Page images

praise !

And you, ye five wild torrents, * fiercely Ye livery-flowers, that skirt the eternal glad,

frost ! Who call'd you forth from, night and utter Ye wild-goats sporting round the Eagles' death,

pest! From Qark and icy caverns callid you Ye Eagles, playmates of the Mountain forth,

storm! Down those precipitous, black, jagged, Ye Lightnings, the dread arrows of the rocks,

clouds ! For ever shatter'd, and the same for ever? Yesigns and wonders of the element ! Who gave you your invulnerable life, Citter forth God, and fill the hills with Your strength, your speed. your fury, and

your joy, Unceasing thunder, and eternal foam ?

Once more, boar Mount, with thy sky. And who commanded (and the silence

pointing peaks,

Oft from whose feet the avalanche, uncame)

heard, Here let the billows stiffen and have rest?

Shoots downward, glittering through the Ye ice-falls ! ye that from the Mountain's

pure serene,

Into the depth of clouds, that veil thy brow

breastAdown enormous ravines slope amainTorrents, metbioks, that heard a mighty

Thou too, again, stupendous Mountain, voice,

thou, And stopp'd at once amidst their maddest

That as I raise my head, awhile bow'd lor

In adoration, upward from thy base plunge. Motionless Torrents! silent Cataracts!

Slow travelling with dim eyes suffus'd Who made you glorious as the Gates of Solemnly seemest, like a vapoury cloud,

with tears, Heaven Beneath the keen full Moon ? Who bade

To rise before ine-Rise, Verer rise, the Sun

Rise, like a cloud of incense from the

Earth! Clothe you with rainbows? Who with living flowers

Thou kiogly Spirit thron d among the Of loveliest blue spread garlands at your


Thou dread Ambassador from Earth to feet?

Heaven ! God! Let the torrents like a shout of Great Hierarch! Tell thou the silent sky, nations

And tell the Stars, and tell yon rising Sun, Angwer ! and let the ice-plains echo, God!

Earth, with her thousand voices, praises

God! God ! sing ye meadow-streams with gladsome voice!

*Besides the rivers Arvé and Arveiron, Ye pine groves, with your soft and soul.

whici have their sources at the foot of like sounds!

Mont Blanc, five conspicuous torrents And they too have a voice, yon piles of rush down its sides, and within a few snow,

paces of the glaciers, the Gentiana Ma. And in their perilous fall shall thunder, jor grows, in immense numbers, with God!

its flowers of loveliest blue.

Beview of New Publications.

State of the Calvinistic Contro- Dr. Ware, with our review of Prof.

versy, a Review in the Christian Norton's “Views of Calvinism,” yet Disciple.

we think we shall not be accused of The last volume of the Christian taking more to ourselves than we Disciple contains an article under ought to take, when we say that we the head of Revieios with the running regard the entire article as having a title of " The State of the Calvinistic primary and direct reference to the Controversy." Though the writer point in controversy between Prof. professes to connect some of the re- N. and ourselves. cent publications of Dr. Woods and Perhaps some apology may be ex


pected for our delaying so long to these principles is, that so far as they notice this reply, and perhaps for our are just, they con lemn Prof. N. in noticing it at all.-We had expected the very respects in which we supa rejoinder from Prof. N. which

pose he ought to be condemned. should be more worthy of so skilful The first principle or rule is thus staa disputant, one at least which forted by the Reviewer ; “One importconsistency of principle and plausi- ant rule to be observed in speaking bility of argument should be more of our opponents is, that we should justly entitled to our notice than the never, unless under very peculiar cirproduction before us.

