and the thanks of the convention given to the treasurer for his services.

The Rev. Dr. Gadsden, from the committee on the Theological Seminary, made the following report, which was accepted:

The committee on the General Theological Seminary would respectfully of fer to the convention a brief statement on the present state of the seminary, introductory to a few resolutions which they would propose.

The seminary is at present located in the city of New-York. Three of the professors receive no salary. Two of them receive a salary of $1500 each; one a salary of $750. "The Branch School at Geneva has two professors, one of whom receives $750, and the other $300 per annum.

The exact amount of the funds is not known, but there is no reason to believe that they yield an interest adequate to the present expenses of the institution.

There are twenty-one students, six of them are from this diocess. They pay nothing for their tuition. The expense of board, &c. amounts to about $250 per annum, which is at least twice as much as is paid at the other theological seminaries in our country. Considering the great advantages of fered to candidates for the ministry, the small number of the students cannot be explained, without adverting to the expenses to which they are subjected. To the prosperity and permanence of our institution, two measures seem indispensable; the first, that it should possess a capital, the interest of which should be adequate to all the necessary expenditures; the second, that the maintenance of the students should be so reduced as to render the seminary accessible to our candidates in general. We would therefore recommend the following resolutions:

1. That this convention retain a strong conviction of the necessity and importance of the General Theological Seminary; that we feel grateful to the gentlemen who have taken an active part in the management of the same, and we do assure the General Convention, and the board of trustees, of our determination to co-operate in such

measures as may seem best calculated to insure the stability and improvement of this valuable establishment.

2. That we do respectfully recommend to the board of trustees to continue to make such appeals to the menibers of the church as shall secure to the seminary a sufficient productive capital; to use such endeavours as, in their wisdom, shall seem best adapted to diminish the expenses of maintenance to which the students are now liable, and to appoint for one of their stated meetings some day near to the period assigned for the triennial General Convention, so as to ensure the attendance of those members of the board who reside at a distance from New-York, and who may be on their way to the General Convention.

3. That each minister who has not attended to the request respecting the seminary, made at our last convention, be requested within the present year to attend to it, as expressed in the first and third resolutions then adopted.

4. That the standing committee be instructed to dispose of these resolutions as they shall deem best.

Your committee have ascertained that there are 32 clergymen in this diocess, and that the amount of $7,316 77 cents has been paid to the General Theological Seminary by individuals of this diocess; and, therefore, that according to the constitution of the seminary, our convention is now entitled to nominate eight trustees, which they recommend should be done at the present session.

The following gentlemen were appointed to be nominated to the General Convention as trustees of the General Theological Seminary, on the part of this diocess:-The Rev. Christopher E. Gadsden, D. D. the Rev. Paul T.Gervais, the Rev.Christian Hanckell, the Rev. Allston Gibbes, William Heyward, the Hon. Benjamin Huger, William Clarkson, Thomas Lowndes.

On motion of Mr. Heyward, resolved, that if the amount contributed and paid by this diocess to the Theological Seminary before the meeting of the General Convention, entitle it to any additional trustee, the bishop of the diocess be authorized to appoint such trustee.

The second article of the constitu

For the Christian Journal.

amended so as to read as follows:"Delegates shall be elected by the respective episcopal churches throughout the state, from among the members of those churches respectively, to represent them in the state convention: the delegates to be elected in such manner, time, and numbers, as each church shall deem proper; to serve for twelve months from the time of election; who shall, before they are permitted to take their seats in convention, produce written testimonials of their election.”

The following was added to the constitution as its 12th article:

Of the admission of Churches or Pa

rishes into the Convention. Whenever a church or parish, not now entitled to a representation, shall be desirous of uniting with the convention of the church in this diocess, they shall apply by letter to the bishop, or, when there is no bishop, to the standing committee, stating the due organization of their church, the election of their vestrymen and church-wardens, their means or prospects for the support of a minister, and their willingness to conform to the constitution and canons of the General Convention, and the constitution and canons of the convention of this diocess, which are now, or hereafter may be enacted by authority of the same. And at the convention next succeeding the receipt of such application, the bishop, or standing committee, shall communicate the same to the convention for their decision thereon. Should the convention make a favourable decision, the said church shall then be considered in union with the convention of the church of this diocess, and delegates therefrom may be immediately received.

