We come now to our principal remark in connexion with the work before us, namely, that all that class of evils of which Dr. Cox's book presents so fit and striking a specimen, all the evils of ecclesiastical division, all that exhibits Christendom to men and angels as a divided and distracted community, maintaining hundreds of hostile and irreconcilable religions under the name of a common Master, all arises from the fact, that men make the essence of Christianity to consist in speculative doctrines and not in moral ones, and accordingly make the unity of the church to consist in a speculative uniformity which is needless and impossible, and not in the uniform reception of those moral truths which are fully revealed and are not differed about. Each individual Christian or sect sets down a point of meeting, where it is impossible to meet, and makes Christianity consist in meeting there, and feels and acts as if such meeting were essential. There are of course a thousand such points, and hence a real division and all the jarrings and jealousies and strifes, deadly and interminable, which have so rent and distracted the church, that should be one in the bonds of love and peace. The evil arises not at all from the speculative diversities that do and must prevail, but from men's regarding those diversities as violations of the oneness of Christianity. Neither does the evil consist in what we suppose to be the speculative errors of any system of Christian doctrine, as such; but it arises from the idea that that one system, or any other particular system, is the one indivisible and essential Christianity, and from the dispositions, principles, and measures which necessarily accompany that false idea.

We will endeavour to illustrate these remarks by applying them to the case of several Christian sects.

Take the Catholic Church for example. There is nothing in its doctrinal system, as such, that is to be lamented. We may, indeed, think that that spiritual condition which gave rise to, and which is most favorable to the continuance of such a system, is not the highest and most desirable for man; but, seeing that that condition has existed and does exist, the existence of the doctrinal system is not to be mourned for. The evil lies not in the doctrines. These and the system which they constitute are wanted. They have been the means, and, under the circumstances, probably the necessary means of bringing multitudes to true Christian

ity, the Christian character. We think we see much error in this system, we could not adopt it, it would not help us in the attainment of true Christianity. But there are a great many minds in such a state of intelligence, or so cast and formed, by constitution or circumstances, that it is just what is needed to christianize them. It is no evil. The evil all lies in the extraneous parts of the system. The enormities which we deprecate proceed from the idea that the moral doctrines which the system may accompany, and the Christian character which it may produce, are not Christianity, but that the doctrinal system itself is the one essential Christianity, and that conformity to it is the test of Christianity. This idea is the very corner-stone of the Romish constitution. It pervades the whole organization. It is an avowed principle and appears in every measure of church policy. And this principle, that there must be uniformity of faith, and that that one system is the single standard of such uniformity, and that all departure is damnable heresy, is the root of all the evil. It is this bad principle that started and established the idea that the bishop of Rome has an apostolic commission, and that he, aided by his councils, is the supreme spiritual legislator of the world, competent to decree, and authorized to enforce, that uniformity. It is this principle that has afforded that church a reason for its vast secular aggrandizement, thus leading the way to those corruptions of a pecuniary and political nature, which have brought such scandal upon the name of Christ. It is upon this principle that the Scriptures have been wrested from the hands of men, lest notions should be derived from them inconsistent with Christianity, that is, with the Romish system, notions that would disturb this essential uniformity. It is this principle that has built inquisitions, kindled fires, and persecuted and murdered good men. It is this principle that has made Catholic countries peculiarly prolific in infidelity and irreligion. Here is the worst consequence. It has excluded and denounced every other system. It has striven by all means to keep all minds fast bound down to this one. has not permitted those minds that never could, or had ceased to be able to embrace that system and be influenced and christianized by it, it has not permitted them to seek and adopt for themselves a different system, with which they might have an affinity, in which they might have a belief,

It

and the peace and sanctifying influence of believing. Accordingly such minds have had no faith and no Christian influence, and hence infidelity and irreligion. The history of France at the time of the first Revolution, when she voted herself a nation of atheists, illustrates this evil, the process and the extent of it. And whatsoever else we might find to deplore in Popery, it has its origin in this same fundamental principle, that there must be a uniformity of belief, and that Popery is of course the standard.