We were cumstances, charge upon them, perquite unable, for a time, to persuade sunally, what we believe to be the ourselves that Prof. N. would leave moral effects of their system, as a cause in which he had evidently understand it.” Whether Prof. N. embarked under so strong an impres- has violated this rule, the following sion of its importance, in the hands passages in bis “Views of Calvinismo of a co-adjutor so comparatively dis- will decide. After making several qualified to undertake the burden of quotations from Pres. Edwards, he its defence. At other times howev. says ; " what must be the effect of er we have suspected the correctness such a belief in brutalizing the whole of these conjectures, and from the character of him by whom it is style and spirit of some part of the held.” p. 20. After quoting from the Review, bave surmised the possi. same author, from Calvin, from the biliiy, that Prof. N. might claim at Westminster divines and others, he least to some extent, persoval iden- concludes thus ; But I forbear. tity with the Reviewer. Be this as In quoting blasphemy like this, I can it may, we are satisfied that the arti- bardly avoid feeling as if I shared in cle has received the full approbation the guilt of uttering it," p. 15.of Prof. N. and that if it be not as Here Pres. Edwards is charged with able a defence of his cause as he a belief that must have brutalized might desire, it is at least that on his whole character; and the same which he intends to rely, until some author is associateü with others of further notice shall be taken of the similar integrity and worth and all are subject.-At the same tine re- charged with the unqualified guilt of garding the point at issue as of tunda- blasphemy. Thus contrary to the mental importance in the controver- Reviewer's first rule, Prof. Norton sy between Calvinists and Unitarians, charges on his opponents personally we are reluctant to abandon it till wbat he believes to be the moral efwe have done what we can to satisfy

fects of their system ;

" and if there even our most determined opponents be guilt in misrepresenting an oppoof their error.

nent's opinions, there is still deeper “What is Calvinism, on the article guilt in misrepresenting an oppoof human depravity," is the question nent's character." before us. We have charged Prof.N. Again ; The Reviewer has unequiwith misrepresenting this doctrine. vocally confirmed the truth of the The Reviewer in the Christian Dis- principal charge which we have ciple bas undertaken bis vindication. brought against Prof. Norton. In With what success, is the present en- aprlying the above rule to the vindi. quiry.

cation of his brethren, he says, “ the The Reviewer begins the discus- representations which Unitarians aion with laying down “ those great have given, have bren made of Caland acknowledged principles shat vinisin, not of Calvinists, of the Calshould govern us, in what we say of vinistic system in itself considered, the characters, opinions and system and not as it is understood and reof an adverse party."

ceived by those who call themselves 1. Our first remark concerning Calvinists.” p. 215. The Vol. VI.-No. 6. 37


p. 217.

thing be asserts in different forms. « A second general rule" says the Thus in reference to the main en- Reviewer, “to be observed in speakquiry 'what is Calvinism,' he says ing of our opponents is, that we ne

the question before us is not what ver should represent them as holdCalvinists profess, or what this oring any principles or doctrines, that nominal Calvinist believes.” which they do not admit, or which

Indeed bis principal de. they expressly disclaim, even though fence of Unitarian representations of we may think them to be legitimate Calvinism is that Unitarians have inferences from the system which not represented that to be Calvinism they profess to hold." which Calvioists profess and believe. After giving this rule, the equiry of -Now this is the identical thing which none can doubt, the Reviewer which we charged upon Prof. N. in proceeds to modify it and to show its our notice of his pamphlet. This is application to Unitarian representathe very point which we undertook tions of Calvinism. Thus he says ; to maintain, throughout our whole “ Though we have no right to charge article on the subjeci, stating expli- even the legitimate inferences from citly the sole question to be what is any system upon the professed holdthe “ doctrine,” the faith of Calvin- ers of that system, yet we have a ists respecting human depravity.' right, and an undoubted right, to We argued no other point ; we were charge them upon the system itself.confident of success in the attempt " The Calvinistic system is one to maintain ibis. For we never had thing and the actual belief of those a doubt, and now under the sanction who call themselves Calvinists is anof his Reviewer's assertions, we

