Page images


creates men with a sinful nature ;'. " the system of Calvinism," " the and we have attempted to show by Calvinistic system,” as they are every species of argument which the commonly used, do not denote the nature of the subject admits of, that Calvinistic system of faith, a systhey do not. The unsupported as. tem of doctrines believert by Calvinsertion then that the passages cited ists, what do they denote ? Unitafrom Calvinistic authors have the rians in their representations of Cal. disputed import, would be a palpa- viuism constantly affirm, such is ble assumption of the point iu de Calvinism ; such is the Calvinistic bate, and unworthy of credit. Such system, such are the doctrines of an assertion would of course leave Calvinism ; and by this phraseology Prof. N. where he now stands, under they mean that such is the belief of the full weight of the charge which Calvivists, such are the doctrines we have made against him, and ac- avowed and defendedby Calvincording to every law ofevidence, con- ists. But by this phraseology, the victed of a direct violation of the rule Reviewer supposes that nothing more wbich requires that his representa- is intended than to tell us what Çaltions of Calvinism be taken from Cal- vinism is by implication and infervinistic authors.--Thus we have tri

It is however perfectly obvied Prof. N. by the three“ great and ous that the language under consideacknowledgedrules of controversy, ration is not used in this sense by and by his own testimony and that of Protessor N. nor by any one of his bis keviewer have found bim guilty associates in this controversy. The of the violation of them ali.

Calvinistic system then according to 2. We shall offer few a remarks on Unitarian usage, and all other usage, the absurdity and injustice of some means the system of doctrines prothings which the Reviewer bas ad. fessed and believed by Calvinists. vanced in applying his general rules to The amount therefore of what the the vindication of Professor Norton. Reviewer says is, that the Calvinis

We have already seen that one tic system,''that is, the actual belief of principal ground on which the Re- Calvinists is one thing, and the actual viewer rests the vindication of Pro- belief of Calvinists is another ? fessor N. and others in their repre- But says the Reviewer “ The sentations of Calvinism is, that their Calvinislic system is one thing, and representations of the system do not the actual belief of those who call respect what Calvinists profess and themselves Calvinists is another ; believe— not Calvinisin as it is un. just as the Christian system is one derstood and received by those who ihing, and the actual belief of those call themselves Calvinists, but the who call themselves Christians is supposed legitimate inferences from another." p. 216. the system. Such representations


"those who call tliemselves Calof Calvinism he pronounces

per. vinists,”and those who call themfectly just and fair"

selves Christians,'the Reviewer means It is with this view he makes a dis. those who are not Calvinists and who tinction between the belief of Calvin- are not Christians,or those who are reists, and the system wbich they pro- al Calvinists and real Christians. If fess to hold. • These explanations the former, his declaration amounts to limitations and modifications respect this, that the Calvanistic system is one their mon belief only, and have noth thing and the actual beliefof those who ing to do with the system which they are not Calvinists is another. This is profess to hold." Again, “The Again, “ The not much to the point.

If the latter, Calvinistic system is one thing and then the assertion respecting the the acutal belief of those who call Christian system is as incorrect as tbemselves Calvinists is another.” that respecting the Calvinistic sysp. 216. Now we ask, if the terms, tem. It is not true that the Christian system is one thing, and the ac- glad to know how we are to detertual belief of real Christians another. mine what Calvinism is !—It is hard. The Christian system is believed by ly to be expected, that those repreevery real Christian.

True it is sentations of the system which are that real Christians may differ on made without any regard to what some subordinate and unessential Calvinists profess and believe, should points of doctrine, but they all be even tolerably correct ; much less believe in the essential doctrines of that there should be any satisfactory Christianity,that is,they all believe in evidence of their correctness. If the Christian system, and of course Calvinists should insist that such their actual belief is the same with the representations are incorrect, and Christian system.

These remarks their opponents affirm the contrary, as we have before shown, bave a how is their dispute to be settled ? full application to Calvinists, who If it be said that the appeal is to be though they differ among themselves made to the judgment of an enlightenon many subordinate points, agree ed public ; then we ask what means of in all the essential points of Calvin- judging can the public possess ? Acism This agreement is the true and cording to the Reviewer, those only criterion of their religious de. "doctrines which Calvinism may nomination.

contain by necessary implication are We come to the absurdity of the constituent parts of the system,” and Reviewer's principle itself. Had belong therefore to “ just and fair" this writer been satisfied with sim- representations of the system. If ply affirming the propriety ot urging these inferences then be omitted, the against a system its legitimate infer- representation is defective. If they ences as inferences, we should read- are to be included, ihen who is to ily concur. This certainly is legit- decide what are, and what are not imate argumentation to prove the such inferences ? Not the umpire falsity of any system. But there is of public opinion ; for how can it be an obvious difference between legit- thus decided what are legitimate inimate argumentation to prove a sys- ferences from a system till the ques. tem false, and " a just and fair” rep. tion be first decided, what the system resentation of the system itself

. itself is ?-If by Calvinists ibemThere are those who believe that selves, then such inferences will be Unitarianism by legitimate infer- utterly excluded, for they are inference, results in infidelity and even ences which according to the Reatheism. Are they

