creates men with a sinful nature;' and we have attempted to show by every species of argument which the nature of the subject admits of, that they do not. The unsupported assertion then that the passages cited from Calvinistic authors have the disputed import, would be a palpable assumption of the point in debate, and unworthy of credit. Such an assertion would of course leave Prof. N. where he now stands, under the full weight of the charge which we have made against him, and according to every law of evidence, convicted of a direct violation of the rule which requires that his representations of Calvinism be taken from Calvinistic authors. Thus we have tried Prof. N. by the three "great and acknowledged" rules of controversy, and by his own testimony and that of his Reviewer have found him guilty of the violation of them all. 2. We shall offer few a remarks on the absurdity and injustice of some things which the Reviewer has advanced in applying his general rules to the vindication of Professor Norton. We have already seen that one principal ground on which the Reviewer rests the vindication of Professor N. and others in their representations of Calvinism is, that their representations of the system do not respect what Calvinists profess and believe not Calvinism as it is understood and received by those who call themselves Calvinists, but the supposed legitimate inferences from the system. Such representations of Calvinism he pronounces 66 perfectly just and fair" It is with this view he makes a distinction between the belief of Calvinists, and the system which they profess to hold. These explanations limitations and modifications respect their mon belief only, and have nothing to do with the system which they profess to hold." Again, "The Calvinistic system is one thing and the acutal belief of those who call themselves Calvinists is another." p. 216. Now we ask, if the terms, "the system of Calvinism," "the Calvinistic system," as they are commonly used, do not denote the Calvinistic system of faith, a system of doctrines believed by Calvinists, what do they denote ? Unitarians in their representations of Calvinism constantly affirm, such is Calvinism; such is the Calvinistic system, such are the doctrines of Calvinism; and by this phraseology they mean that such is the belief of Calvinists, such are the doctrines "avowed and defended" by Calvinists. But by this phraseology, the Reviewer supposes that nothing more is intended than to tell us what Calvinism is by implication and inference. It is however perfectly obvious that the language under consideration is not used in this sense by Professor N. nor by any one of his associates in this controversy. The Calvinistic system then according to Unitarian usage, and all other usage, means the system of doctrines professed and believed by Calvinists. The amount therefore of what the Reviewer says is, that the Calvinistic system," that is, the actual belief of Calvinists is one thing, and the actual belief of Calvinists is another? But says the Reviewer The Calvinistic system is one thing, and the actual belief of those who call themselves Calvinists is another; just as the Christian system is one thing, and the actual belief of those who call themselves Christians is another." p. 216. By "those who call themselves Calvinists," and those who call themselves Christians,'the Reviewer means those who are not Calvinists and who are not Christians,or those who are real Calvinists and real Christians. If the former, his declaration amounts to this, that the Calvanistic system is one thing and the actual belief of those who are not Calvinists is another. This is not much to the point. If the latter, then the assertion respecting the Christian system is as incorrect as that respecting the Calvinistic system. It is not true that the Chris tian system is one thing, and the actual belief of real Christians another. The Christian system is believed by every real Christian. True it is that real Christians may differ on some subordinate and unessential points of doctrine, but they all believe in the essential doctrines of Christianity, that is,they all believe in the Christian system, and of course their actual belief is the same with the Christian system. These remarks as we have before shown, have a full application to Calvinists, who though they differ among themselves on many subordinate points, agree in all the essential points of Calvinism This agreement is the true and only criterion of their religious denomination. We come to the absurdity of the Reviewer's principle itself. Had this writer been satisfied with simply affirming the propriety of urging against a system its legitimate inferences as inferences, we should readily concur. This certainly is legitimate argumentation to prove the falsity of any system. But there is an obvious difference between legitimate argumentation to prove a system false, and "a just and fair" representation of the system itself. There are those who believe that Unitarianism by legitimate inference, results in infidelity and even atheism. Are they therefore authorized to specify the dogmas of the infidel and of the atheist, and say such is Unitarianism, such are the doctrines of Unitarianism, such" are just as much constituent parts of the system as if they were expressed and avowed," and those representations of the system which include these inferences, แ are perfectly just and fair 2" And yet this is the very principle on which the Reviewer rests his vindication of Unitarian representations of Calvinism. Let him not complain if, on the authority of his own principle, he should hear Unitarianism denounced as infidelity and atheism. Again; According to this principle of the Reviewer we should be glad to know how we are to determine what Calvinism is ?