other." frankly declare the conviction, that it “ Considered, too, as a system, was a matter of no concern with the doctrine and principles which it Prof. N. in his representations of may contain by necessary implicaCalvinism, to state what Calvinists tion, are just as much constituent profess and believe. Prof. N. says, parts of the system, and may, there- it is a doctrine of Calvinism that fore, be urged with as much justice God creates men with a sinful na against it, or in its favour, as if they ture.' We maintained that Calvin- were expressed and avowed." ibid. ists do not believe this doctrine, and “ We need to be continually rethat they unequivocally disclaim it; minded, that the question before us and we undertook to show by a mi- is not what Calvinists profess, or pute examination of the passa- what this or that nominal Calvinist ges quoted by Prof. N. from Cal- believes." vinistic authors, that their statements To say then, that Calvinism has will not bear the import which he been misrepresented, merely because has given them. But no matter for some, who call themselves Calvinists, all this, according to the Reviewer, will not admit the representation, or be it ever so true, or ever so just. perhaps expressly disclaim it, is to _The question is not what Calvinists mistake entirely the ground of the believe, nor what they profess; Upi- controversy, and the particular point tarians dispense with every enquiry in dispute. How, we would inquire, of this sort in making their represen- can any system be exposed and retations of Calvinism, and tell the luted but by tracing it to consequenworld what its doctrines are, with- ces, wbich the holders of that system out preteuding to tell a single thing have never considered, and, therewbich Calvinists have professed or fore, have never believed, but will believed.-That such was the fact reject at once as no part of their real we were well aware, but so frank belief.” and full a confession of it we did not According to these principles, the expect.

Reviewer says, “ it will be found


that the REPRESENTATIONS of Cal. Views of Calvinism ;' and the vinism, which Unitarians have given, pamphlet itself, in its whole drift and are perfectly just and fair.” pp. 215, aspect, is a professed exposé of what 217.

Calvivists avow and believe. But These remarks of the Reviewer according to the Reviewer, Mr. N. amount to this; that while Unitarians in these representations of Calvininclude in their representations of ism, has not pretended to tell the Calvinism its supposed legitimate in public what Calvinists avow and beferences as “ constituent parts of the lieve, but to trace the system “10 system,” they have not charged on consequences which the holders of Calvinists the belief of these inferen- that system-have never believed, but

What then is the matter of will reject at once as no part of their fact? We answer, that if it be true, real belief."-Should the Professor as the Reviewer maintains, that Uni- and the Reviewer compound matters tarians have, in their representations of difference on this point, the title of Calvinism, charged upon it its in- of a second edition of the pamphlet ferences, then they have also charged would be, Calvinists charged with upon Calvinists the belief of these in- believing what Calvinists do not beferences; for what they represent lieve. Calvinism to be, they also charge As further proof that what Prof. Calvinists with professing and believ. N. represents Calvinism to be, he ing. We might, did our limits per- represents Calvinists as professing mit, refer for proof of this position to and believing, we might ask, for Dr. Channing and Dr. Ware, the what other purpose has be quoted so principal assailants of Calvinism. many passages from Calvinistic wriBut our concern is with Prof. Nor- ters? We might refer to the uniton.

form phraseology which he adopts,In his Tract on · True and False as, “ these are the doctrines of CalReligion,' he says, " True Religion vinism,-it is a doctrine of Calvinis an inestimable blessing because it ism,”-“such a belief as is here exteaches that God is the Everlasting pressed;" and to the pretence that his Friend and Father of his creatures, expressione are no stronger and con&c. But what shall we say of a re- vey no other meaning than those ligion which teaches, &c." Then

Then which he cites from Calvinistic wri. follows his representation of Calvin- ters. But to show that there can be ism. “ Yet,” he adds“ he must be no doubt on this point, we give the a very ignorant or a very bold man, following passage which precedes the who will affirm that the doctrines formal statement of those doctrines last stated have not been taught, and which Prof. N. ascribes to Calvinists. very extensively too, as doctrines of “ In order to prevent all quibbling Christianity.

about the word, I wish it to be underNow did Prof. N. mean by this stood, that when I say these are docto say simply that certain inferences trines of Calvinism, I mean that they from Calvinism had been taught by either make a part of the system, or Calvinists ; that certain inferences are obviously and intimately conhad been taught by Calvinists which nected with it, and have been avowaccording to the Reviewer, Calvin- ed and defended as such, by Calvinists have never professed, nor be- istic writers of the highest authority lieved, but which they reject as no with their own body.” Views of part of their real belief.

