had hitherto been called for, in order to guard against the opposite extremes. To the rise of doctrinal errors in the Apos tolic days, we are indebted for some of the most striking and valuable exhibitions of the Christian doctrine which are con tained in the New Testament. And it is but fair to acknow→ ledge, that the subtile distinctions and verbal niceties in the ancient declarations of faith, and much of the rash specula+ tion and metaphysical refinement of systematic theology, were occasioned by the multiplication of the heresies against which they were pointed. A morbid dread of some prevailing error has produced most of the exceptionable statements which are to be found in the writings of orthodox divines. The worst that can be said of Augustine as a polemical writer is, that his judgement was not equal to his genius, that he was more acute than profound, that his zeal was sometimes too impetuous, and his decisions too hasty and peremptory. It is remarkable, however, that in proportion as the Romish Church departed from the doctrines of Augustine, it deteriorated in, purity both of faith and morals; and Luther, in declaiming against the nefarious traffic in indulgencies, took his stand on that system, the distinguishing features of which are, the corruption of human nature and the efficacy of Divine Grace. All the parts of the system of Predestination which are delineated in the writings of Augustine, were taught by Luther; and whatever difference. might subsequently exist between him and Calvin on the subject of the Divine Decrees, no language can be stronger than that in which Luther insists on the moral impotence of man's depraved nature, in opposition to the Pelagian notion of freewill.

Whether the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. are or are not Calvinistic, is a question which has given rise to a great deal of quibbling. That Calvin had no hand in compiling them, is agreed on all sides; and it is equally certain, that they maintain a judicious silence on some of the more objectionable peculiarities of that great Reformer. They are known to have been drawn up by Cranmer and Ridley, on the model of the Augsburg Confession; and Dr. Laurence has shewn, that the cautious phraseology in which they are worded, is strikingly in unison with the language uniformly employed by Melancthon, and with the character of Luther's later writ ings. Both of these Reformers appear to have been of opinion, that Calvin carried his notions of Predestination much too far; and a variety of passages have been collected out of their works by Dr. Laurence, directed against the rashness and inexpediency of speculating on the Divine will, except so far as it is revealed in the Scriptures. It might seem, then, to be

with little propriety, that the Articles of the Church are styled Calvinistic. Yet, taking that term in its received import, we have no hesitation in affirming that it strictly applies to them. For what is the acceptation of the word? Is it ever employed to denote a perfect accordance with Calvin in all that he taught? This cannot be the case, since those who, in this country, contend for the Calvinistic sense of the Articles, themselves reject that Reformer's notions of Church-government; to say nothing of the doctrinal points on which they dissent from him; while the Calvinists of the Continent have departed far more widely from their master. Does it imply an adherence to Calvin on those minor points on which he is supposed to have differed from the other Reformers? We apprehend that common usage is equally opposed to so restricted a use of the word; nor is it in this sense that Calvinists would accept the designation. Calvinism must be understood to mean the sentiments of the followers of Calvin; and what those sentiments are, must be gathered from their works. With any doctrines of Calvin which they have not adopted, they have properly no concern; since Calvinism, as the distinguishing sentiments of a sect, must consist in what they do hold, not in what they do not. The opinions peculiar to Calvin himself can with no more propriety be styled Calvinism, than he can be called a Calvinist, which would be to make him a follower of himself. We should not think of speaking of the opinions of any individual as Kingism, or Tomlinism, or Coplestonism. We always mean by such phrase, the avowed opinions of the followers of a certain individual, employing it simply to prevent circumlocution. Any other use of it is dishonest, especially when the term is not chosen by the party so designated, and the authority of the individual is disclaimed by those who have adopted a modifica tion of his system. It is usual to speak of the modern Unitarians as Socinians, and yet, they are known to differ very! materially from Socinus, on which account they somewhat fastidiously object to the appellation. But the history of language would furnish many instances of a term of distinction being applied in a sense very different from its original and precise import.

The word Calvinist on the Continent, is synonimous, for the most part, with Presbyterian or Hugonot; and it is in reference to Church-government chiefly, that it is used in opposition to Lutheran. There were other doctrinal points, however, besides that of absolute Predestination, on which Luther and Cal-5 vin disagreed'; in particular, with regard to the Eucharist, the" Consubstantiation of the Lutheran Church being but a slight ̈ remove from the Transubstantiation of the Romish creed. The

term Calvinist has, therefore, a particular meaning in reference to this point. But in our own country, we believe, Calvinism has generally been employed to designate, not the doctrines on which Calvin differed in any degree from the other Reformers, but chiefly those on which all were agreed; the doctrines of Grace, as opposed to the Romish Predestination, and the stantis vel cadentis Ecclesie articulus, Justification by Faith. It is no torious, that Calvinistic is, with us, opposed, not to Lutheran or Melancthonian, but to Arminian and Pelagian; that it is used as implying an adherence to the doctrines taught by our own Reformers, by Ridley and Latimer, by Hooper and Bradford, by Gilpin and Jewel;-men who, we are now told, were not Calvinists. We must still affirm that they were; or, if they were not, that we have no Calvinists among us. That Calvin should have the honour of having bequeathed his name to the Reformed Faith, rather than any other of his coadjutors, may appear unreasonable; but such is the fact, and it will not be easy to deprive him of it. The childish hostility to the name of this great man, manifested by the English clergy, is utterly unworthy of an enlightened age. If it is a mere point of honour that is contended for, that the Articles of the Church, although in the usual sense of the word decidedly Calvinistic, shall not be called so, because Calvin was a Presbyterian, or for any other equally good reason, let it, for the sake of peace, be conceded. But then advantage must not be taken of this concession, to fix on these Articles an anti-Calvinistic interpretation, which is not less anti-Lutheran, and which, in their natural or plain grammatical import, they will not bear. Yet, this is what has been attempted by the right reverend Refuter of Calvinism; and this also is the object of the Episcopal innovations of his lordship of Peterborough, in introducing a rider of eighty-seven questions expository of the Articles. The gross perversion of their obvious import, which is conspicuous in those questions, affords a convincing proof, that whether they speak the sentiments of Calvin or not, they favour somewhat too strongly the notions of modern Calvinists, and convey a meaning exceedingly liable to be understood by plain people in a Calvinistic

sense.

