"were chosen in him before the foundation of the world, that we might be holy."-Holiness and good dispositions are represented, not as the causes or foundation, but as the fruits and effects of election. What our Saviour said to his Disciples in the days of his flesh, is equally applicable to believers in every age, "Ye have not chosen me, but I "have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should bring "forth much fruit." As we love God because he first loved us, so we choose him because he first chose us.(Psal. lxv. 4) "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, "and causest to approach unto thee."

2. That election is founded on foreseen faith and good works, is contrary, not only to Scripture, but also to reason. On Arminian principles, it involves a contradiction. Arminians allege, that it depends on the free will of the creature whether any believe or do good works. According to them, it is possible that all may remain unbelievers and wicked. Now, if the Deity foresee that some will believe and do good works, and yet those persons may never believe nor do good works-it follows, that what God foresees as future may nevertheless not be future-and what he foresees will come to pass may nevertheless not come to pass-it follows, that God may be mistaken and disappointed!--that he foresees and does not foresee at the same time! I conclude therefore-and I think I do it on the incontrovertible principles of mathematical demonstrationI conclude, that election could not possibly be founded on foreseen faith and good works, because faith and good works, on Arminian principles, could not possibly be fore

seen.

3. As the doctrine of election founded on foreseen faith and good works is both unscriptural and unreasonable, so it has no foundation in the Articles and Homilies of the Church of England. Bishop Mant, and Doctors Millar and Graves, wish us to believe, that the Thirty-nine Articles are Arminian-and that the clergy of the Church of England were Arminian at the time the Articles were framed but they labour in vain.-The following extracts from the letters of Dr. Millar, of New-York, abundantly prove the vanity of the attempt. "Calvin was not only re"spectfully consulted by the English Reformers; but he "had also much influence among them. That great defe"rence was paid to his judgment, will appear from this "fact, that on the first appearance of the English Liturgy,

66

"it prescribed praying for the dead, chrism, extreme unc"tion, and other Popish superstitions. These Calvin, in a "letter to the Protector, very frankly and decidedly blamed. "The consequence of which was, that all these offensive things were left out, agreeably to his advice. Dr. Hey"lin himself declares, that these alterations were made in "compliance with Calvin's wishes." The first Liturgy," says he," was discontinued, and the second superinduced upon it, to give satisfaction unto Calvin's cavils, the cu"riosities of some, and the mistakes of others, his friends "and followers." And Dr. Nichols gives us the same information. "Four years afterwards," says he, "the book "of Common Praner underwent another review; wherein "some ceremonies and usages were laid aside, and some "new prayers added, at the instance of Mr. Calvin of Ge"neva, and Bucer, a foreign Divine who was invited to be a Professor at Cambridge." Nor was the authority of "Calvin without its influence in drawing up the Articles of "the Church of England. It is commonly said by our

c

Episcopal brethren, that those Articles are anti-Calvinis"tic, and that especially on the doctrine of Predestination, "as exhibited in the seventeenth Article, the Reformers "hold, and meant to express, a different opinion from those "of Calvin. Now, it happens, that this Article itself bears "the most unquestionable internal evidence of the contra"ry. The qualifying clause toward the end of it, which "has been quoted as decisive proof that the framers reject"ed Calvinism, is nearly quoted from Calvin's Institutes;

and the latter part of it is a literal translation of that Re"former's caution against the abuse of this doctrine. For "evidence of the former, see his Institutes (iii. 2, 4, 5) "compared with the article.-For proof of the latter, read "the following-" Proinde in rebus agendis, ea est nobis

perspicienda Dei voluntas quam verbo suo declarat." In“stit. i. 17, 5.—Furthermore, in our doings, that will of "God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared "to us in the word of God." Art. 17th.-The Thirty"nine Articles of the Church of England are undoubtedly "Calvinistic. This is proved, not only by the bare inspec"tion of the articles themselves, but also by the known "sentiments of those who framed them; and by the deci"sive 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, re

