efficaciously only for the elect."

Sentiments of the same kind might be quoted from the works of President Edwards, who has been called the king of the Calvinists.

The third article is, that mankind are totally depraved in consequence of the fall; and by virtue of Adam's being their public head, the guilt of his sin was imputed, and a corrupt nature conveyed to all his posterity, from which proceed all actual transgressions; and that by sin we are made subject to death, and to all miseries, temporal, spiritual, and eternal. On this head there is no controversy between Calvin and Arminius, as we shall afterwards see; but many who have sheltered their opinions, under the name of Arminius have taught, "That mankind are not totally depraved, and that depravity does not come upon them by virtue of Adam's being their public head; but that mortality and natural evil only are the direct consequences of his sin to posterity." "Those in the Low Countries, who at that time" (he is speaking of Grotius and his party) "went by the name of Remonstrants and Arminians, were indeed a great deal more."* This is the only way by which we can account for this article having become a ground of dispute in the Synod of Dort.

The fourth article relates to irresistible grace; a term which we think scarcely any Calvinist now applies to the Divine influences of the holy Spirit. Nor does any Calvinist, so far as we know, ever suppose that God forces, though they all contend that he inclines the wills of men, by that grace which they term efficacious.

The fifth article is the doctrine of final perseverance.

Dr. South's Sermon on Isaiah, LIII, 8. Note.

On this head Calvinists observe, that even upon the principles of the Arminians, there must be allowed to be, in some stage of the Christian's progress, confirming and establishing grace. Man, though created pure, fell

in paradise; and, of the angels, some fell even in heaven. Without confirming and establishing grace, the state of saints in heaven must be exposed to continual hazard. In what state soever this blessing is communicated, it must be by Divine influence, as well as by Divine appointment. It is to these co-operating causes, they ascribe that perseverance which they believe the Scripture to represent, as following a regenerating faith in the Son of God. "In whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of your inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased possessions, unto the praise of his glory.”— Eph. i. 13, 14.

Were a

The doctrine of the final perseverance of the Saints, the necessary consequence of absolute election, may be extremely hurtful to piety, if imperfectly stated; and therefore care ought to have been taken by those who hold the doctrine to guard it against abuse. minister of the Gospel to teach, that the Perseverance of the Saints means only that those who had once been in a state of favour with God, shall always continue in that state, it is obvious that his representation of the doctrine is so defective, that to a wicked man, who had taken up an enthusiastic conceit that he had once been in a state of reconciliation with God, it might prove the occasion of the most mischievous delusion. Mr. Hume, in his History of England, has preserved a story of this kind of Oliver Cromwell, who, on his death bed, deceived himself; and if the anecdote be correct, was deceived in

this manner.

6

"He asked Goodwin, one of his preachers,

if the doctrine was true, that the elect could never fall, or suffer a final reprobation? Nothing more certain, replied the preacher. Then am I safe,' said the Protector, for I am sure that once I was in a state of grace."" -But let the doctrine be fully stated, that perseverance in the favour of God can never be separated from perseverance in his image, in holiness of heart and life, and even those who do not subscribe to the doctrine of final perseverance, must allow it to be perfectly harmless.

From the review we have taken of the Calvinistic controversy, two things appear to be evident. The first is, that the grounds of dispute are now considerably altered, and that almost the whole subjects of controversy between Calvinists and Arminians are reduced to absolute election, and final perseverance. The second is, that Calvinists differ greatly among themselves. Some still consider preterition, if not reprobation, as a necessary part of the system, while others consider both of them as spots and stains upon the doctrine of absolute decrees. Some Calvinists consider the fall of man as the subject of a Divine decree. Others entirely disapprove of such a sentiment, and think it inconsistent with the honour of the Divine perfections. Some contend for particular, and others for universal redemption. According as they take higher or lower ground on these subjects, they are called high, or low Calvinists.

Dr. Marsh, in his reply to Dr. Milner's Strictures, has taken some pains to show, that in Calvinism there can be no degrees. "On the subject of Predestination therefore we can have no such thing as half a Calvinist, or a moderate Calvinist. If a man agrees with Calvin on that point he is altogether a Calvinist, on that point. If he

does not agree with Calvin on that point, he is not at all a Calvinist on that point."-p. 84. It certainly does not require great penetration to perceive, that on any point a man is a Calvinist just so far as on that subject he agrees with Calvin; and that so far as he differs from Calvin, he is on that point no Calvinist. But this able writer does not appear to have attended to the origin of these anomalous forms of expression, a high, or a moderate Calvinist. It has long been the practice of those who oppose the doctrine of absolute election, to give the name of Calvinists to all who embrace that tenet, whether they embrace or do not embrace the whole system of Calvin. Very few of the Clergy of the Church of England, who believe in the doctrine of absolute election, carry that point nearly so high as Calvin does, in his Institutes, and therefore they do not adopt the name of Calvinists, being conscious that though they adopt a part, they dissaprove of some other parts of the system of that divine. Even a glance at Mr. Scott's remarks might have satisfied Dr. Marsh, that they for whom Mr. Scott apologizes, neither assume that name, nor wish to have it imposed on them. But, in defiance of their remonstrances, their antagonists call them Calvinists. Dr. Marsh cannot be ignorant that many who have believed in the doctrine of absolute election, have entirely disbelieved the doctrine of reprobation, and also of preterition, and rejected particular, believing in universal redemption. On the latter subject he must allow them to have been Anticalvinists, though on the subject of absolute election, they were Calvinists. The absurdity of fixing the name of Calvinists on all who believe in absolute decrees, they think does not belong to those who do not assume, but to those who impose the name. Some persons, however, as appears by the quo

tation from Dr. Williams, glory in the name, and whether they have a right to it or not, they have no reason to complain of hardship in the imposition of it.

Too many, both Calvinists and Arminians, in contending for their opposite systems, have taken a latitude of expression highly indecorous and irreverent, by arguing as if the dignity and glory of the Divine attributes and government, must stand or fall with their opposite conclusions. The remonstrances of that pious and excellent man, Mr. Scott, on this subject, it is to be hoped, will be attended to by those who adopt his sentiments, and not despised by those who have come to a different conclusion, on the subject of the decrees. "It is greatly to be wished, that they who engage in religious controversy, would reverently avoid all language, that even seems to impeach the conduct of God, on the supposition that their own tenets are not true. Are we so completely infallible, that we should speak a word implying, that if we be mistaken, God is? On this unhappy subject, no tongue can express the irreverence, nay the blasphemy which has been uttered by eager disputers. I am conscious, that I have no need or inclination to adopt any argument of this kind: but should I drop one word, implying, by fair construction, such a connexion between my sentiments and the honour of the Divine perfections: that, if the former are erroneous, this is exposed to impeachment, or even doubt; I will promise before God, publicly, with shame to retract it, when pointed out to me. Whether Calvinism be true or false, God is infinitely wise, righteous, holy, faithful, good, merciful; worthy of all reverence, adoration, love, confidence, honour, and obedience, from all rational creatures, to all eternity. It would, indeed, be a blessed effect of this publication, if