The issue of the question relating to the Thirty-nine Articles might fairly be staked on this: Do they, or do they not express the sentiments of that class of persons in this country who are denominated Calvinists, including the larger body of the evangelical clergy? We allude more particularly to the 9th, 10th, 13th, and 17th Articles; and we ask, Would the Calvinistic y clergy, or would they not, if left to frame articles for themselves, prefer any other mode of expression, in order to convey

19

their notions of the doctrines in question? Are these articles felt by them to be deficient or equivocal? Or do they not go as far as any sober and enlightened Calvinist would venture to go ain a declaration of his own faith? To determine this question, we need only inquire who, on the one hand, are the men who the most constantly and fearlessly appeal to those Articles, adopting their phraseology in their writings and discourses, and interpreting by them whatever is of doubtful or exceptionable import in the formularies of the Church; and who, on the other, are the party who are afraid to let those Articles speak for themselves, and who maintain in their public instructions, a religious silence on points, the "godly con"sideration" of which is affirmed to be "full of sweet, "pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons," tending "to establish and confirm their faith," and to "kindle "their love towards God." Is there not something disingenuous, then, to say the least, in the play upon words, by which Dr. Copleston attempts to shift the difficulty of proving that their opinions may be reconciled with the Articles, off from his own party to the shoulders of the evangelical clergy? First, Calvinism is made to stand for the doctrine of absolute decrees both of Election and Reprobation; next, having fixed this arbitrary and obnoxious meaning on the word, he imputes this Calvinism to all those who go by the name of Calvinists; and then, he very safely, but very unmeaningly, calls upon them to prove that this caricature of Calvinism is sanctioned by the Articles. If this single point of the Calvinistic system were indeed all that distinguishes it from other systems, there would be some colour for making it to consist in certain notions of Predestination; although even then, the avowed differences among Calvinists, as denoted not only by the obsolete distinctions of sublapsarian and supralapsarian, but by the more popular phrases, high Calvinist and moderate Calvinist, might have suggested some qualification of the charge insinuated against all who substantially receive the Calvinistic doctrine. But we might appeal to the writings of those who pass for Calvinistic divines, both Episcopalians and Dissenters, in proof that the language and even the notions of Calvin on that head, have not been retained; that they are not considered as essential to his system, but rather as a morbid excrescence upon it; and that the term Calvinism has no such meaning, in popular usage, as Dr. Copleston would fasten upon it. The doctrine of Reprobation has been again and again explicitly disavowed by modern Calvinists, while many have gone so far as to admit the impropriety of much that is to be found in the writings of elder theologians on the subject of Particular Redemption. Yet, by retaining the name of Calvinist, they shewed that, at least in

their view, the essence of the system did not consist in those abstruse speculations which, judging from Dr. Copleston's statement and the misrepresentations of the Arminian writers, one would imagine to have been all that Calvin had at heart, the constant theme of his pen, and the fundamental article of his faith. That Calvinism does not mean simply or chiefly a belief in absolute decrees of Election and Reprobation, we can prove from still higher authority, if possible, than the writings of Calvinists themselves. Were we to refer Dr. Copleston to the works of such obscure theologians as Scott and Williams, Fuller and Newton, for an exhibition of modern Calvinism, he might object to receive their works in evidence. We will con tent ourselves, therefore, with serving a subpana on the Bishop of Winchester as a witness to the fact, that by Calvinism is intended something much more than certain notions of Predesti-: nation. The Calvinism his Lordship has undertaken to refute, is precisely the Calvinism of the Thirty-nine Articles; that is to say, it is the Calvinism of Luther, and Bucer, and Zwingle, of Cranmer and Tindal, of Ridley and Latimer; it is the Cal vinism of the Homilies, of the best days of the Church of England, and of all the foreign Reformed Churches. If this be a misnomer, if what all these reformers and divines held in common, be not Calvinism, his Lordship has either erred in his title-page, or has blundered throughout his work for while he denies that they were Calvinists, reserving that appellation for Simon Magus and other ancient heretics, as the only fit company for the Geneva Reformer, nothing is more certain than that they held the very doctrines which he supposes to be peculiar to Calvinism, and which are held by modern Calvinists. We will not go quite so far as Bishop Horsley did when he said, speaking of certain acrimonious declaimers against Cal vinism in his day, who had acquired much applause and reputation, but with no real knowledge of their subject, Give me the principles on which these writers argue, and I will undertake to convict, I will not say Arminians only, and Archbishop Laud; but, upon these principles, I will undertake to convict the fathers of the Council of Trent, of Calvinism. We will say, however, that on Bishop Tomline's principles, it would be easy to prove Calvin himself to have been an anti-Calvinist, and equally easy to bring in the Apostles guilty of all sorts of heresy.

The consent given by the British divines to the decrees of the Synod of Dort, has been adduced by Dr. Hill as a proof that the Churches of England and of Scotland, by whom they were sent, adhered to the Calvinistic tenets, and that James I., who had joined his influence with that of the House of Orange in the convocation of the Synod, was disposed to

R