-It is hardly to be expected, that those representations of the system which are made without any regard to what Calvinists profess and believe, should be even tolerably correct; much less that there should be any satisfactory evidence of their correctness. If Calvinists should insist that such representations are incorrect, and their opponents affirm the contrary, how is their dispute to be settled? If it be said that the appeal is to be made to the judgment of an enlightened public; then we ask what means of judging can the public possess? According to the Reviewer, those "doctrines which Calvinism may contain by necessary implication are constituent parts of the system," and belong therefore to "just and fair" representations of the system. If these inferences then be omitted, the representation is defective. If they are to be included, then who is to decide what are, and what are not such inferences? Not the umpire of public opinion; for how can it be thus decided what are legitimate inferences from a system till the question be first decided, what the system itself is? If by Calvinists themselves, then such inferences will be utterly excluded, for they are inferences which according to the Reviewer, Calvinists utterly reject. It remains then that Unitarians alone are the constituted arbiters of the question, and that Calvinists have only with due submission to authority so competent and impartial, to concede that whatsoever Unitarians may think and say, are inferences from Calvinism, that is Calvinism. No matter what Calvinists profess and believe, no matter what they assert or deny, no matter what Calvinistic creeds and confessions and authors state to be the doctrines of Calvinism. All this, "as to the question at issue, is a matter of perfect indifference." If you would know what Calvinism is, ask Unitarians. And further still; We should like to know what importance Unitarians attach to this controversy? What is it that so commands their zeal and their toil, in impugning Calvinism, since in determining what Calvinism is, it is no part of the question what Calvinists profess or believe? We had always supposed, that the object was to expose the errors of the Calvinistic faith, or to show that Calvinists actually believe that to be true which is false and injurious. And we had also supposed that to accomplish this object, it might at least be necessary to show what Calvinists actually do believe. But we are corrected by the Reviewer, and now understand, for the first time, that it is not at all necessary to show what Calvinists do believe in order to show that what they believe is false and injurious. Inferences which they have never believed, are the proof that Calvinism is" a false and pernicious system." If these inferences are not believed by Calvinists, it may be safely affirmed that they are believed by none. And we would ask, what possible harm can result from doctrines which nobody believes? Once more; If our questions are not too troublesome, we should be glad to be informed, how even Unitarians can determine what are legitimate inferences from the Calvinistic system, unless they first determine what the system is; and how can they determine what the system is except by its inferences, since these are "constituent parts of the system ?" It appears to us,though in this opinion we contradict the Reviewer's notions of the right process, that it would be more logical to derive the inferences from the system, than to derive the system from its inferences. Indeed, we have never, to the best of our recollection, had a doubt that it must be first accurately determined what the system is, before it can be pretended that any inference from it is a legitimate inference. But this, it now seems, is not the true method. We are not to say such is the system as protessed and believed by those who hold it, and such therefore are its inferences; but such are the inferences, and therefore such is the system! We have heard that there is no new thing under the sun, but it certainly is an anomaly in logic to draw the premises from the conclusion. But let the Reviewer himself argue the point now under consideration. Thus he says, "The Calvinistic system is one thing and the actual belief of those who call themselves Calvinists is another." And again"They (Unitarians) have not said that Dr. Woods, or the conductors of the Christian Spectator avow these doctrines, or believe them; and as to the question at issue, it is a matter of perfect indifference whether they do or not. We need to be continually reminded, that the question before us is not what Calvinists profess, or what this or that nominal Calvinist believes; but what is Calvinism itself,considered as a system, when properly understood and explained." Now Unitarians have said and still say, that Calvinism itself, properly understood and explained, teaches by necessary implication, that God is the author of sin, and man is a mere machine." pp. 216, 217. The reader will notice that the point is, whether Calvinism properly understood, is what Calvinism is by necessary implication, as distinguished from the actual faith of Calvinists. So the Reviewer asserts in many forms. Now hear bim prove the assertion to be false. "Every man or body of men are at liberty, we conceive, to explain, or limit, or modify their own opinions as they please; and may claim to be understood according to these explanations, limitations, or modifi cations, so far as they are known." p. 216. And again; They (Unitarians) 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 only source of knowledge, and yet that those "representations of Calvinism are perfectly just and fair,” which comprise what the holders of that system have never consider ed, but will reject at once as no part of their real belief." Here then the Reviewer has