On motion of Col. Pinckney, resolved, that the next meeting of the convention be held on the third Wednesday of February next.

After prayers, by the bishop, and the blessing, the convention adjourned. The church in this diocess consists of the bishop, 27 presbyters, 4 deacons, and 35 organized congregations.

Episcopalians.

WHEN the word" churchman” is applied to any person, it is at once understood that it means that that person is an episcopalian. This use of the term is very prevalent and decided. Is it a merely accidental custom? or are there reasons for it? And when other denominations question our right to this name, as they sometimes do, (for it was a controversy on this point, in a newspaper, which called for the embodying of the following arguments,) what answer are we to give them? They sometimes urge, that, as our denomination is established in England, they can allow its members to be there called churchmen, in contradistinction to dissenters; but that as we have no secular pre-eminence in this country we ought to drop the title. Are they right? Have episcopalians no claim to that appellation stronger than the secular privileges of their brethren in England? stronger than the few shadows of privilege they once had under the colonial government?

To answer these queries, and give a reason for the distinction we claim as churchmen, will be the object of this paper. The following are among the arguments which will justify the application of that title to episcopalians:

1. Any denomination or body of men has a right to choose its own appellation. Thus the Romanists take the name of Catholics; fancying that, by excommunicating all other Christians, they become the Church Universal. An English sect called themselves Puritans; affecting greater purity in worship and discipline, and in certain departments of morals. The Friends take their name from certain meek notions which they hold to be essential. Another sect assumes the title Unitarian; maintaining a peculiar theory of the unity of the Godhead. A new non-descript sect is venturing on the name of Christians; having, no doubt, their own definition of what constitutes Christianity: nor do they stand alone in the attempt to force modern significations on that word. Now, as these

strife. But as we are the regular church, and as dissenters, whether old or modern, are an irregular part of the church, we have a right to the distinctive name of churchmen.

In conclusion, then, this title is not given to episcopalians, even in England, because that denomination is there established by law; much less can it depend on the few temporal privileges once enjoyed by American episcopalians, or a part of them. We claim the designation of churchmen-because we have a right to choose our name-because we hold the church visible in special regard because the public allows us this character in calling us all churchmen, either high or low-and because we continue in that communion which was "the church" as reformed in the land of our forefathers, and which must, with their descendents, continue to be "the church," from which no separation can be justified, until it shall relapse into corruption. Y. Z.

For the Christian Journal.

Misrepresentations of Arminianism. In a late number of the Christian Journal, I was led to notice the obloquy heaped upon Arminianism by a certain class of writers. It was no part of the object then before me to show that this obloquy is undeserved. This, however, can easily be done: it is no "heresy;" it is no "monster;" both which names have rather ungently been applied to it. They who know what Arminianism is, know that it embodies all the great and distinguishing doctrines of the gospel. This I am now to prove. But lest a question be raised as to the impartiality of a defence coming from defence coming from a soldier of the anti-Calvinistic ranks, I shall use the unexceptionable remarks of a son of the kirk of Scotland. The article " Arminianism," ," in the New Edinburgh Encyclopedia, is the authority I quote.

While on the subject, it will not be irrelevant to adduce the farther testimony of this article in relation to two other points, besides doctrinal purity, in which Arminianism is interested.

That the author of this article in the

Encyclopedia is a Calvinist, is evident from the whole tone of the article. Though he treats "genuine unadulterated Arminianism" very respectfully, he yet gives his opinion, that it is "less scriptural, and less logical than Calvinism." But I proceed to the subjects be

fore me.

First. A full and complete justification of Arminian doctrine is furnished by this writer; who, on the whole, is sufficiently impartial. I ask the attention of the reader to the following extract. I would also desire him to compare it with the misrepresentations of this creed which are current in our day, and in our land: such as "the three envenomed monsters of Arminian, Socinian, and Papal errors." A large quotation is given, in order to afford a pretty full view of one of these “ monsters."

