conveyed to all his posterity, from which proceed all actual transgressions; and that by sin we are made subject to death, and all miseries, temporal, spiritual, and eternal. 4thly. That all whom God has predestined to life, he is pleased, in his appointed time, effectually to call by his word and spirit out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ. And 5thly. That those whom God has effectually called and sanctified by his spirit shall never finally fall from a state of grace. Some have supposed that the Trinity was one of the five points; but this is a mistake, since both the Calvinists and Arminians, who formed the synod of Dort (where this phrase, five points, originated) were on the article of the Trinity generally agreed. The most prominent feature of this system is, the election of some, and repro bation of others, from all eternity.

The Calvinists found their sentiments of election on the expression of the Saviour, respecting his having chosen his disciples out of the world; and more particularly on certain terms used by the apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans. To the epistolary writers, indeed, they more frequently refer than to any other part of the New Testament. The chief advantage of this system, in the opinion of its advocates, is, to produce in us a most reverential awe when we.

look up to God, and the profoundest humility when we look down upon ourselves.

To the Calvinists also belongs more particularly the doctrine of atonement, or that Christ, by his death, made satisfaction to the divine justice for the elect, appeasing the anger of the Divine Being, and effecting on his part a reconciliation. Thus Jesus Christ had the sin of the elect laid upon him; and in this sense, Luther said that JESUS CHRIST was the greatest sinner in the world!!! The sentiment is fully expressed by Dr. Watts in these lines:

"Rich were the drops of Jesu's blood,
"That calm'd his frowning face,
"That sprinkled o'er the burning throne,
And turn'd the wrath to grace."

The manner also in which other Calvinistic writers have expressed themselves on the death of Christ, may be seen by consulting the Universal Theological Magazine, for November 1802, where Mr. R. Wright of Wisbeach, has collected together passages illustrative of the subject. This doctrine, however, is reprobated by some of their divines, who consider the death of Christ (with the Arians and Sabellians) as simply a medium through which God has been pleased to exercise mercy towards the penitent. Hence it has been remarked, that God is represented as reconciling by the death of Christ, not himself to

72 SUBLAPSARIANS AND SUPRALAPSARIANS.

man, but man to himself. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, 2 Cor. v. 19. See Mr. Fuller's publication, entitled The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems compared, which is admired by some of the Calvinists, but condemned by others of them, as not coming up to the full standard of orthodoxy*.

But to ascertain the real sentiments of this body 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 Mr. Pye Smith in favour of Calvinism; the other by Mr. T. Belsham, as a reply to it.

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

* Dr. Toulmin and Mr. Kentish replied to this work, whilst Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham, against whom it was written, did not think proper to answer it.

SUBLAPSARIANS AND SUPRALAPSARIANS. 73

:

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 predestination, but with this difference, that the former supposes 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 Supralapsarians, 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.

E

Calvin, in his Institutes, states and defends at large the principles of the system. It is written in elegant Latin, is dedicated to Francis the First, King of France, and the dedication has been admired for its boldness and magnanimity.

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.

ARMINIANS.

The Arminian favours the tenets of Arminius, the disciple of Beza, and latterly an eminent professor of divinity at Leyden, who flourished about the year 1600. Thinking the doctrine of Calvin with regard to free-will, predestination, and grace, directly 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 nearly 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.