of the Evangelical party, in assuming to themselves this truly meek and humble denomination, merely mean, in other words," to thank God that they are not as other men are," in respect to their personal piety and devotion? or is it in respect of the doctrines which they hold? If the former be the case, we shall know what to think of their pretensions, and where to go for their archetypes. But if the latter, then setting aside the jargon of words, let us understand distinctly what it is by which a man may know, whether his religion be, or be not, Evangelical. For if the term be rightly applied, the inquiry is one of some importance; and if it expresses any thing more than mere dissent from the majority of our brethren, it will not be difficult to explain in what that difference con. sists.

We could define very easily the points of difference, for they are broad enough; but we wish to have their own explanation; we wish to

see

some formulary of doctrine drawn up, in which the whole, or any considerable portion, of the Evangelical Clergy agree in opinion. For as it is, the name is assumed

by teachers holding such dissimilar tenets, that it really can hardly be considered as any thing more than a mere catch-word, just as (without meaning to make any disagreeable comparison) the word Pharisee was in its original signification.

Mr. Cooper, in the pamphlet before us, has endeavoured to draw out, under separate heads, the several points in which he considers the doctrines of the Evangelical Clergy to differ from that of the Church of which they profess themselves to be members. To this two answers have been put forth, both by Evangelical Clergymen; but both of them, as might have been expected, differing quite as widely from each other, except in the use of the same peculiar phraseology, as they differ from him whose opinions they jointly attack.

In charging the Evangelical Clergy, as they are humbly pleased to style themselves, of "peculiarities which tend to produce disunion among the members of our venerable Church," Mr. Cooper fairly states his opinion as to what those peculiarities are. He says,

"I mean chiefly to refer in the abstract to the general topics which are the subject of the discourses styled Evangelical, and to a set of phrases, which are so frequently introduced, that they may be styled the language of a party.

"Among these topics I would wish to allude more particularly to the following:

"Ist, A tendency to exaggerate with the Calvinists, the natural corruption of mankind since the fall.

2dly, An undervaluation of the sacraments, particularly of Baptism, as the symbol of regeneration.

"3dly, A depreciation of that holy system introduced by the Apostles, as we conceive, by the command of Christ, and adopted by our Apostolical Church, of admitting infants to Baptismal regeneration, and providing for their being trained up thenceforth in faith and obedience, by dividing the members of their congregations into the converted and unconverted, and maintaining the necessity of a total change for all.

4thly, The continual preaching of faith without works, as alone necessary to salvation, either from the idea that faith is

really all in all, or that it must be inevitably attended with good works-neglecting therefore, or condemning all exhortations to practical duties, as moral or legal preaching. Under this head likewise may be included the disparagement of a good life, as acceptable in the sight of God through Christ, by a general disclaimer of all self-righteousness.

"5thly, The rejection of conditions on the part of man for the attainment of everlasting bliss, under the idea of exalting the merits of our Redeemer, and the assertion that all which is required of us, is faith, a conviction of sin, an humble prostration at the foot of the cross, and an abandonment of ourselves to the mercy of God in Christ. "To this is frequently added, the assertion that a preacher ought, in the language of St. Paul to the Corinthians, to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified.'

66

'6thly, I think I may add likewise a mystical notion of faith, as an infused principle, somewhat different from belief, and a disposition to represent all goud works as the fruits of the Spirit, not merely by its suggesting and co-operating grace, but by its creating and irresistible agency.

"The general tendency and result of the above doctrines appear to me to be this; that if a man can be brought to believe that he has been redeemed by Jesus Christ, every thing else will be done for

him or in him that can contribute to his eternal salvation." P. 5.

Mr. Cooper then proceeds to dilate successively upon the several topics, stating both his own opinions as to the subjects to which they refer, and his reasons for disapproving the opinions of those who differ from him. In answer to his representations and arguments, we have two pamphlets now lying upon our table; both of them vindicating the principles of the Evangelical Clergy, from the charges contained in Mr. C.'s pamphlet; both of them containing an exposition of what each of the writers suppose those principles to be, and both of them attacking Mr. C.'s opinions. But when we have said this, we have mentioned the only points in which they agree. Put the two pamphlets together, and we shall have such a jumble of opinions, and reasonings, and asser

tions, and quotations, as would be enough to puzzle the understanding of Thomas Aquinas himself.