Are they therefore au- viewer, Calvinists utterly reject. It thorized to specify the dogmas of the remains then that Unitarians alone infidel and of the atheist, and say the constituted arbiters of the such is Unitarianism, such are the question, and that Calvinists have doctrines of Unitarianism, such“ are only with due submission to authorijust as much constituent parts of the ty so competent and impartial, to system as if they were expressed and concede that whatsoever Unitarians avowed,” and Those representations may think and say, are inferences of the system which include these from Calvinism, that is Calvinism. inferences, " are perfectly just and No matter what Calvinists profess fair ?" And yet this is the very apd believe, no matter what they principle on which the Reviewer assert or deny, no matter what Calrests bis vindication of Unitarian rep- vinistic creeds and confessions and resentations of Calvinism. Let himn authors state to be the doctrines of not complain if, on the authority of Calvinism. All this, “as to the bis own principle, he should bear question at issue, is a matter of perUnitarianism denounced as infidelity fect indifference.” If you would and atheism.

know what Calvinism is, ask UnitaAgain ; According to this princi- rians. ple of the Reviewer we should be And further still ; We should like


to know what importance Unitarians who hold it, and such therefore are attach to this controversy? What is its inferences; but such are the init that so commands their zeal and ferences, and therefore such is the their toil, io impugning Calvinism, system! We have heard that there is since in determining what Calvinism no new thing under the sun, but it is, it is no part of the question certainly is an anomaly in logic to what Calvinists profess or believe ? draw the premises from the concluWe had always supposed, that the sion. object was to expose the errors of But let the Reviewer bimself argue the Calvinistic faith, or to show that the point now under consideration. . Calvinists actually believe that to be Chus he says, “ The Calvinistic true which is false and injurious system is one thing and the actual And we had also supposed that to ac- belief of those who call themselves complish this object, it might at least Calvinists is another.” And againbe neeessary to show what Calvinists “ They (Unitarians) have not said actually do believe.

But we are that Dr. Woods, or the conductors corrected by the Reviewer, and now of the Christian Spectator avow understand, for the first time, that it is these doctrines, or believe them; not at all necessary to show what Cal- and as to the question at issue, it is vinists do believe in order to show that a matter of perfect indifference what they believe is false and injurious. whether they do or not. We need Inferences which they have never be to be continually reminded, that the lieved, are the proof that Calvinism question before us is not what Calis" a false and pernicious system.” If vinists profess, or what this or that these inferences are not believed by nominal Calvinist believes; but Calvinists, it may be safely affirmed what is Calvinism itself,considered as that they are believed by none. And a system, when properly understood we would ask, what possible barm and explained. Now Unitarians can esult from doctrines which no- have said and still say, that Calvinbody believes ?

ism itself, properly understood and Once more; If our questions are not explained, teaches by necessary imtoo troublesome, we should be glad plication, that God is the author of to be informed, how even Unitarians sin, and man is a mere machine." can determine what are legitimate pp. 216, 217. inferences from the Calvinistic sys- The reader will notice that the tem, unless they first determine what point is, whether Calvinism propthe system is; and how can they deter- erly understood, is what Calvinism mine what the system is except by its is by necessary implication, as disinferences, since these are constitu- tinguished from the actual faith of ent parts of the system ?” It appears Calvinists. So the Reviewer asto us,though in this opinion we contra- serts in many forms. Now bear bim dict the Reviewer's notions of the prove the assertion to be false. right process, that it would be more Every man or body of men are logical to derive the inferences at liberty, we conceive, to explain, from the system, than to derive or limit, or modify their own opinthe system from its inferences. In- ions as they please ; and may claim deed, we have never, to the best of to be understood according to these our recollection, bad a doubt that it explanations, limitations, or modifi. must be first accurately determined cations, so far as they are known." wbat the system is, before it can be p. 216.

And again ;

They (Unipretended that any inference from it tarians) have taken their views and is a legitimate inference. But this statements of that system entirely it now seems, is not the true method. from such works as those of Calvin, We are not to say such is the system the Westminster Assembly, and as professed and believed by those President Edwards. If we are not to learn what Calvinism is from such only source of knowledge, and yet authorities, we really do not know that those “ representations of Cal. from what source the knowledge is vinism are perfectly just and fair," to be derived." p. 18. According to which comprise what the holders the first of these quotations, Calvin- of that system have never consider. ists have a right and a claim to be un- ed, and therefore have never believ. derstood according to their own ex- ed, but will reject at once as no part planations, limitations, and mod- of their real belief." Here then the ifications of their opinions.

We Reviewer has abandoned his main ask then if Calvinism understood defence of Unitarian representations, according to these explanations, &c. and explicitly concedes, that we are is not properly understood ? And to learn what Calvinism is, not from what right have Unitarians to vio- Unitarian intereuces, but from Callate this acknowledged claim of vinistic authorities. Calvinists, that their system should How all this absurdity and conbe thus understood ? If Unita. tradiction is to be accounted for, we rians have no right to do this, (and shall not undertake to decide. We they surely have not unless they impute not to the Reviewer a direct have a right to violate what they purpose to practise imposition on bis acknowledge to be the equitable readers ; but we must say that in our claim of Calvinists.) then Calvinism view, sophistry more palpable than is what it is represented to be by that which characterizes this prothese explanations. And wbat right duction, is seldom to be found in bas the Reviewer, on his own prin- controversial discussion.