It is the same with Calvinism, either as it existed in the mind of Calvin himself, or under any of its modern modifications. There are many who think there is speculative error in that system. It is not the system that they can believe. But that is no objection to Calvinism. There are other minds, as honest and docile as theirs, that can and do receive it and do arrive at Christianity through it. It may seem to us an unreasonable system; but there are minds with which it has an affinity, with which it can coalesce, minds that are in a state to need this very system. We, with our turn and habits of mind, cannot know what is the process of this assimilation, what is precisely the state of the soul in receiving this system; and it is not necessary for us to know. But we do know, if we know any thing about it, that multitudes of souls which do receive it, do somehow receive the power of religion along with it, receive all that the soul needs, moral truth, and moral strength, piety, virtue, peace, and a hope full of God and immortality. There may be much error in the system, but it contains so much of truth, or is so apprehended by certain minds, as to make them all that they need to be, religious. The evil is not in Calvinism as a system of theological opinions. All the evil that we associate with that system arises from the idea, that there must be a speculative uniformity throughout the church, of which Calvinism is of course the standard, an idea that has become so extensively incorporated with that system as to be nearly identified with it. It is this idea, with all the bitter uncharitableness and the unholy means and measures that frequently proceed from it, that constitutes the unchristian part of the system.

We would apply similar remarks to Universalism. Take Ultra-Universalism, as it is called. We are prepared to say that the existence of this system ought not to be regretted

by those who do not believe in its peculiar speculative doctrine. We believe that, within its legitimate limits, the limits to which it can be carried by fair and Christian means, it does good. It does not, as many apprehend, draw away, and consign to a hopeless state of indifference or irreligion, those who were before enjoying the sanctifying influences of other systems. Its prevalence has not, as many believe, degraded the religious character of the community. It has attracted those who had not been, nor were likely to be, attracted by any other system. It has established the dominion. of the Christian faith over a wide region of mind, which would otherwise have been a barren waste of skepticism and thoughtlessness, or been ravaged and occupied by that reckless and disorganizing spirit of Infidelity, which is striving so zealously to propogate itself amongst us. The general interests of religion are more indebted to Universalism in this respect, than has yet been appreciated. It has caused Christ and his gospel to be honored by thousands who, but for it, would have been ere this revilers of all religion. And we mean it for no reproach to Universalism, that we thus speak of it in connexion with infidelity. Every other system has, more or less, done the same service to the general cause of Christianity. And it is partly because there are so many systems extant amongst us, that infidelity does not spread more than it does. We have no speculative sympathy with Universalism. We do not believe its great doctrine. But we are so happy as to think we see good in the system, and not only in the way we have mentioned, but we see fruits of holy living under its ministrations. We see amongst its disciples those who appear to have received along with it the essential Christian faith, and to live under the influence of the Christian law of piety and virtue. It does not lessen the influence of other better systems, and it is adapted to have a good and extensive one of its own. The evil is not in the system itself, but in the same fault which Universalists share with other sects. They insist too much upon their great speculative dogma, to the virtual disparagement of subjects infinitely more important. They are too pertinaciously bent on a uniformity, of which that dogma is the standard. They manifest too little respect for other systems, and too little patience with them. Under this form they exhibit as much uncharitableness as any other sect. They are too zealous in putting

down other systems, and too indiscriminate in the means they use for this end. They are too eager for a universal triumph. And thus they extend their system faster and farther than it ought to go, for the general interests of Christianity. If they would recede from their over-anxious desire of proselytism, and be content with a reasonable domain, and a natural growth, and devote themselves chiefly and most earnestly to the great moral doctrines which they hold, we should not object to their system as one among the multitude. It would be wanted, it would extend the Redeemer's kingdom.

One word upon Quakerism in this connexion. Dr. Cox, amongst a great deal of undeserved and indiscriminate denunciation of it, has pointed out its real sins and mischiefs. We think they are not such as he supposes them mainly to be. The radical error of the Friends consists not, as we conceive, in their peculiar views of spiritual influence, nor in their disbelief of the resurrection of the body, nor in their denial of the perpetuity of the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's supper, nor in their scruples about an educated and salaried ministry, nor in their mode of worship, nor in their abhorrence of war, nor in their little peculiarities of dress and address. We do not see any thing here to cut them off from the fellowship of Christians. We do not agree with them on their principal points. We should not think it well for all Christendom to adopt their system; and, from the nature of the case, it will not be so adopted. But we do not think a system is to be execrated because it is not possible or desirable for it to become universal. It may still be, and it is, good in its place. Dr. Cox himself bears witness to the sincerity and Christian excellence of many of the Society with whom he was best acquainted. But the great and real vice of the sect is the same, in spirit and substance, with that of other sects. They manifest, in their way, the same passion for uniformity, and the same spirit of intolerance. According to our author, who was himself a sufferer in this regard, they use all means of flattery and terror to repress the spirit of religious inquiry amongst their own members. They have a formidable system of excommunication which they hold up in terrorem over the doubting, and let fall heavily upon the wandering. Their views of other Christians and their frequent treatment of them in their writings,