Whatever is not Calvinistic must be excellent, The articles of the Church of England are not Calvinistic,

Ergo, the Church is excellent in her doctrine.

Dr. Hobart does not even attempt to give us any other proof of the excellence of the thirty-nine articles, than their anticalvinistic tendency; for his practical points are of the same cast with his theoretical opinions. Although we are not prepared to admit, that whatever is opposed to the doctrines usually called Calvinistic, must be true; yet we shall not attempt to disprove the major proposition of the above syllogism. But neither are we prepared to jump with the preacher into his conclusion. We dispute the truth of the minor proposition. We believe, that the doctrine of the articles, although not so explicitly declared as the doctrine of the Confession of Faith, is, so far as the Calvinistic and Arminian controversies are concerned, the common faith of the Reformed Churches. In order that the reader may judge for himself, we shall, after making a few remarks, present him with the words of the Articles and those of the Confession of Faith side by side. He will then perceive the doctrine of both to be the very same, only more obscurely expressed by the Episcopal Church. This difference is readily accounted for. Presbyterians are plain people. We write in order to be understood. Our object is to exclude, not convey a double meaning.

Dr. H. acknowledges, that if the Articles of the Church be Calvinistic, the ministry of their Church merit reproach. "Churchmen are continually told, that the Articles of the Church are Calvinistic. The assertion, therefore, ought to be refuted, in order that her clergy may be vindicated from the reproach*."

Should we succeed in proving that these Articles are Calvinistic, the Doctor himself, not we, must be considered as the defamer. He admits, that their clergy, in such case cannot be vindicated. Far be it from us to dispute the correctness of the admission.

The Thirty-nine Articles were formed by a convocation, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, from the forty-two Articles of Edward VI. originally drawn up by Cranmer and Ridley. The original compilers, and those who reviewed and adopted them, were all agreed in sentiment about the doctrines of grace, with Mr. Calvin and the other reformers on the continent. This continued to be the case with the Church of England until the time of Archbishop Laud. To him, his biographer, Dr. Heylin ascribes the praise of rendering fashionable in England the Arminian creed*. Heylin understood the Articles otherwise than Dr. H. explains them. Although himself an Arminian, he says of the 17th article," In this definition there are these things to be observed, 1. That predestination doth pre-suppose a curse or state of damnation in which "all mankind was presented to the sight of God. 2. "That it is an act of his from everlasting. 3. That "he founded it, and resolved for it in the man and "mediator Christ Jesus, both for the purpose and "performance. 4. That it was of some special ones "alone, elect, called forth, and reserved in Christ, "and not generally extended to all mankind. 5. "That being thus elected in Christ, they shall be brought by Christ to everlasting salvation. Leaving reprobation to be gathered upon logical inferences from that which is delivered on the point of "election, for contrariorum contraria est ratiot."

66

* Cyprianus Anglicus, pages 38, 39. † Introd. p. 20.

Compare this with the words of Dr. Hobart*. "The 17th Article, then, may be interpreted of the election of Christians in general to the privileges of the Gospel, all of which will be forfeited if they do not-make their calling and election sure."-" The only election declared in Scripture, the election of Christians as a collective body to the privileges of the Gospelt."

The truth is, reprobation is necessarily implied in election. What is not chosen is rejected. If some are elected, others must be rejected; and the compilers of the Articles, knowing this, esteemed it unnecessary to express it. One fact puts it beyond dispute that the convocation which formed the Thirtynine Articles, were as high Predestinarians as ever Calvin was. A few men, at the head of whom was Thomas Talbot, conceived themselves persecuted by the Church, because they did not adopt such decisive terms respecting the decree of reprobation as was then customary. These divines were not Arminian in sentiment, as appears from their petition. They were confessedly a very small number compared with their opponents; and they supplicate a toleration to express their sentiments. The Calvinism of the Church of England, while forming her Articles, must have been high-toned indeed, when a party in the Church must use, in an humble supplication, such words as these: "That God doth foreknow "and predestinate all good and goodness; but doth only foreknow, and not predestinate any evil or

"sin.

"Yet, to their great grief and sorrow, because they "do hold, contrary to a great number of their brethren, "the Protestants, that God's holy predestination is no "manner of occasion or cause of sin-whereby any

* Introd. p. 20.

† Pages 15. 17,

part of mankind shall be predestinate of any un"avoidable necessity to commit sin.

"For this cause, they be esteemed of their brethren, the Protestants, for fautors* of false religion, "and are constrained hitherto to sustain at their "hands the shameful reproach and infamy of Free"will-men, Pelagians, Papists, Epicures, Anabap"tists, and enemies unto God's Holy Predestination " and providence.

"Please it your gracious Fatherhoods, that none "of these punishments which the clergy have in "their power to execute, shall extend to those who "do hold predestination, as is above declared; except it be duly proven, that they maintain, that man, of his own natural power, is able to think, "will, or work of himself, any thing that should in "any case help or serve towards his own salvation, or any part thereoft."

66

These petitioners had a better opportunity than either Dr. H. or his oracle, Dr. Lawrence, had of knowing the creed of the Fathers of the Church of England, and they represent it as, not only Calvinistic; but as Calvinism, pushed to an extravagant length, and scarcely granting toleration to moderate Calvinism.

These Fathers of the Church, a little time before the convocation assembled to settle the doctrine of the Church, expressed themselves very decidedly in their declaration and confession of faith presented to Queen Elizabeth. Fully expressing their agreement with the Articles of the convocation under King Ed* Favourers. † Strype, An. vol. 1. p. 249.

We use the word Calvinism, in this connexion, as a generic term; not confining it merely to the sentiments of John Calvin, but as the representative of those doctrines which are the opposite of the five Arminian points. To Calvinism, properly understood, the epithet extravagant does not belong.

66

ward, they speak of predestination in these words:Seeing some men of late are risen, which do gainsay and oppugn this truth, we cannot utterly pass over this matter with silence, both for that the Holy Ghost doth so often make mention of it in "the Scriptures, especially in St. Paul's Epistles; "which argueth it to be a thing both fruitful and "profitable to be known. And also being occasion"ed by the same reason which moved St. Austin to "write of this matter of predestination*."

Did Dr. Hobart know that these men, in a body, so solemnly appealed to Augustine as their example, when from the pulpit, he, in the name of the God of truth, taught the people of Newark that they rejected the example of Augustine? And if he did know

it

Dr. H. says, Her wise and temperate reformers avoided those extreme opinions by which Augustine controverted the Pelagian heresyt. His reference to Augustine was rather unhappy.

Having seen what the Creed of the Church of England was, before the adoption of her Thirty-nine Articles, and what it was at the very time of their adoption, we shall also see what it was afterwards until the time of Laud.

The Puritans, jealous Calvinists, never disputed the orthodoxy of the Church on these doctrines. Calvin's Institutions were read publicly in the schools of theology, by order of the convocation. When Barret, in the University of Cambridge, opposed Calvin's doctrine of predestination, he was examined and condemned, first before the Vice-Chancellor and Heads of colleges, and afterwards before the Archbishop, who enjoined it on him to confess his ignorance, and not teach the like doctrines for the fu

* Strype, Hist. Ref. Vol. I. p. 118. † Page 21.