and conduct. It is founded on a very imperfect and circumscribed view of the Christian scheme, in its doctrines, its precepts, its promises, its threatenings, and its prospects; descries not its connexion with the present and everlasting happiness of mankind; and has no comprehension of its tendencies, its objects, and its results. It has only, as it were, a moonlight-glimpse of the gospel, and, consequently, is neither led by the light, nor is animated with the warmth, of its shining day. In a word, it is the shadow without the substance, the image without the reality, the representation without the power, the meagre skeleton-like body, without the life, the soul, and the spirit of religion!

REVIEW.

A full length Portrait of Calvinism. By an oldfashioned Churchman. The second edition, with additions and corrections. New-York, T. & J. Swords, 1809. pp. 55. 12mo.

(Continued from p. 496.)

OF the master," (viz. Calvin,) says our author,

p. 11. "we have said enough; let us now hear what some of his scholars assert." We follow him in our examination, having sufficiently vindicated the illustrious Reformer from his aspersions and mistakes. The reader, however, is apprised in season, that neither Calvin, nor Calvinistic churches, are answerable for any sentiments which Zuinglius may have advanced. Our reasons for making this assertion are two. The first is, that Zuinglius flourished before Calvin. He withdrew from the com4. H

Vol. IV.-No. XI.

munion of the church of Rome, A. D. 1519*.

In 1529, ten years afterward, Calvin was a member of, and preacher in the communion of the Church of Rome, then possessing a benefice in the cathedral church of Noyon, and the rectory of Pont L'Eveque, where he was bornt. Zuinglius was slain, October 11, A. D. 1531. Calvin was born July 10, A. D. 1509, and published his Institutions in 1536, not quite five years after Zuinglius' death. In that same year, 1536, he settled in Geneva. How Zuinglius can be considered as the scholar of Calvin, whose system of religion was not in existence, when he died, we leave the Churchman to answer. He, no doubt, can make that true which is false, when the Church,' as he views her, with her doctrines, as he considers them, not as she has avowed them in the 39 Articles, are at stake. The other reason we offer against our author's arrangement of Zuinglius among the scholars of Calvin, is this-that Zuinglius rejected the doctrine of the decrees which Calvin afterwards maintained, as also the doctrine of original sin, as maintained by Calvinistic divines. Moreover, he differed from Calvin on the subject of Church government, in some important, but not essential points. We would not have been so particular in our notice of this mistake in the old Churchman,' had he not, in p. 14, called Zuinglius one more of these gracious prophets,' viz. the scholars of Calvin;' and in the same page, immediately after quoting the Swiss Reformer, added, "Such, reader, are the horrid doctrines which

*Mosh. Eccles. His. vol. 4. p. 372. Zuinglius himself says, he began to preach the Gospel, 1516. Milner's Church History, vol. 5. p. 534. Lond. ed. 1810.

† Mackenzie's life of Calvin, p. 29. and 43.

Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. vol. iv. p. 377. and 380. Mil. ner's Church Hist. vol. v. p. 523.

Calvinistic writers endeavour to impose upon the human mind."

So much for our author's knowledge of Calvin's scholars, and of Calvinistic writers.

The first of those persons who are noticed as scholars of Calvin, are the Westminster divines. A quotation is introduced, p. 11, from the 1st section of the 3d chapter of the Confession of Faith which they drew up, not from their Catechism, as our author is pleased to say. This mistake of one plain English word for another, is not of such great importance as leaving out in the quotation, so much of the article quoted, as to alter its sense.

Whe

ther we are just in this remark or not, the reader shall now see. "The Westminster divines," says our author, "in their Catechism, (Confession,) declare that God did from all eternity, unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass. Consequently, adds the Churchman, "all the sins of all the men that have ever lived, or ever will live, and of all the devils in hell, were inevitable. And for these sins which they could no more prevent than they could prevent the revolution of the heavenly bodies, they are punished with everlasting damnation." We, however, who are not so clearsighted, who cannot, even upon the Churchman's word, confess that we see what is not to be seeneven we" old fashioned Presbyterians," who believe nothing without sufficient evidence, call for proof. We, having examined the Westminster Confession of Faith with care, as we think, have embraced it ex animo, not as "articles of peace,' but as our honest, real, and dispassionate summary of doctrines drawn from the Scriptures. Though we have read it more than once, we have found nothing that looks like this language of our author. But this have we found, viz. "God from all eterni

ty, did, by the most wise and holy counsel, of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass. Yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." As all this is plain English-as no man in his senses, with any knowledge of plain English, can mistake it, we are at a loss to conjecture the cause of this great and material disagreement between the doctrine of the Westminster divines as they have exhibited it, and as the 'old Churchman' has exhibited it, if the whole be not the result of design. As he has been guilty of one anachronism in the case of Zuinglius, already noticed, we would be tempted, out of compassion to his heart, though at the expense of his head, to suppose he considered himself as preceding in the order of time the Westminster divines, and having been their master; thus able to furnish a more correct statement of their opinions than they could; were we not prevented by his own declarations, that he abhors their doctrines. We must, therefore, call him, as Paul did Elymas, not indeed "full of subtlety," but "full of mischief." He breathes out "threatenings and slaughter" against Calvinism, but, devoid of wisdom and integrity in his attacks, he merely discovers his wish to injure, without being able to execute his wish. Because he speaks "evil of the things which he knows not, we say to him, the Lord rebuke theet."

Dr. Twisse is next introduced as a scholar of Calvin, and one whose sentiments are "in unison with these reverend divines," i. e. of the Westminster Assembly. No wonder he thought as they did, for he was one of them, and their Prolocutor.

* Acts xiii. 10.

† Jude 9, 10.

Though he died before the Confession of Faith was finished, yet he aided his brethren in drawing it up*. The quotations made by our author, are from his "Vindicia." This is a work of 796 pages, close printed, in two columns each page, from which three short extracts are given. The edition we have, is in folio, printed in Amsterdam, 1648. We know not what edition the Churchman consulted, or whether he ever saw the work. If he has seen it, he ought to, because he might, have furnished correct references. Now there is none. The work is divided into three books; each book into parts, and every part into sections. The first reference is thus: Vindiciæ, &c. b. iii. p. 19." In our edition, already mentioned, book 3d commences with p. 669. The second reference is thus: "Pars. b. iii. p. 21." The third: "Ibid. p. 10." Now, as the part of book 3d is not noted, we are at a loss where to find the passage: and the more so, because we find the paging incorrect. To be candid, after all our research we cannot find any of the extracts, as all the references are wrong. This is rather unscholarlike in the Churchman, especially since he, with much apparent candour, invites his readers to "search for themselves." Alas! it is hard searching in an old musty folio for scraps of extracts, not two lines long, when the references are incorrect. Our disappointment, after the invitation, must be our apology for so minutely noticing the manner in which the references are made. The quotations are evidently intended to show that the doctrines which Twisse maintained, made God the author of sin. Our author does not, however, deign to prove the validity of the charge, by refuting Twisse's reasoning. He does not even notice the manner in

* Neal's History of the Puritans, by Toulmin. Vol. III.