Calvinism, pp. 8,9. cao so understand Mr. N's language. It seems however that even this He meant to say that Calvinists formal explanation of his terms by teach the doctrines specified as mat- the Professor could not prevent “all ters of faith.

quibbling” on the part of the ReThe title of Prof. N's pamphlet is, viewer. For wniie the Reviewer

No one

strenuously maintains, that "the statement of some of the fundament. representations of Calvinism, which al and distinguishing doctrines of Unitarians have given," do not res- Calvinism, as they are actually taught pect what Calvinists “avow and pro- in the standard works on the Calvinless,' the Professor himself insists that istic side, and in the very language the doctrines which he represents to in which they are there taught." p. be " doctrines of Calvinism. have 217. been avowed and defended as such, Without insisting that to quote the by Calvinistic writers of the highest very language of Calvinists must be authority.”

a strange way of charging upon their Whatever then, Prof. N. repre. system, as the Reviewer says Unitasents Calvinism to be, he represents

rians have done in their representaCalvinists as professing and believe tions of Calvinism, those inferences ing. But according to the Review- which Calvinists have never profeser "the representations of Calvin- sed, and witbout tasking ourselves to ism" by Unitarians, of whom Prof. shew how such representations of N. is one, respect those inferences Calvinism are made with a scrupufrom the system which Calvinists lous regard to the rule now under “ never have believed, but reject at consideration, we remark that this once as no part of their real belief.” rule deals the saine condemnation to It follows therefore that Prof. N. has Prof. N. as those already examined. represented thai to be the actual be- The question in regard to Prof. N. as lief of Calvinists, which according to the Reviewer presents it, is whether the Reviewer Calvinists never have he has confined himself in bis professed nor believed, but which statement of Calvinism to the very they reject as no part of their faith. language of Calvinists? This the -Now this is the identical thing Reviewer asserts, and this we deny. which we charged upou Prof. Norton It is true, that Prof. N. has made in our notice of his pamphlet. “A many quotations from Calvinistic second general rule to be observed in writers. But has be confined bis speaking of our opponents is, that statement of Calvinism to the very we sh yuld never represent them as language of these quotations. or has holding any principles or doctrines he made his own staiement of Calvinwhich they do not admit, or which ism in his own language ? " I do they expressly disclaiın.

nuw” says he, "affirm it to be a doc* There is another general rule,” trine of Calvinism,'that God creates says the Reviewer, " to be scrupu- men with a sinful nature.'” This lously observed in the representations is Professor Norton's statementwhich we may give of an adverse statement which he knows, which system. We are 10 take our views the Reviewer knows, and which eveof it from its accredited formulas, and ry reader of the controversy knows, most approved expounders.” p. 217. has not yet been adduced in the very

In applying this rule to the vindica- language of any Calvinistic author ation of Prof.N.and of Unitariansgen- whatever. erally, he says,“They have taken their Should it be said that Prof. N. has views and statenients of that system taken bis statemeni of Calvinism from entirely from such works as those of Calvinistic authors, on the ground of Calvin, the Westminster Assembly, the coincidence of import between and President Edwards. If we are not his language and theirs ; we reply to learn what Calvinism is from such that this would be a most disgraceful authorities, we really do not know begging of the question ; for the very from what source the knowledge is point in debate is, what is the import to be derived." p. 218. And fure of the quotations which he has made ther that Mr. N. has confined him. from Calvinistic writers. We mainself in that performance to a simple taio that they do not teach that God

« PreviousContinue »