Page images
[blocks in formation]

Adown enormous ravines slope amainTorrents, methinks, that heard a mighty voice,

And stopp'd at once amidst their maddest plunge. Motionless Torrents! silent Cataracts! Who made you glorious as the Gates of Heaven Beneath the keen full Moon? Who bade the Sun

Clothe you with rainbows?

Who with

living flowers

Of loveliest blue spread garlands at your feet?

Answer! and let the ice-plains echo, God! God! sing ye meadow-streams with glad

some voice!

Ye pine groves, with your soft and soullike sounds!

And they too have a voice, yon piles of

Ye livery-flowers, that skirt the eternal frost !


And in their perilous fall shall thunder, God!

Ye wild-goats sporting round the Eagles' nest!

Ye Eagles, playmates of the Mountain storm!

Ye Lightnings, the dread arrows of the clouds !

God! Let the torrents like a shout of Great Hierarch! Tell thou the silent sky, And tell the Stars, and tell yon rising Sun, Earth, with her thousand voices, praises God!


The last volume of the Christian Disciple contains an article under the head of Reviews with the running title of "The State of the Calvinistic Controversy." Though the writer professes to connect some of the recent publications of Dr. Woods and

Yesigns and wonders of the element ! Utter forth God, and fill the hills with praise!

Once more, hoar Mount, with thy skypointing peaks,

Oft from whose feet the avalanche, unheard,

Shoots downward, glittering through the pure serene,

Into the depth of clouds, that veil thy breast

Thou too, again, stupendous Mountain, thou,

That as I raise my head, awhile bow'd low
In adoration, upward from thy base
Slow travelling with dim eyes suffus'd

with tears,

Solemnly seemest, like a vapoury cloud, To rise before me-Rise, O ever rise, Rise, like a cloud of incense from the Earth!

Thou kingly Spirit thron'd among the hills,

Thou dread Ambassador from Earth to Heaven!

*Besides the rivers Arvé and Arveiron, which have their sources at the foot of Mont Blanc, five conspicuous torrents rush down its sides, and within a few paces of the glaciers, the Gentiana Major grows, in immense numbers, with its flowers of loveliest blue.

Keview of New

State of the Calvinistic Controversy, a Review in the Christian Disciple.


Dr. Ware, with our review of Prof. Norton's "Views of Calvinism," yet we think we shall not be accused of taking more to ourselves than we ought to take, when we say that we regard the entire article as having a primary and direct reference to the point in controversy between Prof. N. and ourselves.

Perhaps some apology may be ex

pected for our delaying so long to notice this reply, and perhaps for our noticing it at all.-We had expected a rejoinder from Prof. N. which should be more worthy of so skilful a disputant, one at least which for consistency of principle and plausi bility of argument should be more justly entitled to our notice than the production before us. We were quite unable, for a time, to persuade ourselves that Prof. N. would leave a cause in which he had evidently embarked under so strong an impression of its importance, in the hands of a co-adjutor so comparatively disqualified to undertake the burden of its defence. At other times however we have suspected the correctness of these conjectures, and from the style and spirit of some part of the Review, have surmised the possibility, that Prof. N. might claim at least to some extent, personal identity with the Reviewer. Be this as it may, we are satisfied that the article has received the full approbation of Prof. N. and that if it be not as able a defence of his cause as he might desire, it is at least that on which be intends to rely, until some further notice shall be taken of the subject. At the same time regarding the point at issue as of fundamental importance in the controversy between Calvinists and Unitarians, we are reluctant to abandon it till we have done what we can to satisfy even our most determined opponents of their error.

"What is Calvinism, on the article of human depravity," is the question before us. We have charged Prof. N. with misrepresenting this doctrine. The Reviewer in the Christian Disciple has undertaken his vindication. With what success, is the present enquiry.

The Reviewer begins the discussion with laying down "those great and acknowledged principles that should govern us, in what we say of the characters, opinions and system of an adverse party.”

1. Our first remark concerning VOL. VI.-No. 6. 37

these principles is, that so far as they are just, they condemn Prof. N. in the very respects in which we suppose he ought to be condemned. The first principle or rule is thus stated by the Reviewer; "One important rule to be observed in speaking of our opponents is, that we should never, unless under very peculiar circumstances, charge upon them, personally, what we believe to be the moral effects of their system, as we understand it." Whether Prof. N. has violated this rule, the following passages in his 'Views of Calvinism' will decide. After making several quotations from Pres. Edwards, he says; what must be the effect of such a belief in brutalizing the whole character of him by whom it is held." p. 20. After quoting from the same author, from Calvin, from the Westminster divines and others, he concludes thus; "But I forbear. In quoting blasphemy like this, I can hardly avoid feeling as if I shared in the guilt of uttering it," p. 15.Here Pres. Edwards is charged with a belief that must have brutalized his whole character; and the same author is associated with others of similar integrity and worth,and all are charged with the unqualified guilt of blasphemy. Thus contrary to the Reviewer's first rule, Prof. Norton charges on his opponents personally what he believes to be the moral effects of their system; "and if there be guilt in misrepresenting an opponent's opinions, there is still deeper guilt in misrepresenting an opponent's character."

