the attention of the strongest heads and best hearts that the world ever knew; and a subject as awful and difficult as it is interesting.

I cannot forbear, however to state a few facts. And when these are calmly considered, I think your surprise at the conduct of these gentlemen will by no means be diminished.

The Thirty-nine Articles of the church of England are un doubtedly Calvinistic. This is proved not only by the bare inspection of the articles themselves; but also by the known sentiments of those who formed them; and by the decisive interpretation of some of the ablest bishops, and other divines, that ever adorned that church.*

The same Convocation which drew up the thirty-nine articles, reviewed, corrected, formally approved, and ordered to be published, as it now stands, the celebrated Catechism of Dr. Nowell. This Catechism is acknowledged, by the worst enemies of Calvin, to be decidedly Calvinistic. It is acknowledged to be so by Bishop Cleaver, who, a few years ago, gave a new edition of it. And yet the Convocation, which embraced all the principal dignitaries of the church, publicly recommended it, as "a standing summary of the doctrines professed in that church;" and many years after it was held in such high esteem, by Archbishops Whitgift and Parker, and other cotemporary prelates, that even ministers were enjoined to study it, that they might "learn true divinity from it.”+

The illustrious reformer and martyr, Bradford, a short time before he suffered, wrote and published a decidedly Calvinistic work on election and predestination, which he sent to Arcbishop Cranmer, and to Bishops Ridley and Latimer, who all gave it their approbation; after which it received the approbation of "the rest of the eminent ministers in and about London."‡

* See Overton's True Churchman, passim. I know that this writer has made some mistakes. But when his work is compared with the able Review of it in the Christian Observer, an episcopal journal; and also with Mr. Daubeny's answer, and the review of the latter in the same journal, the mass of evidence in support of my position will be found irresistible.

† Strype's Annals, 313–316. Life of Parker, 122, 301.

+ Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, p. 350. The editors of the Christian Observer attest that they have seen Bradford's treatise; and that it is unquestionably Calvinistic.

The famous Lambeth articles, formed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, are acknowledged by all who ever read them, to be among the most strongly Calvinistical compositions that ever were penned. Yet these articles were drawn up and signed by Archbishop Whitgift, that very prelate of whose character and principles Dr. Hobart frequently speaks in the most exalted terms, and whom he holds up to view as one of the most illustrious divines and fathers of the church of England.-The Archbishop was assisted in this service by the bishops of London and Bangor, and by some others. After receiving the public approbation of these dignataries, the articles were sent to the archbishop of York, and the bishop of Rochester, who also subscribed them. Thus ratified, Archbishop Whitgift sent them to the University of Cambridge, with a letter, in which he declared, "That these articles were not "to be considered as laws and decrees, but as propositions, which "he and his brethren were persuaded were true, and corresponding "with the doctrine professed in the Church of England, and "established by the laws of the land." Nor is this all. It having been suggested by some, that the archbishop agreed to these articles, rather for the sake of peace, than because he believed them; Strype, his episcopal biographer, repels the charge with indignation; declaring that such an insinuation is as false, as it is mean and disparaging to the primate.t

We have seen also, in a foregoing part of this letter, by the confession of Heylin himself, an implacable enemy of Calvin, that the great body of the bishops, and other clergy of the Church of England, were doctrinal Calvinists, for more than half a century after the articles were formed. And we have found a modern episcopal clergyman asserting, on undeniable evidence, that "Calvin's Insti"tutions were read and studied, in both the Universities, by every "student in divinity, for a considerable portion of a century; nay, "that by a convocation held at Oxford, that book was recom"mended to the general study of the nation."

All the delegates from the Church of England to the synod of Dort, among whom were Bishop Carleton, Bishop Hall, and Bishop Davenant, formally subscribed to the five Calvinistic articles drawn up and adopted by that venerable synod. On their return

Strype's Life of Whitgift, p. 461-463.

↑ Ibid. p. 462.

return home, they were attacked by a certain writer, and charged with having given countenance to error, and also with having departed from the public standards of their own church. Against this attack they thought proper to defend themselves, and accordingly wrote a joint attestation, which contains the following passage. "Whatsoever there was assented unto, and subscribed by us, concerning the five articles, either in the joint synodical "judgment, or in our particular collegiate suffrage, is not only "warrantable by the Holy Scriptures, but also conformable to the "received doctrine of our said venerable mother; which we are "ready to maintain and justify against all gainsayers."

66

Again, Bishop Hall, in a work of his own, addressing some who had charged him and other bishops of his day, with entertaining Arminian sentiments as to the doctrine of election, thus indignantly replies to the charge-" You add election upon faith foreseen?' "What! nothing but gross untruths? Is this the doctrine of the bi"shops of England? Have they not strongly confuted it in pa"pists and Arminians 2+ Have they not CRIED IT DOWN TO THE LOWEST PIT OF HELL?"

