with our received system of physics. In either of these cases, we may justly suspect, that the first principles which we have collected are not the true first principles of nature or revelation. But scriptural doctrines, Jike historical facts, are stubborn things, and must not be tampered with to suit a human system. Indeed, although the several parts of Divine Revelation may differ, and greatly differ in relative importance, it is not true, that any principles are revealed in Scripture, to the test of which other passages must be brought with a view of ascertaining their truth: nor is any other test to be resorted to than those received rules of interpretation which have long approved themselves to the common sense and reason of mankind.

I do not, therefore, think it of the first importance to any theological system to determine which part of it consists of first principles, and what are not first principles, provided the whole is revealed: and an objection to that course of inquiry may be cited even from the pages of Mr. Wright himself.

"One man contends for notions, a first principles of religion, which another rejects as erroneous. With men of narrow views, and party spirit, every dogma is a leading article of faith. How then is the unlettered Christian, who has but little leisure for reading and study, to ascertain the first principles of Christianity?"

It is surely by no means ne cessary to perplex the unlettered Christian with any such inquiry. Let him only read his Bible, and believe whatever he finds there in its plain and obvious meaning; and it will be of little moment to him to distinguish first principles from deductions.

At the same time, though I do not view the importance of this question in the same light with our author, or admit the bearing which it is intended to have upon his

system, I am happy to give my assent to his observations on the question, what points ought not to be regarded as first principles.

It must not be inferred, however, from this, that I allow the tenets which Mr. Wright lays down, as first principles, to be exclusively entitled to that appellation, or the means by which he would teach us to determine them to be, all of them, of the most satisfactory description.

One maxim, which Mr. Wright advances to assist us in this inquiry, is-"What is absolutely essential to Christianity must be capable of being understood by an unlearned person from any one of the four Gospels; otherwise, such a Gospel must be defective in the most essential matters. It is highly probable that some Christians, in the early ages of the church, had not more than one of the Gospels extant among them; nor can it be supposed an Apostle, or Evangelist, in writing a Gospel, would leave out any essential doctrine of Christi anity."

What then was the end pursued by each of the Evangelists in writing his particular Gospel? If it was to teach all the essential doctrines of Christianity, then the maxims contended for by Mr. Wright must be admitted, that whatever is omitted by any is not an essential doctrine. But two of the Evangelists have expressly told us the end they had in view. The end of one is, that his readers might " know the certainty of those things wherein they had been instructed;" that of the other, that "they might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, they might have life through his Name." But it is no where said that all things essential to Christianity are contained in each Gospel. The holy Scriptures, indeed, contain no system of doctrines, but a variety of notices scattered up and down in them, which render it necessary for

us to study the whole. The same argument, moreover, which is used to shew, that every single Gospel must contain every essential article of Christianity, might equally be made to shew, that every such article must also be contained in every book of the Pentateuch, the book of Proverbs, or the prophet Jonah for it might happen, that persons were possessed of only one of them. But in fact it could seldom happen, that any body of Christians should possess only one of the four Gospels and no other means of Divine instruction; though it might often happen, and must at first have happened, that with other means of Divine instruction, they possessed no one copy of any of the four Gospels. What, in fact, are the Gospels? They are simple narratives of what our Blessed Saviour said and did; not of all that he said and did, but of the more important transactions and sayings of his life. And what was one of those sayings? "I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." Surely then this inferior capacity to bear Divine instruction during the lifetime of our Blessed Saviour, before the Holy Ghost was given, must prepare us to expect, that the four Gospels, far from containing every thing that might be considered essential to Christianity, when that religion came to be fully promulgated and explained, would leave much essential instruction to be afterwards supplied by the Apostles. And this expectation, moreover, is reasonable. The scheme of redemption was not completed before our Lord's death the Holy Ghost was not given till after his ascension: and surely the measure of light, which was generally proposed be. fore, cannot be worthy to be compared with that more abundant light which was shed abroad in the days of the Gospel; so that, if the knowledge expected be proportioned to the light vouchsafed, some doctrines may be fairly con

sidered as essential now, which could not be so regarded, which were even inscrutable mysteries, before the days of the Gospel.

When certain disciples were found by St. Paul at Ephesus, who had not so much as heard whether there were any Holy Ghost, there yet can be little doubt that those disciples had been made acquainted with every essential article of religion which John was able to teach them. Yet, when this new article of faith was once revealed, it became essential. It is essential now, and yet is not revealed in all the Gospels with equal distinctness, nor in any of them with that minuteness and prominence with which it is presented to us in the Acts and the Epistles; which is one among many instances to shew, that articles of faith, sufficiently important, and revealed with sufficient distinctness to be regarded as fundamental truths, may yet not be clearly gathered from every part of Revelation; and consequently that each separate portion of Scripture must not be taken, as a microcosm, or epitome, of the whole. I believe, indeed, that in point of fact, the single doctrine of our Lord's Deity might maintain its ground, on the authority of any one Gospel. But it is not necessary: nor do I think any other answer than that which has been already given, due to the remarks which follow (pp. 56-58), and in which the author maintains, that all the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel may be learned from the public discourses of the Apostles recorded in the book of Acts.

(To be continued.)

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. THE perusal of the Letters of the Rev. Mr. Cooper, and of the Review of them in the Christian Observer, has given me cordial satisfaction. May the excellent spirit they breathe animate the whole church, and excite every Christian, and particularly

every minister, to exert his best endeavours to heal our divisions, and to preserve "the unity of the spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life."