The first of the two pamphlets is by a Mr. John K. Whish, whose designation is "late of Emanuel College, Cambridge." The second pamphlet is entitled an Answer to Mr. C.'s Letter, by "The Clergyman to whom it was addressed." The first professes to vindicate the author of the second from the calumnious imputations of Mr. C. Hardly is this pamphlet dry from the press, when the unknown Clergyman himhis own name, but-what shall we self comes forward, not indeed in say? in his own hand writing-and declares that he does hold the opinions which Mr. Whish declares to be a calumny, at the same time that he also is very indignant with Mr. Cooper, against whom Mr. Whish had before been indignant for a conAs to the points at trary reason. issue, viz. whether the Evangelical Clergy do or do not hold the opinious imputed to them, in the original Letter,-whether those opinions Calvinistic or not Calvinistic,-noare right or wrong,-whether they be thing is more plain, than that these are matters about which the writers of the replies are themselves in iguorance. Perhaps, if we had gone through the answers a second time, or we had read them with severe attention, on our first perusal, we might have been able to give a more intelligible account of their contents. But the fact is, they are so weak as compositions, they are written in a tone of such offensive self-conceit, are so loose and rambling, and are replete with so much verbal dispute, that we found the labour of reading them extremely difficult; and as to that of presenting our readers with a regular account of the controversy, it is a work which might be undertaken out of compliment to Mr. Cooper (whose letter is deserving of every attention), but which would be in every other respect a very idle waste of time.

As a proof, however, of the truth of the remarks which we just now made respecting the general looseness of what are called Evangelical doctrines, we shall compare Mr. C.'s account of them with that of his opponents themselves; and the opinions which we shall give, may be considered as furnishing a fair sample of the manner and merits of the several writers; and for this purpose, we shall begin with the beginning.

The first charge which Mr. C. brings against the Evangelical Clergy, is "a tendency to exaggerate with the Calvinists, the natural corruption of mankind, since the Fall." On this subject Mr. Cooper argues very ably and very truly.

"It is not meant to be denied that the tendency to sin in unassisted man, will lead him into evil and perdition; but that in every age, he has not been left without assistance, but has had means and powers, through the hope of a Redeemer, to become acceptable to God. Otherwise we should exclude all the worthies under the Old Testament from the kingdom of Heaven, in express contradiction to the declaration of our blessed Saviour.

"Were any additional proof wanting of good inclinations not being wholly extinguished by the Fall, it would be furnished by St. Paul, in the 7th Chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, where, in the assumed character of a natural man and of a Jew, a μeraoxnμa very common with this Apostle, he describes, in so lively a manner, the internal conflict between good and evil, and the too common victory of the latter without Divine Grace.

"Where he says, he consents to the law that it is good, and that he delights in the law of God after the inward man,' but that he finds 'a law in his members warring against the law of his mind, and bringing him into captivity to the law of sin.

Wretched as he is in such a state, he ex

claims, Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? and he thanks God for his deliverance, through Jesus Christ

our Lord,'

May I be permitted from this passage, and from several expressions in Scripture, as well as from reflections on the powers and passions and faculties of our nature, to

suggest an idea which I entertain, and which I first derived from him to whom I owe my existence, that man is a being

compounded of an intellectual spirit, an animal soul, and a mortal body, acted upon by the influences of a Divine guide, and the intellectual spirit is still capable of the suggestions of a diabolical enemy. That discerning and approving what is good, but the animal or carnal soul is too prone to what is evil, and the mortal body is made the agent of its purposes, and subject to disease and death. St. Paul, therefore, prays that his disciples, spirit, soul, and body, may be preserved pure and blameless unto the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.'

"The impression upon my mind, therefore, on this important subject is, that we ought not to exaggerate the natural depra. vity, nor to blacken the character of man, in order to exalt the merits of our Re deemer, but to judge of it according to the testimonies of Scripture, with soberness and truth. He did not die to save us, when we had become diabolical, but to save us from becoming so. We know, blessed be God! that while we were yet enemies, he died for us, to blot out our transgressions, and to raise us by faith and obedience to a higher state of happiness than that which Adam had forfeited; and this conviction ought to be sufficient to excite our gratitude, to quicken our faith, and to induce us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling."" P. 12.