Again; The Reviewer has unequivocally confirmed the truth of the principal charge which we have brought against Prof. Norton. In applying the above rule to the vindication of his brethren, he says, "the representations which Unitarians have given, have been made of Calvinism, not of Calvinists, of the Calvinistic system in itself considered, and not as it is understood and received by those who call themselves Calvinists." p. 215. The same

thing he asserts in different forms. Thus in reference to the main enquiry what is Calvinism,' he says "the question before us is not what Calvinists profess, or what this or that nominal Calvinist believes." p. 217. Indeed his principal defence of Unitarian representations of Calvinism is that Unitarians have not represented that to be Calvinism which Calvinists profess and believe. -Now this is the identical thing which we charged upon Prof. N. in our notice of his pamphlet. This is the very point which we undertook to maintain, throughout our whole article on the subject, stating explicitly the sole question to be what is the "doctrine," the faith of Calvinists respecting human depravity.' We argued no other point; we were confident of success in the attempt to maintain this. For we never had a doubt, and now under the sanction of his Reviewer's assertions, we frankly declare the conviction, that it was a matter of no concern with Prof. N. in his representations of Calvinism, to state what Calvinists profess and believe. Prof. N. says, it is a doctrine of Calvinism that God creates men with a sinful nature.' We maintained that Calvinists do not believe this doctrine, and that they unequivocally disclaim it; and we undertook to show by a minute examination of the passages quoted by Prof. N. from Calvinistic authors, that their statements will not bear the import which he has given them. But no matter for all this, according to the Reviewer, be it ever so true, or ever so just. The question is not what Calvinists believe, nor what they profess; Unitarians dispense with every enquiry of this sort in making their representations of Calvinism, and tell the world what its doctrines are, without pretending to tell a single thing which Calvinists have professed or believed. That such was the fact we were well aware, but so frank and full a confession of it we did not expect.

"A second general rule" says the Reviewer, "to be observed in speaking of our opponents is, that we never should represent them as holding any principles or doctrines, which they do not admit, or which they expressly disclaim, even though we may think them to be legitimate inferences from the system which they profess to hold."

After giving this rule, the equity of which none can doubt, the Reviewer proceeds to modify it and to show its application to Unitarian representations of Calvinism. Thus he says; "Though we have no right to charge even the legitimate inferences from any system upon the professed holders of that system, yet we have a right, and an undoubted right, to charge them upon the system itself.”

"The Calvinistic system is one thing and the actual belief of those who call themselves Calvinists is another."

"Considered, too, as a system, the doctrine and principles which it may contain by necessary implication, are just as much constituent parts of the system, and may, therefore, be urged with as much justice against it, or in its favour, as if they were expressed and avowed." ibid.

"We need to be continually reminded, that the question before us is not what Calvinists profess, or what this or that nominal Calvinist believes."

"To say then, that Calvinism has been misrepresented, merely because some, who call themselves Calvinists, will not admit the representation, or perhaps expressly disclaim it, is te mistake entirely the ground of the controversy, and the particular point in dispute. in dispute. How, we would inquire, can any system be exposed and refuted but by tracing it to consequences, which the holders of that system have never considered, and, therefore, have never believed, but will reject at once as no part of their real belief."

According to these principles, the Reviewer says, "it will be found

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

that the REPRESENTATIONS of Calvinism, which Unitarians have given, are perfectly just and fair." pp. 215,


These remarks of the Reviewer amount to this; that while Unitarians include in their representations of Calvinism its supposed legitimate in ferences as "constituent parts of the system," they have not charged on Calvinists the belief of these inferen


What then is the matter of fact? We answer, that if it be true, as the Reviewer maintains, that Unitarians have, in their representations of Calvinism, charged upon it its inferences, then they have also charged upon Calvinists the belief of these inferences; for what they represent Calvinism to be, they also charge Calvinists with professing and believing. We might, did our limits permit, refer for proof of this position to Dr. Channing and Dr. Ware, the principal assailants of Calvinism. But our concern is with Prof. Nor


Views of Calvinism;' and the pamphlet itself, in its whole drift and aspect, is a professed exposé of what Calvinists avow and believe. But according to the Reviewer, Mr. N. in these representations of Calvinism, has not pretended to tell the public what Calvinists avow and believe, but to trace the system "to consequences which the holders of that system-have never believed,but will reject at once as no part of their real belief."-Should the Professor and the Reviewer compound matters of difference on this point, the title of a second edition of the pamphlet would be, Calvinists charged with believing what Calvinists do not believe.