In maciple, to say that Calvinism as a sys- ny of his remarks it would seem as if tem properly understood and ex- he might possibly be contending soleplained” is a different thing from ly for the equitable principle of what the explanations of Calvinists urging the legitimate inferences of a make it, and from what they thus system in the form of inferences, as profess to believe? We do not ask an objection against it. This is all for a more unqualified recognition of very well ; but unfortunately, it is the claim of Calvinists than is fur- not enough for the Reviewer's purnished by this writer, nor do we expect pose. Something more is demanded to witness a more palpable violation of by the cause, the desence of which that claim, than is chargeable on he has undertaken. He has to vinthose whom he attempts to defend. dicate Professor Norton and orbers,

But he also says, “ If we are not not in charging Calvinism with its to learn what Calvinisin is from such inferences as inferences, for ibis authorities, we really do not know is not the accusation preferred from what source the knowledge is to against them; but in representing be derived.” What, learn what Cal- that to be Calvinism which Calvinvinism is from Calvinistic authori- ists neither profess nor believe ; he ties—from the very statements of has to delend Unitarians for inCalvinists—from what Calvinists pro- cluding in their representations of the fess? --and this too as the only source Calvinistic system, those supposed of knowledge !-this as the only inferences from it, wbich Calvinists source of knowledge to the utter ex- utterly disclaim and "reject." Now clusion of legitimate inferences ? it is obvious, that simply to prove What then becomes of the grand that it is “just and fair to charge principle, that in determining what supposed inferences on the system Calvinism is, " the question is not as inferences, will not prove that it what Calvinists profess? How is it is just and fair to represent these that we are to learn what Calvinism supposed inferences from the system, is from Calvinistic authorities, as the as the system itself, or as any part of



it. This would be to confound things biguous for the Reviewer's purpose. that are different; the system itself Calvinism makes God the author of with inferences from the system. sin, &c. may possibly denote either It would, according to the Review- that Calvioism teaches this doctrine er's own concession, be representing as a matter of faith, or that it inthat to be Calvinism, and those to be volves this doctrine by necessary imdoctrines of Calvinism, which Cal. plication. Thus by the double imvinists “ have never believed.” How port of this representation, it will anthen shall the Reviewer accomplish swer the double purpose of the Rehis purpose ? Why, in defiance of viewer and his Unitarian associates. the broad and palpable difference be. Understood in one sense, it will pass tween a system and its inferencesfor a repsesentation of Calvinism as attempt to make it out, that they are a matter of faith, and bring upon the to such an extent one and the same system all the odium which is designthing, that the representation which ed; understood in another sense, it includes the inferences of the will pass for a representation of what system, is a just representation of the Calvinism is by implication, and thus system itself. Thus he


when assailed as a false representasidered too as a system, the doctrines tion of the Calvinistic faith, will fur. and principles which it may contain ' nish an ample retreat under the preby necessary implication, are just as tence, we intended to state not much constituent parts of the system, what any Calvinist has believed, but as if they were expressed and only what in our view Calvinism is by avowed.” And then on this princi. implication. Now instead of this ple he proceeds to say " that the rep- pliable two-fold import, let a definite resentations of Calvinism which Uni- meaning be given to the terms of this tarians have given” (i. e. representa representation, and the artifice is at tious of Calvinism which include Uni- once detected. Let it be told whethtarian inferences from Calvinism) er the púrase Calvinism makes are perfectly just and fair.” “So he God the author of sin," &c. means wraps it up. Such an expedient, if that such are doctrines of Calvinism, the imposition be not detected, must whether these are inferences fully answer his purpose. For who which Unitarians suppose follow has not ingenuity enough to see, that from Calvinism by necessary im. if Unitarian inferences from the Cal- plication. If it means that these vinistic system, though disclaimed by are doctrines of Calvinism, then the all Calvinists, are a constituent part justice of the representation is conof the system, then those “ represen- tradicted by the Reviewer's own contations of Calvinism,” which include cession, viz. that the holders of the these inferences,

are perfectly just system have never believed” but and fair ?"

expressly disclaim” these docTo illustrate more fully what we trines.- li is a representation also deem the sophistry of this writer, by made in direct violation of his own which we charitably suppose he has principle that we should never repreimposed upon himself, and thus fall.

sent our opponents as holding any

docen into these egregious absurdities, trines which they do not admit or we advert to a specimen which he which they expressly disclaim. On gives of Unitarian representations of the other hand, if this phraseology Calvinism. Thus he says, “ they means only, that such are inferences (Unitarians have said for example, from Calvinism, then the example is that Calvinism makes God the author wholly irrelevant; for the question is of sin, and man a mere machine."- not what are inferences from CalvinThis phraseology is sufficiently am- ism, nor what are fair representa

Vol. IV.No. 7. 40


« PreviousContinue »