In opposition to the reasoning of Mr. Cooper on this head, Mr. Whish contends for the total corruption of inan by the Fall. He says, p. 6, "the total corruption of man by the Fall, I will endeavour very briefly to shew to be the doctrine both of the Scripture and our Church;" in another place, he tells us, that "His nature was not essentially changed, but all goodness was lost," we are told again, that “notwithstanding the animadversions which we may incur, for preaching the corruption of man in its full extent, (a doctrine, which must be received in order to obtain a just coaception of the stupendous plan of redemption)." After similar phrases to this, our readers will be edified by learning what the Evangelical Clergy mean by the "total corruption of human nature," as their doctrine is distinguished from that of the Church, or even from that of Mr. Cooper, as stated in his letter.

"After this avowal, on the part of Mr. C., it ceases at once to excite the least surprise that he should censure the preaching of the total corruption of human nature. But the real question, and that to which I beg your particular attention, is, whether the views he condemns be, or be not, accordant to the Scriptures, and to the standard writings of our Church? It may serve to clear the question of some difficulties, to remark at the outset, that the term "good" is to be understood, in the theological sense, "good" in the sight of God; whether man possess much that is morally good, i. e. of right feelings towards man-justice, humanity, benevolence, gratitude, generosity, &c.—is not the question: for it neither is nor can be denied. What we maintain, however, is, that man, independent of Divine Grace, is destitute of a right state of the heart towards God, i. e. of supreme, and consequently of all genuine love to God, his worship and service; and not only so, but that he is, independent of grace, at enmity with God, averse from the knowlege, love, fear, and service of him; and this alienation of the heart and will we trace to a depraved nature, inherited from Adam as its source and origin." P. 10.

We have here given the reader Mr. Whish's notions on the subject of the corruption of human nature; according to the view which he takes of the Evangelical doctrine. As to his reasoning and illustrations and general observations, in proof of his very peculiar opinions, we think that they might have been omitted without any disadvantage.

THE CLERGYMAN, himself, however, makes no such nice distinctions.

66

and infernal spirits, pp. 10 and 11. And are not all men so by nature? The Scripture hath concluded all under sin.' (Gal.iii. 22.) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.' (Rom. iii. 23.) All are by nature the children of wrath.' (Ephes. ii. 3.) Having asserted that Christ did not die to save us when we had become diabolical, you immediately add this transverse sentence, while we were yet enemies he died for us; not considering that ADVERSARY OF ENEMY* is the very meaning of the word devil. What can be more diabolical than ENMITY? And the carnal mind,' which all men have by nature, is pronounc ed to be enmity, not merely an enemy, but ENMITY itself against God. (Rom. viii. 7.) It is written, Christ died for the UNGODLY.' (Rom. v. 6.) While we were yet SINNERS, Christ died for us.' (Rom, v. 8.) And what is the Scripture character of sinners? They are ENEMIES (diabolical) by wicked works.' (Col. i. 21.)

·

When we were ENEMIES (diabolical) we were reconciled to God, by the death of his Son.' (Rom. v. 10.) Sinners therefore, who die impenitent, being, (according to Scripture testimony,) diabolical, are fit companions for devils and infernal spirits. Whether they be moral unbelievers, or openly profane, the Scripture makes no distinction. The unbelieving shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.' (Rev. xxi. 8.) The wicked shall be turned into hell,' (Ps. ix. 17.)' into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.' (Matt. xxv. 41.) Notwithstanding the disposition you feel so highly to exalt the character of fallen man, I must be permitted to yield to the authority of St. Paul, in preference. See the representation he gives of man's natural condition, in which he includes himself, and Titus his son after the common faith;'For WE OURSELVES also were sometimes

vers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.' (Tit. iii.) To this description of character what epithet can be more appropriate than diabolical?" P. 27.

"There is only one expression more I have to notice before I proceed to your next topic. He did not die to save us when we had become diabolical, but to save us from becoming so, p. 14. I judge of the meaning you attach to the word diabolical, by comparing it with preceding expressions, viz. fit companions for devils

Mr. Whish again strenuously denies that the Evangelical Clergy preach faith, without resting upon the necessity of works; he denies, in like manner, that the doctrine which teaches us to believe that man is not a free agent, is a doc

If the clergyman means here to appeal to the etymology of the word devil, he is greatly mistaken.