vine decrees, of particular and unconditional election and reprobation, of total depravity, of justification by faith alone, of the special influences of the Spirit, and of the final persever. ance of the saints." Now, if these two denominations have always agreed in these and other fundamental principles of christian theology; why should they continue separate? Why should they not combine their exertions to promote their common cause? And why do those Gentlemen charge their Creed with ambiguity? What need of ambiguity, when their Creed contains their common faith? And if the Creed does in fact contain their common faith, as the observations of these very Gentlemen tend to prove, why do they assert, that "it bears all the appearance of a compromise, most adroitly managed on the one side, and most awkwardly on the other?" If the two denominations agree as far, as these Gentlemen represent, we can see little occasion for compromise. Is it not absurd to talk so much of compromise, surrender, loss, and gain, in a Creed designed for those, who differ not in any doctrines, which are on either side deemed essential? To those, who have attentively perused the Anthology, we have no need to say, that its Editors abjure, and hold in contempt, the doctrines of Calvinism. Calvinists will not be so much imposed upon, as to imagine, that the distinction, which these Gentlemen try to make, betokens any friendship for them, rather than for others. They know perfectly well, that the Editors of the Anthology re ject not only those principles, which are represented as common to them and Hopkinsians; but also that sole doctrine, which is stated, as peculiar to them in distinction from Hopkinsians. We are warranted to assert, on evidence furnished by the Anthology, that the pains taken by the Reviewers to place the abovementioned denominations at a distance from each other, pro. ceeds from no friendship either for the one, or the other. It is the effort of a common foe, who has no way left to conquer, but to divide. To shew how unreasonable their attempt is, and how inefficacious it must be, we shall pursue the subject a little farther. The Gentlemen assert, and labor abundantly to prove, that the Creed of the Seminary is strictly Hopkinsian. The position we shall endeavor to support, is, that the Creed is strictly Calvinistic. We are confident, that our position is true. If theirs also is true, then the coalition, which has taken place in the Institution has the best foundation; and a cordial, permanent, and most beneficial harmony may be expected. We begin by observing, what must be obvious to every one acquainted with controversy, that in the common Creed are recognized all the discriminating features of Calvinism, as distinguished from Arminianism by the decisions of the SYNOD of DORT, and as stated in the confessions of faith and Catechisms of the Reformed churches. But we shall descend to particulars, directing our arguments, at present, to this one point; viz. that the Creed, both in its general construction, and in all the particulars noticed by the abovementioned Reviewers, is strictly Calvinistic. These Re. viewers themselves state, that "the doctrines of the Trinity, of the divine decrees, of particular and unconditional election and reprobation, of total depravity, of the special influences of the Spirit, of justification by faith alone, and of the final persever"ance of the saints," are embraced by both the denominations unit ed in the Seminary. Hence these Reviewers proceed to say; "no argument therefore can be drawn from the recognition of all the abovementioned principles in this Creed, that it is not truly and strictly Hopkinsian. It is granted. And we subjoin, that certainly, no argument can be drawn from the recognition of those principles, that the Creed is not truly and strictly CalvinThus far, we cheerfully acknowledge, these Reviewers have assisted us in proving that the two denominations abovementioned ought to be united; and that their union in the Creed implies no dishonesty, and no compromise. These Reviewers state, that the doctrine of imputation is the only Calvinistic doctrine, which Hopkinsians reject. If it be said, that this doctrine is not contained in the Creed; it must be said also, that it is not rejected. And if its not being contained be any proof, that the Creed is Hopkinsian, its not being rejected is equally a proof, that it is Calvinistic. The article in the Creed, which relates to this subject, is. as follows. Adam, the federal head and representative of the human race, VOL. I. New Series. was placed in a state of probation, and in consequence of his disobedience all his descendants were constituted sinners." "It appears, then," say these Reviewers, intent on their object, "that this article is expressed in language, to which the most scrupulous Hopkinsian could not object." With equal truth we add, that it is expressed in language, to which the most