In his Tract on True and False Religion,' he says, "True Religion is an inestimable blessing because it teaches that God is the Everlasting Friend and Father of his creatures, &c. But what shall we say of a religion which teaches, &c." Then follows his representation of Calvinism." Yet," he adds" he must be a very ignorant or a very bold man, who will affirm that the doctrines last stated have not been taught, and very extensively too, as doctrines of Christianity.

Now did Prof. N. mean by this to say simply that certain inferences from Calvinism had been taught by Calvinists; that certain inferences had been taught by Calvinists which according to the Reviewer, Calvinists have never 'professed, nor believed, but which they reject as no No one part of their real belief."' can so understand Mr. N's language. He meant to say that Calvinists teach the doctrines specified as matters of faith.

The title of Prof. N's pamphlet is,

[ocr errors]

As further proof that what Prof. N. represents Calvinism to be, he represents Calvinists as professing and believing, we might ask, for what other purpose has he quoted so many passages from Calvinistic writers? We might refer to the uniform phraseology which he adopts,


"these are the doctrines of Calvinism,-it is a doctrine of Calvinism,"--" such a belief as is here expressed;" and to the pretence that his expressions are no stronger and convey no other meaning than those which he cites from Calvinistic writers. But to show that there can be no doubt on this point, we give the following passage, which precedes the formal statement of those doctrines which Prof. N. ascribes to Calvinists.

"In order to prevent all quibbling about the word, I wish it to be understood, that when I say these are doctrines of Calvinism, I mean that they either make a part of the system, or are obviously and intimately connected with it, and have been avowed and defended as such, by Calvinistic writers of the highest authority with their own body." Views of Calvinism, pp. 8,9.

It seems however that even this formal explanation of his terms by the Professor could not prevent " all quibbling" on the part of the Reviewer. For wnie the Reviewer

strenuously maintains, that "the representations of Calvinism, which Unitarians have given," do not respect what Calvinists 'avow and profess,' the Professor himself insists that the doctrines which he represents to be "doctrines of Calvinism. have been avowed and defended as such, by Calvinistic writers of the highest authority."


Whatever then, Prof. N. represents Calvinism to be, he represents Calvinists as professing and believing. But according to the Reviewer the representations of Calvinism" by Unitarians, of whom Prof. N. is one, respect those inferences from the system which Calvinists "never have believed, but reject at once as no part of their real belief." It follows therefore that Prof. N. has represented that to be the actual belief of Calvinists, which according to the Reviewer Calvinists never have professed nor believed, but which they reject as no part of their faith. -Now this is the identical thing which we charged upon Prof. Norton in our notice of his pamphlet. "A second general rule to be observed in speaking of our opponents is, that we should never represent them as holding any principles or doctrines which they do not admit, or which they expressly disclaim."

statement of some of the fundamental and distinguishing doctrines of Calvinism, as they are actually taught in the standard works on the Calvinistic side, and in the very language in which they are there taught." p. 217.

"There is another general rule," says the Reviewer," to be scrupulously observed in the representations which we may give of an adverse system. We are to take our views of it from its accredited formulas, and most approved expounders." p. 217.

In applying this rule to the vindicaation of Prof. N. and of Unitariansgenerally, he says, "They have taken their views and statements of that system entirely from such works as those of Calvin, the Westminster Assembly, and President Edwards. If we are not to learn what Calvinism is from such authorities, we really do not know from what source the knowledge is to be derived." p. 218. And further that Mr. N. has confined himself in that performance to a simple

Without insisting that to quote the very language of Calvinists must be a strange way of charging upon their system, as the Reviewer says Unitarians have done in their representations of Calvinism, those inferences which Calvinists have never profes sed, and without tasking ourselves to shew how such representations of Calvinism are made with a scrupulous regard to the rule now under consideration, we remark that this rule deals the same condemnation to Prof. N. as those already examined. The question in regard to Prof. N. as the Reviewer presents it, is whether he has confined himself in bis statement of Calvinism to the very language of Calvinists? This the Reviewer asserts, and this we deny. It is true, that Prof. N. has made many quotations from Calvinistic writers. But has be confined his statement of Calvinism to the very language of these quotations, or has he made his own statement of Calvinism in his own language? "I do now" says he, "affirm it to be a doctrine of Calvinism, that God creates men with a sinful nature.'" This is Professor Norton's statement-a statement which he knows, which the Reviewer knows, and which every reader of the controversy knows, has not yet been adduced in the very language of any Calvinistic author whatever.

Should it be said that Prof. N. bas taken his statement of Calvinism from Calvinistic authors, on the ground of the coincidence of import between his language and theirs; we reply that this would be a most disgraceful begging of the question; for the very point in debate is, what is the import of the quotations which he has made from Calvinistic writers. We maintain that they do not teach that God

« PreviousContinue »