of Christians, recourse should be had to the Assembly's Catechism, which is taught their children, and may therefore be supposed to contain a just account of their religious opinions. The reader is here referred to two small volumes on the subject; the one by Dr. Pye Smith, in favour of Calvinism; the other by Mr. T. Belsham, as a reply to it. But a still more recent work in defence of Calvinism, is a Series of Letters by Dr. Olinthus Gregory, in two volumes on the Nature and Doctrines of the Christian Religion.

SUBLAPSARIANS

AND

SUPRALAPSARIANS.

AMONG the refinements of Calvinism are to be ranked the distinctions of the Sublapsarians and Supralapsarians. The Sublapsarians assert, that God had only permitted the first man to fall into transgression, without absolutely pre-determining his fall: whereas the Supralapsarians maintain that God had from all eternity decreed the transgression of Adam, in such a manner that our first parents could not possibly avoid this fatal event. Dr. Doddridge, in his Lectures, has thus stated these abstruse distinctions: The Supralapsarian and Sublapsarian schemes agree in asserting the doctrine of predestina

tion, but with this difference, that the former sup poses that God intended to glorify his justice in the condemnation of some, as well as his mercy in the salvation of others; and for that purpose decreed that Adam should necessarily fall, and by that fall bring himself and all his offspring into a state of everlasting condemnation: the latter scheme supposes that the decree of predestination regards man as fallen by an abuse of that freedom which Adam had, into a state in which all were to be left to necessary and unavoidable ruin, who were not exempted from it by predestination." Recent divines, who have gone to the height of Supralapsarianism, are Mr. Brine and Dr. Gill. Were any thing more necessary to elucidate this subject, it might be added that the term Supralapsarian is derived from two Latin words, Supra, above, and lapsus, the fall; and the term Sublapsarian, from Sub, below or after, and lapsus, the fall.

Calvin, in his Institutes, states and defends at large the principles of the system. It is dedicated to Francis the First, king of France, and in a strain admired for its boldness and magnanimity. The work has just been translated by Mr. Allen into English, comprising three octavo volumes with a portrait. Calvin was educated for the church, but conceiving a dislike to popery,' he applied himself to the law. He, however, afterwards resumed his original studies, was an eminent reformer, and died in

1564. He was a man of great talents and learning, writing both French and Latin with equal purity. His works amount to nine folio volumes! Bishop Horsley says, " The opinions of Austin, which are the basis of Calvinism, have had their strenuous assertors in the church of Rome itself: indeed, for a long time, they were the prevailing opinions of the Latin church."

For a defence of Calvinism, see Edwards on the Will, Brine's Tracts, Dr. Gill's Cause of God and Truth, and Toplady's Historic Proof of the Calvinism of the Church of England, a new edition of which has been just published. The works of Jonathan Edwards are reckoned a standard as to Calvinism he was an American divine of extraordinary ability.

ARMINIANS.

The Arminian favours the tenets of Arminius, the disciple of Beza, and latterly professor of divinity at Leyden, who flourished about the year 1600. Thinking the doctrine of Calvin with regard to free-will, predestination, and grace, contrary to the mild and amiable perfections of the Deity, he began to express his doubts concerning them in the year 1591; and upon further enquiry, adopted sentiments more early resembling those of the Lutherans

than of the Calvinists. After his appointment to the theological chair at Leyden, he thought it his duty. to avow and vindicate the principles which he had embraced; and the freedom with which he published and defended them, exposed him to the resentment of those that adhered to the theological system of Geneva. The controversy thus begun in the life-time of Arminius, ended not with his death, and for a long time roused the violence of contending passions,* His tenets include the five following propositions: 1st, That God has not fixed the future state of mankind by an absolute unconditional decree; but determined from all eternity, to bestow salvation on those whom he foresaw would persevere to the end in their faith in Jesus Christ, and to inflict punishment on those who should continue in their unbelief, and resist to the end his divine assistance. 2dly, That Jesus Christ, by his death and sufferings, made an atonement for the sins of all mankind in general, and of every individual in particular that, however, none but those who believe in him can be partakers of this divine benefit. 3dly, That mankind are not totally depraved, and that depravity does not come upon them by virtue of Adam's being their public head, but that mortality and natural evil only are the direct consequences of his sin to posterity. 4thly, That there is no such thing as

* Arminius's motto was a remarkable one" A good conscience is a paradise.”

irresistible grace in the conversion of sinners. And, 5thly, That those who are united to Christ by faith, may fall from their faith, and forfeit finally their state of grace. Thus the followers of Arminius believe that God, having an equal regard for all his creatures, sent his Son to die for the sins of the whole world ; that men have the power of doing the will of God, otherwise they are not the proper subjects of approbation and condemnation; and that, in the present imperfect state, believers, if not particularly vigilant, may, through the force of temptation, fall from grace, and sink into final perdition. The Arminians found their sentiments on the expressions of our SAVIOUR respecting his willingness to save all that come unto him; especially on his prayer over Jerusalem, his Sermon on the Mount, and above all, on his delineation of the process of the last day, where the salvation of men is not said to have been procured by any decree, but because they had done the will of their Father, who is in heaven. This last argument they deem decisive; because it cannot be supposed that Jesus, in the account of the JUDGMENT DAY, would have deceived them. They also say, the terms in the Romans respecting election, are applicable only to the state of the Jews as a body, without reference to the religious condition of individuals, either in the present or future world*.

*See a Letter addressed to R. Hawker, D. D. suggested by his defence of the London Female Penitentiary, by J. Evans, second