"viewed, corrected, formally approved, and ordered to be "published, as it now stands, the celebrated Catechism of "Dr. Newel.-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 Con"vocation, which embraced all the principal Dignitaries of "the Church, publicly recommended it, "as a standing 66 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 contemporary Prelates, that even Ministers were enjoined to stu"dy 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 Cal"vinistic work on election and predestination, which he "sent to Archbishop 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 Mi"nisters in and about London."t

66

"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 com"positions 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 receiv"ing the public approbation of these Dignitaries, the Arti"cles were sent to the Archbishop of York and the Bishop "of Rochester, who also subscribed them. Thus ratified,

Archbishop Whitgift sent them to the Unisersity of Cam"bridge, 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 per"suaded were true, and corresponding with the doctrine

*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.

66

"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 in"sinuation 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 "Cal"vin's Institutions were read and studied in both the Uni"versities by every student in divinity, for a considerable portion of a century; nay, that by a Convocation held at "Oxford, that book was recommended to the general study "of the nation." All the Delegates from the Church of England to the Synod of Dort, among whom were Bi"shop Carleton, Bishop Hall, and Bishop Devenant, for"mally subscribed to the five Calvinistic Articles drawn up " and adopted by that venerable Synod. On their return "home, they were attacked by a certain writer, and charg"ed with having departed from the public standard of their own Church. Against this attack they thought proper to "defend themselves, and accordingly wrote a Joint Attest"ation, which contains the following passage: "Whatso"ever there was assented unto and subscribed by us, con"cerning the Five Articles, either in the joint synodical “judgment, or in our particular collegiate suffrage, is not

66

ઃઃ

only warrantable by the Holy Scriptures, but also con "formable to the received doctrine of our said venerable "mother; which we are ready to maintain and justify "against all gainsayers. Again, Bishop Hall, in a work "of his own, addressing some who had charged him, and "other Bishops of his day, with entertaining Arminian sen"timents, 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 Bishops of England? Have they "not strongly confuted it, in Papists and Arminians? "Have they not cried it down to the lowest pit of Hell?"

Such are the arguments by which Dr. Millar, of NewYork, has proved, that the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England are Calvinistic, and that the great body of the clergy were Calvinists at the time those articles were framed. That the evidence is decisive, I humbly presume, no candid reader will venture to deny. Divines of the Establishment may preach, if they please, the doctrine of election founded on foreseen faith, love, and good works; but let them not charge with that doctrine, either the Thirty-nine Articles, or their reforming forefathers. That very doctrine which these modern Divines are now crying up to the starry heavens, the English Divines, the fathers of the Reformation-if we believe Bishop Hall-" cried down to "the lowest pit of hell!"

Having endeavoured to prove, and I hope with success, that the doctrine of election, founded on foreseen faith and good works, has its foundation, neither in Scripture, reason, nor the Thirty-nine Articles, I would now proceed to observe-that when our opponents characterise election as irrespective, if all they mean is, that election was not founded on any foreseen virtuous qualification of its object, we have no objection to the application of the epithet. We believe, however, that in the decree of election men were chosen, not only to eternal life, but also to faith, holiness, and all those means which lead to that end. If, in any sense inconsistent with this, our opponents denominate election irrespective, we spurn the epithet as inapplicable and unjust.

The great popular outcry against predestination is-that it supersedes the use of means, and is quite inimical to holiness and good works. I regret to find learned Divines reiterating this stale objection, after it has been answered a thousand times. Dr. B. (p. 172) writes thus:

"It (predestination) contradicts every exhortation to ho"liness and faith, every dissuasive from sin and infidelity, every conditional promise of everlasting life, and every warning against endless perdition, that we find in his (Christ's) discourses. In fact, if it were true, the me"diation, mission, death, and intercession of Christ, would "be absolutely nugatory and ineffectual; since they could