tion on earth or a hold on heaven; with despair at the grave and darkness on the way thither. But if it is otherwise with them, and their confidence is in these respects firm, let them be of good courage. Their doubts overspread nothing which it is indispensable to preserve unclouded; nothing surely, on which they may not exert their own reason with all freedom and fearlessness. Our faith should be drawn from our moral sentiments and noblest desires; from every thing that is wise and holy and happy; from such portions of the volumes of nature and the scriptures as are simple and obvious and most profitable for instruction. It is not a possession to be wrapped up in the corner of a paragraph, or made dependent on doubtful words in a foreign tongue. It is a living voice from heaven and the heart; and not like one from the dead growing fainter and fainter with the years through which it passes. No one needs perplex himself with the traditions which are not essential to the word of truth: happy are the 'doers' of the truth itself.

We should distinguish between the substance of religion and its forms. What is its substance? A pure conscience and a well-grounded hope. What are its forms? They are as various as the situations and fancies of men: but it is the spirit that quickeneth. There are forms of outward observances; forms of transmitting what is important to be made known and established; forms of confessions and articles of belief. All these are at best but means, and not the end. The bible itself is not religion, but a record from whence we may be assisted to derive it. A man may have its every letter written on his memory, yet be growing blinder and harder. He may practice all the ceremonies of ritual service, yet not have religion. He may utter with sincerity the longest creed, that was ever devised by the bigotted to exclude the heretical, and be dead to piety still.

The intention of these remarks will not, it is hoped, be misconceived. This does not seem to be an age in which to complain of forms: and among beings such as we, it may be doubted if faith could be maintained in its efficacy without them. They are its limbs, though not its life. To such as are useful a high place should be assigned, but yet their own place. It must never be forgotten, that however excellent, they are not religion itself, but the aids to it only. The modes of paying homage to the Deity are different in the different states of society; but it will always be rendered in one or another form of outward expression by those who truly love and fear him. It is natural to show by some external acts whatever is much at the heart; and we might well be apprehensive for the existence of what is never seen. The principle of devotion unless manifested in some visible shape will be likely to escape utterly away. There must be an altar for the sacrifice, or the flame will die. We need not, however, be disturbed by any differences of method, or by any apparent difficulties in the exteriour and letter of the divine communications. What are these in comparison with independent, immutable, eternal truths?

We should distinguish between the speculative and the practical in religion. The difference between these seems very manifest; yet none needs more to be guarded and defined. If the former should be represented as unimportant, and the other as alone deserving of our regard, the inference might seem to be, that what is contemplative and abstract may safely be despised, and that nothing is worth attending to but what has a direct connexion with temporal interests and active concerns. This is the error of but too many; and is very far from the disposition that fits them for the reception of what is most spiritual in truth and holiest in the sources of conduct. For whence are derived those principles of action which are the highest and purest, and whence do they draw in their divine energy, but from contemplation; from thoughts far above the level of common thoughts, pursuits and feelings? The assertion is just, though liable to exceptions, that opinions enter into the materials of character, and that much as a man reasons he will live: and this is another argument against slighting without qualification and indiscriminately what is speculative in religious convictions. Further than this: the very essentials of any faith that can be named, partake in some degree of the character now spoken of. Even our views of some of the divine attributes may be termed speculative. They relate to what we cannot behold; they require a calmness and reach of meditation; they have no instant application to the business of the world. The truths that God is infinite and everlasting, do not become motives to any of our exertions, nor give direction to a single project. But who will say that they are without influence and useless? By speculations, then, are meant doctrines that have no connexion with moral worth; that produce no advantage if received, and if rejected, or never thought of, occasion no want. With such it will be wise not to burthen a religious belief, which accomplishes its whole design by rendering men obedient and confiding. Yet even here is room for dispute; for it is impossible to define precisely the limits at which opinions cease to be practical. The most abstruse theories and the wildest imaginations have been recommended by those who hold to them, on the plea of their tendency to promote virtue. Theological partisans are generally heard to extol their peculiarities as most salutary in their moral consequences; as if men were not kept together in brotherhood, duty and hope, by the things in which all agree, but by those in which each differs from the rest. The materialist and the necessarian frequently boast of their metaphysical systems as important to the cause of goodness among men: and they who maintain the strange doctrine of a division which is not a division in the nature of the Deity, continually charge their opponents with forsaking the very foundation of a holy life. To set apart therefore any dogma, as having nothing to do with an upright practice, would be to draw from them at once opposition and a denial. The very antinomian will contend that he alone magnifies the divine law. They who reject all belief in a final retribution, will aver that they are thus opposing a pernicious error. Nothing is too mean or monstrous in superstition to blush at making pretensions to utility. It may be questioned whether the most shameless parts of the mysticism of Swedenborg would not be vindicated by many, as highly conducive to the spiritual comfort and purity of the initiated. Still, the point of discrimination here proposed does not lose its importance; and each must determine for himself where it is to be fixed. Every one knows best what he himself needs for his governance, encouragement, trust, and instruction in righteousness: and he has a right, and he ought, to look with indifference on any propositions, which he considers empty of improvement, as on clouds without water, carried about of-winds.'