scrupulous Calvinist could not object. The article exhibits the great truth, in which both denominations agree, that there was a divinely constituted connexion between Adam and his posterity. Thus every thing, asserted by the Creed on this point, is perfectly agreeable to Hopkinsians and Calvinists. Both these denominations therefore can, with equal honesty, subscribe the Creed. If there be a difference in their manner of explaining and defending the doctrine, which is the only dif ference acknowledged; still that difference affects not the radical truth contained in the Creed. Again. The Creed asserts, "that the righteousness of Christ is the only ground of a sinner's justification; that this righteousness is received through faith, and that this faith is the gift of God." "This also," say these Reviewers, "is perfectly unexceptionable to every Hopkinsian." It is to our purpose to add, it is perfectly unexceptionable to every Calvinist also. They both agree in believing, that Adam's sin constituted all his posterity sinners, and also that Christ's righteousness justifies all believers. Because they have not seen fit to go into any farther and more minute partic3 E ulars on this subject, they surely cannot be blamed by those, who think that all Creeds are too long, and that all declarations of faith ought to be general. Thus far respecting "the only doctrine, which the Calvinists believe and the Hopkinsians deny." Let us now attend to the second part of the proposition, which these Reviewers aim to establish; namely: "that almost every important article, which the Hopkinsians add to Calvinism, is either expressed or strongly implied in the Creed." Miss H. ADAMS has drawn up a summary of Hopkinsian doctrines; and, as these Reviewers acknowledge this summary as au. thentic, we shall refer to it as such, still keeping to our point, and evincing, that all the particulars of this summary, which are contained in the Creed, are strictly Calvinistic. Of those particulars, which are not contained in the Creed, it would be a digression to speak. With them our argument has no con cern. The first article of Hopkinsianism in Miss A.'s summary, is the doctrine of disinterested benevolence. On this point we have no occasion to add any thing to what these Reviewers have said. They declare this to be by far the most sublime and unexceptionable tenet, which Hopkinsians maintain.” They presume, that Hopkinsians "will say it is included in the proposition in the Creed, that supreme love to GoD constitutes the essential difference between saints and sinners." So that the Creed is, in their view, still to be considered, as Hopkinsian. But they immediately add, that "the proposition, as it stands, is affirmed by every sect of Calvinists which exists." This proposition, then, any Calvinist may subscribe without the least dishonesty, and without "sheltering himself under any designed ambiguity of language." The next article in Miss A.'s summary is, that all sin consists in selfishness. "This doctrine," say these Reviewers, "is implied in the doctrine, that all virtue consists in disinterested benevolence; of which we have already spoken." But how have they spoken of it? They have said, it is the most sublime and unex. ceptionable of Hopkinsian tenets; and, as far as it is found in the Creed, is affirmed by every sect of Calvinists, which exists. The third article in the summary respects the evil of all the doings of the unregenerate. "This Hopkinsian doctrine," say these Reviewers, "is very explicitly declared in these words" of the Creed; that previously to the renewing agency of the Divine Spirit, all the moral actions of man are adverse to the character and glory of God. This, which is called a "Hopkinsian doctrine," we maintain to be a doctrine strictly Calvinistic, explicitly avowed in the standards of Calvinism. In the Westminster Confession of Faith, chap. xvi. sect. 7. it is said: "Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and of good use for themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith, nor are done in a right manner according to the word, nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God." Consistent with this is the doctrine of the church of Holland, as expressed in its Canons, its Confession, and its Catechism. The substance is contained in the an swer to the 68th question of its Compendium of the Christian Religion, where "Good works are designated to be those, which proceed from a true faith, are done according to the Law of God, and to his glory." Thus also PAREUS, one of the stand. ard Calvinistic writers, in his explanation of Ephes. ii. 1. says, that the good works of the unregenerate, though good in themselves, and commanded by God; yet, "per accidens," have become sins; because their persons do not please God, nor are these works done by faith. This prin- ciple then is strictly Calvinistic. Hopkinsians may deduce consequences from it different from