The same pious prelate himself tells us, that, after his return from the synod of Dort, where he had been an advocate of Calvinistic doctrine, and a warm opponent of Arminianism, he was distressed to find that heresy gaining ground in England. "Not

many years," says he, "after settling at home, it grieved my "soul to see our own church begin to sicken of the same disease, "which we had endeavoured to cure in our neighbours."§

If all this be not conclusive testimony, that the thirty-nine articles, which Mr. How has recently subscribed are Calvinistic; that the reformers were Calvinistic; and that the great body of the English bishops and other clergy, were Calvinistic until the time of Archbishop Laud, then I know not what evidence can be called

See their Joint Attestation.

It seems, then, that Bishop Hall was not only a Calvinist himself; but that he considered the body of English bishops, until his time, as having been Calvinists also. But perhaps Dr. Bowden and Mr. How understand this matter better than the good bishop!

Defence of the Humble Remonstrance. Works. Vol. III. 246.

§ Some Specialities of the Life of Joseph Hall, Bishop of Norwich, written by himself.-Prefixed to the 3d vol. of his Works.

conclusive. And yet, Mr. How, with the highest praises of those articles, and reformers, and prelates, and clergy, in his mouth, does not scruple to speak of Calvinism in language which could scarcely be more contemptuous, or more abhorrent, if it were acknowledged to be a system of the most undisguised blasphemy! I am happy that it is not incumbent on me, either to account for this fact, or to frame an apology for it.

But you will, perhaps, ask are there no difficulties to be encountered in embracing that system of evangelical truth, which is usually styled Calvinism? It ought not to be disguised that there are in this system real difficulties, which, probably, no human wisdom will ever be able to solve. But are the difficulties which belong to the system of Arminianism, either fewer in number, or less in magnitude? Instead of this, they are more numerous, and more serious; more contradictory to reason, more inconsistent with the character of God, and more directly opposed both to the letter and the spirit of his word. I rest in the Calvinistic system, with a confidence daily increasing, not only because the more I examine it, the more clearly it appears to me to be taught in the Holy Scriptures; but also because, the more frequently and the more carefully I compare the amount of the difficulties, on both sides, the more heavily they seem to me to press against the Arminian ⚫ doctrine.

It is easy and popular to object, that Calvinism has a tendency to cut the nerves of all spiritual exertion; that, if we are elected there is no need of exertion, and if not elected, it will be in vain. But this objection lies with quite as much force against the Arminian hypothesis. Dr. Bowden, and Mr. How, and all Arminians, though they reject the doctrine of election, explicitly grant that, while some will, in fact, be saved, others will, in fact, as certainly perish. Now it is perfectly plain that this position is just as liable to the abuse above stated, as the Calvinistic doctrine. For a man may say, "I shall either be saved, or I shall not. If I am to be "saved, no anxiety about it is necessary; and if I am to perish, all "anxiety about it will be useless." Would these gentlemen consider this objection as a valid one against their creed? I presume not. But it has no more validily against ours. Another objection is equally common and popular. It is said, if none but the elect will be saved, how can God be considered as sincere in making the

offers of mercy to all? The Arminian is just as much bound to answer this question as the Calvinist. He grants that all men will not, in fact, be saved; he grants, moreover, that God foreknew this from eternity; and that he not only foreknew the general fact; but also the particular persons who will, and who will not, partake of salvation. How, then, we may ask the Arminian, is God sincere, on his plan, in urging and entreating all to accept of mercy? Again, it has been frequently asked, " If none but the elect will be saved, is not God a partial master, and a respecter of persons ?" But it may be quite as plausibly and confidently asked, "How can we reconcile it with the impartiality and the benevolence of God, to save only a part of mankind ?" If salvation be his work, then, why does he not save all? Why does he make a distinction? And if it be not his work, then men save themselves. Will even Mr. How, with all his inveteracy against Calvinism, go this length?

But while all the objections which our Arminian brethren urge against Calvinism, lie with full as much force against their own system; there are others, of a still more serious nature, to which that system is liable, and which, if I were compelled to admit, would plunge me into darkness and despair.

Yes, my brethren, if I could bring myself to believe, that the infinite and eternal God has laid no plan in the kingdom of his grace, but has left all to be decided by chance, or accident, not knowing the end from the beginning-If I could believe that the purposes of Jehovah, instead of being eternal, are all formed in time; and instead of being immutable, are all liable to be altered by the chang ing will of his creatures-If I could suppose that, after all the Redeemer has done and suffered, the work of redemption cannot be completed, unless perishing mortals choose to lend their arm to its aid-If I could admit the idea, that God has done nothing more than decree, in general, to save all who may happen to believe; without any determination, or, which is the same thing, without any certainty, whether few, or many, or none, would be thus blessed—If I could suppose that God foresaw events as certainly future, which he had not unchangeably determined to accomplish, and which, therefore, might never happen-If I could suppose that the omniscient Saviour died with a distinct purpose and design to