ORTHODOX DENUNCIATIONS.

It has been suggested, that it may be useful to remind the public of the denunciations poured out upon the Hopkinsians a few years since by the Calvinists of New-York. At this moment, when the orthodox are opening all their batteries of assault in every quarter, for the destruction of Unitarians; it is instructive and comforting to observe, that the cause is not so much the irreligion and heresy of those whom they assail, as the exclusive and narrow spirit of their own system :--which is rendered very evident by the fact, that anathemas of as great violence and bitterness are uttered against those who vary least from their standard as against those who vary most. Our object is, by the extracts we shall make, to show this fact, and leave our readers to draw their own inferences.

،

Ely's "Contrast between Hopkinsianism and Calvinism," was published in 1811. The object of this publication was to prevent Hopkinsians from obtaining places in the Presbyterian Church. "When any individual," it is said " is admitted to the Presbyterian church in the United States, he either professes or tacitly consents sincerely to receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures. It has been proved in the preceding pages, that the system of Hopkinsianism is repugnant to this Confession of Faith. This conclusion therefore irresistibly follows, that no person, who is fully conceived of the truth of this system, or who is not a Calvinist in sentiment, can conscientiously unite himself to the Presbyterian church, by assent to its Confession of Faith."

"It is a just conclusion also, that persons, who are known to profess doctrines utterly repugnant to these standards, cannot with propriety be received by the rulers of these ecclesiastical societies. To admit any one, who is known to be a Hopkinsian, is nothing less than connivance at a false profession."

"The Presbyterian church should take warning; for a family or city, divided against itself, cannot stand."

The Contrast, p. 279, speaking of some Calvinistic platforms, says "The Hopkinsians, Sabellians, Arians, and Socinians, cannot be expected to like them."--" Any person, who maintains either of these heresies, has departed from the faith of the pious fathers of New-England."

The work written with this design, was pushed into circulation and recommended by various letters from the most distinguished men in the Presbyterian Church, who hoped to crush Hopkinsianism by the strong attack. We recommend that our readers should refresh their recollection of these letters; and remember that all these missiles of hard names and anathemas were aimed against Dr. Gardiner Spring, then lately settled in New-York,-who, when they had fallen harmless at his feet, gathered them up, and hurled them, in a similar spirit, at certain other heretics of New-England.

" Dear Sir,

"Princeton, Oct. 5th, 1811.

"I must ask your pardon for so long delaying the expression of my thanks, for your useful assortment of the religious errors and absurdities of certain writers in our country, who have gained a reputation, far beyond what nonsense and impiety should acquire for a divine. These follies appear the more striking, by being brought so near together as they are in the Contrast, and separated from that farrago of verbiage and tautology with which they are encompassed in the original volumes. The basis of their argumentation is the same with that of the necessitarian philosophers in France and Germany. And I am persuaded that these profound divines are preparing the way for a more extensive dif. fusion of infidel principles, and even of atheism, in our country. 1 wish your book might be generally and seriously read, and the sentiments it exposes duly appreciated. I am, with with regard and respect, &c.

"SAMUEL S. SMITH," D. D. LL. D. &c. "Columbia, New-York, Nov, 19th, 1811.

"I have read with attention, a great part of a book published by the Rev. Ezra Stiles Ely, entitled, "A Contrast." &c. and believe the author has performed a valuable service to the cause of religion, and merited the gratitude and support of Christians in general, by exhibiting, with perspicuity and ability, a view of the novel doctrines lately introduced into some congregations in our country, as contrasted with the real doctrines of the Reformed Church, and the principles of evangelical truth revealed in the word of God, and hitherto cherished in the hearts of the followers of the Redeemer, in every quarter where his Gospel has been preached with simplicity and sincerity.

"P. WILSON," LL. D. Professor of Languages in Columbia College, and one of the Elders of the Reformed Dutch Church. " In the above ample and just recommendation of the Rev. Mr. Ely's Contrast, I cordially concur.

"JOHN Mc NIECE,” A. Μ. Pastor of the Irish Presbyterian Church in New-York. "For years we have consider as highly desirable to the religious public, a work which should make a fair contrast between the doctrines of Calvinistic churches, and some prevalent errors in theology. In the 'Contrast between Calvinism and Hopkinsianism, the author has correctly exhibited, in his Calvinistic columns, the Calvinistic doctrines; and he has arranged, under the term Hopkinsianism, certain sentiments. which appear to us, not only inconsistent with the standards of the Presbyterian