abandoned his main defence of Unitarian representations, and explicitly concedes, that we are to learn what Calvinism is, not from Unitarian inferences, but from Calvinistic authorities. to learn what Calvinism is from such authorities, we really do not know from what source the knowledge is to be derived." p. 18. According to the first of these quotations, Calvinists have a right and a claim to be un-ed, and therefore have never believderstood according to their own explanations, limitations, and modifications of their opinions. We ask then if Calvinism understood according to these explanations, &c. is not properly understood? And what right have Unitarians to violate this acknowledged claim of Calvinists, that their system should be thus understood? If Unitarians have no right to do this, (and they surely have not unless they have a right to violate what they acknowledge to be the equitable claim of Calvinists.) then Calvinism is what it is represented to be by these explanations. And what right has the Reviewer, on his own principle, to say that Calvinism as a system properly understood and explained" is a different thing from what the explanations of Calvinists make it, and from what they thus profess to believe? We do not ask for a more unqualified recognition of the claim of Calvinists than is furnished by this writer, nor do we expect to witness a more palpable violation of that claim, than is chargeable on those whom he attempts to defend. But he also says, "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." What, learn what Calvinism is from Calvinistic authorities-from the very statements of Calvinists-from what Calvinists profess?-and this too as the only source of knowledge!—this as the only source of knowledge to the utter exclusion of legitimate inferences ? What then becomes of the grand principle, that in determining what Calvinism is, "the question is not what Calvinists profess? How is it that we are to learn what Calvinism is from Calvinistic authorities, as the How all this absurdity and contradiction is to be accounted for, we shall not undertake to decide. We impute not to the Reviewer a direct purpose to practise imposition on bis readers; but we must say that in our view, sophistry more palpable than that which characterizes this production, is seldom to be found in controversial discussion. In many of his remarks it would seem as if he might possibly be contending solely for the equitable principle of urging the legitimate inferences of a system in the form of inferences, as an objection against it. This is all very well; but unfortunately, it is not enough for the Reviewer's purpose. Something more is demanded by the cause, the defence of which he has undertaken. He has to vindicate Professor Norton and others, not in charging Calvinism with its inferences as inferences, for this is not the accusation preferred against them; but in representing that to be Calvinism which Calvinists neither profess nor believe; he has to defend Unitarians for including in their representations of the Calvinistic system, those supposed inferences from it, which Calvinists utterly disclaim and "reject." Now it is obvious, that simply to prove that it is "just and fair" to charge supposed inferences on the system as inferences, will not prove that it is just and fair to represent these supposed inferences from the system, as the system itself, or as any part of it. This would be to confound things has not ingenuity enough to see, that 66 biguous for the Reviewer's purpose. Calvinism makes God the author of sin," &c. may possibly denote either that Calvinism teaches this doctrine as a matter of faith, or that it involves this doctrine by necessary implication. Thus by the double import of this representation, it will answer the double purpose of the Reviewer and his Unitarian associates. Understood in one sense, it will pass for a repsesentation of Calvinism as a matter of faith, and bring upon the system all the odium which is designed; understood in another sense, it will pass for a representation of what Calvinism is by implication, and thus when assailed as a false representation of the Calvinistic faith, will furnish an ample retreat under the pretence, we intended to state not what any Calvinist has believed, but only what in our view Calvinism is by implication.' Now instead of this pliable two-fold import, let a definite meaning be given to the terms of this representation, and the artifice is at once detected. Let it be told whether the phrase "Calvinism makes God the author of sin," &c. means that such are doctrines of Calvinism, or whether these are inferences which Unitarians suppose follow from Calvinism by necessary implication. If it means that these are doctrines of Calvinism, then the justice of the representation is contradicted by the Reviewer's own concession, viz. that the holders of the system "have never believed" but "expressly disclaim" these doctrines.It is a representation also made in direct violation of his own principle' that we should never represent our opponents as holding any doctrines which they do not admit or which they expressly disclaim.' On the other hand, if this phraseology means only, that such are inferences from Calvinism, then the example is wholly irrelevant; for the question is not what are inferences from Calvinism, nor what are fair representa To illustrate more fully what we deem the sophistry of this writer, by which we charitably suppose he has imposed upon himself, and thus fallen into these egregious absurdities, we advert to a specimen which he gives of Unitarian representations of Calvinism. Thus he says, (Unitarians) have said for example, that Calvinism makes God the author of sin, and man a mere machine.". This phraseology is sufficiently amVol. IV.-No. 7. "they 40 |