To conciliate ungodly men, on either side, upon the Calvinian controversy, is hopeless. All we can do for them is, to remove every impediment out of their way, and to offend none who are not offended by the light of true holiness. The dissensions of Christians have been the grief and shame of the church, and the stumbling and triumph of the world. If we would serve the world, edify the church, or improve our personal piety, we must study peace, learn to appreciate it, and be willing to make every sacrifice, consistent with a good conscience, to preserve it. Were I to consult my character, in shunning blind unfeeling bigotry, I should go to the extreme of latitudinarianism; and because, for ages, such a diversity of theological opinions has prevailed, I should easily pass to the conclusion, that it must ever prevail. But this species of liberality I do not affect. Truth ultimately will prevail, and amicable discussion is the legitimate mean of giving it the desired triumph. Such discussion I do not deprecate, but invite. It is a warfare which wastes no treasure, sheds no blood, provokes no bad passion. It is, indeed, a severe test of every evil principle; but it manifests none which did not previously exist. Notwithstanding all trite declamation against war and controversy, they are both necessary in the present state of man. Again and again have they preserved mankind from political and moral bondage to the devil and his children. He is unworthy of liberty, unworthy of truth, who is not willing to defend them, at the risk of fortune, fame, and life.

Of all this Mr. Cooper is fully aware: he knows that even the pacificators of the church must effect CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 193.

their godlike work by benevolent and well-directed controversy. He, however, calls us to peace in the spirit of peace, and indicates the principle upon which we may find it. Yet this principle is no novel discovery, but is as old as Christianity and as common sense itself. My only astonishment is, how any man, who is "taught of God," can refuse to acquiesce in it. Nothing is more simple, and nothing more necessary to peace and godly love, than to distinguish between the essential vital articles of our faith, and those minor truths which, however they may be necessary to the order, proportion, and beauty of the system, and even promote its general health and vigour, are yet not of the first necessity to its being and vitality. In the works of God, nothing is defective or superfluous. Every part is good in its place and kind; and, whether we can or cannot discern its particular nature and use, contributes something to the perfection of the whole. So it is in the human frame and in religion. Complexion and feature are necessary to beauty; yet beauty is not necessary to life. The free use of all the members is necessary to the strength and comfort of the body; and the privation of any one of them is felt in proportion to its use and dignity. But if, by casualty or disease, we be partially maimed in some noble member, yet general health and mental vigour may flourish unimpaired. Even when chronic diseases affect the health, vigour, usefulness, and comfort of the whole system, life is often prolonged for wise and merciful purposes; and so long as we retain the nature of a living man, we claim the kind attentions of humanity. In like manner, whatever blemishes may deform our Christianity, and impair its health and vigour, so as greatly to diminish our comfort and usefulness; yet, so long as we maintain its essential, vital character, of faith working by love to the common Saviour, we are entitled с

of Christianity are common to both parties, it strikes me as tremendously terrific, that they have been so long the bane of the Reformed Churches, and have been agitated in a temper destructive of peace and love. If theological principles are, like men, to be judged by their fruits, without pretending to decide on which side truth lies, it is evident that both those points, and the principles opposed to them, involve a most awful responsibility. If, therefore, they must still be agitated, it should be with deep reverence and godly fear, and as a question of principles and not of

men.

No compromise of principle can be made on either side; but it should be felt and acknowledged by both, that common Christianity is of paramount consideration; and that our theological peculiarities should not be suffered to violate the peace and love of the church. I never have refused to meet a Calvinist, as such, in any walk of private or public life. My house is open to his association, my heart to his friendship, and my pulpit to his occasional ministry, provided he confine it to truths of the first necessity to be believed, experienced, and practised. My poor services I cheerfully offer under the same limitation, whenever I can serve the common cause. On these equitable and pacific terms, for thirty-two years, I have occasionally occupied their pulpits, and they mine. I have not offended them with my Arminianism, nor have they offended me with their Calvinism. But there are gentle. men far more Calvinistic than Calvin. They cannot discern, or will not admit, the distinction be tween truths essential and nonessential. Election and perseverance, as held by themselves, they appear to consider as essential as the Godhead and Atonement of Christ. They feel themselves equally pressed in spirit to exhibit them in my pulpit as in their own,

No consideration for the prejudices of myself and of my flock, (which, if they deserve no better name, are yet conscientious prejudices, and merit respect); no regard of peace and brotherly kindness; no fear of the ill example to the world from the unnatural contentions of the church, can prevail on them not to force Calvinism on men who reject it with aversion. The principle they avow is, that to withhold any part of what they deem truth, is a dereliction of duty, through a criminal fear of man. To a clergyman avowedly of these principles, I have lately been obliged to declare, that he could not officiate for me, or I for him. Nor do I hesitate to say, that whoever, knowing my principles and abusing my catholic spirit, forcibly intrudes Calvinism into my pulpit, must expect that I should endea vour to counteract his statements. On these terms, the weary church can know no peace; but, on the high ground of our common Christianity, she may repose under her Redeemer's shadow. That a fair reciprocrity should regulate the intercourse of differing parties in points admitted to be non-essential, when they occupy each other's pulpits, is so evident that it hardly requires an argument. At least the clergyman who declines meeting me on common ground, will doubtless, like a man of honour, give me satisfaction for the Cal vinism he preaches in my pulpit, by allowing me to preach Arminianism in his. But I like not this gothic appeal; and if we are to cut our controversial way through each other's pulpits, I prefer to occupy my own in peace. We have enough to do, at least in the crowded scene of my labours, to make a stand against the world, the flesh, and the devil, without thus engaging in a viva voce controversy, to be carried on in our several churches, until, by degrees, it involved every pulpit of the place, and