others; but that does not make the principle exclusively theirs. The fourth doctrine in the summary is, "that the impotency of sinners is not natural, or physical, but moral." We agree with these Reviewers, that this doctrine "is as strongly implied in the Creed, as if it were affirmed." The words of the Creed imply, as they suppose, that although unrenewed man have physical, or natural strength, he has not moral strength. The inabilty meant is explained to be the sinner's aversion to holiness. This sentiment is familiar to Calvinists. They have generally taught, that the sinner's inability consists in the aversion of the whole heart to God. In this aversion they include darkness of understanding,and disorder of the affections, as well as depravity of will. In the Westminster Larger Catechism, it is said, that man by sin "is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclin. ed to all evil." The same doc. trine is taught in the same words in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Similar to this is the language used in the third and fourth heads of the Doctrine of the Canons of the Synod of Dort; Art. 16. "Man by the fall did not cease to be a creature endued with understanding and will, nor did sin, which per vaded the whole race of mankind, deprive him of human nature; but brought upon him depravity and spiritual death, &c." He is farther said to have become "wicked, rebellious, and ob durate in heart and will, and impure in his affections." To the same purpose is the language of PAREUS on 1. Cor. ii. 14, and of other Calvinistic writers. Indeed it is the uniform doctrine of Calvinists on this subject, that the seat of sin is the heart; that the mind is disinclined to God; and that this disorders all its faculties and makes the members of the body slaves of unrighteousness. It is certain, the distinction expressed in the Creed is familiar to Calvinists, and was so long before Dr. HOPKINS. The fifth article is, "that in order to faith in Christ, a sinner must approve in his heart of the divine conduct, even though God should cast him off for ever." This sentiment, though not explicitly asserted, is evidently implied in the Creed ; and is strictly Calvinistic. It is taught in the language of Dr. WATTS. Should sudden vengeance seize my breath, The same sentiment is found in the following passage from the writings of the excellent archbishop LEIGHTON, in which he represents the true penitent, as thus expressing the solemn emotions of his heart: "Lord, I am justly under the sentence of death. If I fall under it, thou art righteous, and I do here acknowledge it. If I perish, as it were, in view of salvation; if I see the Rock, and yet cannot come at it, but drown; what have I to say? In this likewise thou art righteous. Only, if it seem good unto thee to save the vilest, most wretched of sinners, and show great mercy in pardoning so great debts, the higher will be the glory of that mercy." The sixth article contains the optimistical scheme of Leibnitz, and cannot be considered as peculiar to Hopkinsians. The seventh is, 'that the in. troduction of sin is, upon the whole, for the general good." But we have nothing to do either with this, or the preceding article, except so far as they are contained in the Creed. On these points the language of the Creed is as follows: "I moreover believe that God, according to the counsel of his own will, and for his own glory, hath foreordained, whatever comes pass; and that all beings, actions, and events, both in the natural and moral world, are under his providential direction; that God's decrees perfectly con. sist with human liberty; God's universal agency with the agency ef man, and man's dependence to with his accountability." Speaking of this part of the Creed, these Reviewers say; 66 All the principles, on which the Hopkinsian founds his doctrine, that God is the author of sin, are distinctly affirmed in it." If this be correct, then all the principles, on which the Hopkinsian founds that doctrine, are affirm. ed in the Westminster Confes. sion of Faith. For that Confession contains all the sentiments found in this part of the Creed. In chap. iii. sect. 1. it is said; "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsels 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." In chap. v. sect. 1. we are told; "God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and gov. ern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his in fallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsels of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy." The same doctrine is taught in the an. swer to the 7th question of the Shorter Catechism. "The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his own will, whereby for his own giory he hath foreordained, whatsoever comes to pass." Also in the answer to the 11th question, "God's works of providence are his most holy, wise, and pow. erful preserving and governing |