"Arminianism is to be considered as a separation from Calvinism, with regard to the doctrines of unconditional election, particular redemption, and other points necessarily resulting from these. The Calvinists held, that God had elected a certain portion of the human race to eternal life, passing by the rest, or rather dooming them to everlasting destruction; that God's election proceeded upon no prescience of the moral principles and character of those whom he had thus predestinated, but originated solely in the motions of his free and sovereign mercy; that Christ died for the elect only, and therefore that the merits of his death can avail for the salvation of none but them; and that they are constrained by the irre sistible power of divine grace to accept of him as their Saviour. To this doctrine, that of Arminius and his legitimate followers stands opposed. They do not deny an election; but they deny that it is absolute and unconditional. They argue, that an election of this kind is inconsistent with the character of God, that it destroys the liberty of the human will, that it contradicts the language of Scripture, and that it tends to encourage a careless and licentious practice in those by whom it is believed. They maintain, that God has elected those only who, according, not to his decree, but his foreknowledge,

and in the exercise of their natural powers of self-determination, acting under the influence of his grace, would possess that faith and holiness to which salvation is annexed in the gospel scheme. And those who are not elected are allowed to perish, not because they were not elected, but merely and solely in consequence of their infidelity and disobedience; on account, indeed, of which infidelity and disobedience being foreseen by God, their election did not take place. They hold that Christ died for all men in the literal and unrestricted sense of that phrase; that his atonement is able, both from its own merit, and from the intention of him who appointed it, to expiate the guilt of every individual; that every individual is invited to partake of the benefits which it has procured; that the grace of God is offered to make the will comply with this invitation, but that this grace may be resisted and rendered ineffectual by the sinner's perversity. Whether true believers necessarily persevered, or whether they might fall from their faith, and forfeit their state of grace, was a question which Arminius left unresolved, but which was soon determined by his followers in this additional proposition, that saints may fall from the state of grace in which they are placed by the operation of the Holy Spirit. This indeed seems to follow as a corollary, from what Arminius maintained respecting the natural freedom and corruption of the will, and the resistibility of divine grace.'

The reader may compare the above with the 17th article, and see, with the help of a very moderate theological skill, that that article is not Calvinistic.

Secondly. To expose another misrepresentation of Arminianism, I would bring to the reader's notice the common practice of naming every point and every shade of sound gospel doctrine, Calvinism; and beg him to contrast this misnomer with the subjoined extract. If we object to high Calvinism, there is always offered us some lower form of doctrine which is called by that name. If we urge against it, that it maintains absolute election and reprobation, Christ's dying for only a few irresistible grace, and the like, we of

ten hear those tenets disclaimed; yet, when we ask the name of the creed thus pruned, it is still denominated Calvinism. We further inquire, Why call you it by this name? Because, forsooth, it declares the corruption of man, the necessity of the Spirit to change him, and of the Saviour to be his redemption and his righteousness. Thus the opinion is spread, and that pretty industriously, that all who believe these truths are. Calvinists.-On this point, however, hear the testimony of our article in the Encyclopedia.

"It may now be proper to mention some tenets with regard to which Arminianism has been much misrepresented. If a man holds that good. works are necessary to justification;* if he maintain that faith includes good: works in its own nature; if he reject the doctrine of original sin; if he deny that divine grace is requisite for the whole work of sanctification; if he speak of human virtue as meritorious in the sight of God; it is yery generally concluded that he is an Arminian. But the truth is, that a man of such sentiments is more properly a disciple of the Pelagian and Socinian schools. such sentiments pure Arminianism is as diametrically opposite as Calvinism itself is. The genuine Arminians admit the corruption of human nature in its full extent. They admit that we are justified by faith only. They admit that our justification originates solely in the grace of God. They admit that the procuring and meritorious cause of our justification is the righteousness of Christ." "They admit,

To

*Not final justification at the bar of God, for there we are judged according to our works; but that justification which is synonimous with coming in this life to a state of grace. Works done before being in the grace of Christ, say our articles, are not acceptable. They cannot be accepted till we are in this grace; of course they do not contribute to this justification. The "faith" immediately inentioned appertains also to the coming into a state of grace; for after being in that state we "show our faith by our works."

† We omit a passage here, which ascribes to Arminius the tenet, that "justification implies not merely present forgiveness of sin, but acceptance to everiasting happiness." The words quoted from Arminius express by no means so tionem juris in hereditatem vitæ æterna," the unqualified a certainty of final bliss, "collagrant of a right in the inheritance of eternal