We should like to ask any theological professor or reader if he ever saw such five points of Calvinism and Arminianism as these before? We never did.

Notice now that this is what is given as the second point of Calvinism! "Jesus Christ by his sufferings and death made an atonement only for the sins of the elect." Let the reader turn back to the second point as we have quoted it, (p. 292,) and see how strong is the language concerning the sacrifice of Christ :

“Of infinite value and price, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world; - but because many who are called by the Gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief. This doth not arise from defect, or insufficiency of the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but from their own fault."

Does the "Congregationalist," do any but Universalists, believe that the purpose of God in the death of Christ extends to the actual redemption of all mankind? Redemption in its root meaning, and as the older theologians use it, is actual purchase: it is deliverance from bondage, as well as the ground of deliverance; it is the act of procuring release; ransom. Indeed, we have shown (p. 288) this to be the second point of Arminianism as presented to the Synod of Dort: "That Christ, by his death and sufferings, made an atonement for the sins of all mankind in general, and of every individual in particular."

Again, the " Congregationalist" gives this as the fourth

point of Calvinism:

"That God effectually calls, in time, those whom he elected from eternity, giving them grace and salvation by means of his Word and Spirit; without their concurrence, working in them newness of life."

Let the reader again turn back to the fourth point of Calvinism (p. 292) and judge for himself what language should be applied to such perversion; and that too under the plea of "refreshing the popular mind in regard to the exact position of Calvin and his principal opponents, that the means of judgment may be within the reach of all!"

Specially let the reader note, under the fourth point, (p. 292,) the following:

"This divine grace of regeneration does not act upon men like stocks and trees, nor take away the properties (proprietates) of his will; or violently compel it, while unwilling; but it spiritually quickens, heals, corrects, and sweetly, and at the same time powerfully, inclines it; so that, whereas it before was wholly governed by the rebellion and resistance of the flesh, now prompt and sincere obedience of the spirit may begin to reign; in which the renewal of our spiritual will, and our liberty, truly consist."

Under the fifth point of Arminianism, the "Congregationalist" gives, "Yet man can by his own act fall away from this state of grace."

Under the fifth point, as presented to the Synod of Dort, (see p. 289,) it is, "Whether such may fall from their faith, and forfeit finally this state of grace, has not yet been resolved with sufficient perspicuity." &c.

The "Congregationalist" makes its third point of Arminianism to differ widely from its third point of Calvinism. Whereas in reality they differ very slightly indeed, both referring man's inability to do good to "his natural corruption." But we have not space to point out half the misrepresentations of the two articles in question. We will only give the reader a specimen of the special pleading in favor of compromise, which is drawn by the editor from the basis which he seems to have improvised for this special purpose. See, as he turns alternately from one

to the other, what sudden and great changes of countenance! With fearful frowns and ugly grimaces now he scowls upon Calvinism, then turns and smiles sweetly and wooingly upon Arminianism.

"Original Calvinism taught that Christ died for the elect only so that, under no circumstances, could the non-elect be saved. Original Arminianism taught that he died for all men, so that all might be saved if they would repent and believe. Original Calvinism taught that, in consequence of the propagation of a vicious nature from Adam after his fall, all his posterity are born the bond-slaves of sin, and inheritors of damnation, neither able nor willing of themselves to make any attempt to return to God. Original Arminianism taught that, as a matter of fact, man is incompetent to faith without God's help, and needs to be born again. Original Calvinism taught that God effectually calls the elect without any concurrence of theirs in the act, or any power of theirs to resist it. Original Arminianism taught that the elect are saved by divine grace working with their faith, but compelling no man. . . . The two systems were constructed from two radically different points of view. The one stood where, in seeing the glory of God, it lost sight of something of the nature of man; the other, where, looking both on God and man, it strove to present the truth so as to harmonize the perfections and revelations of the one, with the rights (!) and consciousness of the other. . . . . The Synod give us unconditional election and reprobation; a limited atonement; human nature without free-will, except in the direction of sin, and, from birth-connection with Adam, damnable on account of its evil; yet powerless in itself, for good; with a salvation as irresistible to the elect, as it is impossible to the rest of the race, and which cannot fail of heaven. The Remonstrants give us an election which is conditioned upon foresight of faith; an atonement for all men; human nature, sinful, and needing to be born again by the grace of God through Christ; with a salvation in which man coöperates with God, and which human agency may wholly thwart. The one- with all its truth is the theology of absolute inability, and a distant Saviour, and an uncertain Holy Ghost, and of waiting for God to do his work, -his strange work if he please and when he please; the otherwith all its error contains the germs of the theology of natural ability, and holds forth a present Saviour, and an ever-pleading Spirit, and exhorts all men daily, while it is called to-day, to hear God's voice now in an accepted time and a day of salvation. (!!) . . . . . Such are, however, the Calvinism and Arminianism concerning which the

....

'Congregationalist' once used the phrase, in medio tutissimus ibis. . . It suggested the inquiry, whether there may not be something more blessed even than Calvinism; something more awful than even Arminianism."

Mirabile dictu! What impossibility remains after this? White is black, and black is white, after all, though we never saw how they could be before. Verily, Hercules and Minerva were no great things to have lived after April 1, 1859.

The editor closes up his article and achievements with a furious assault upon somebody (it was before our day) for what he conceives to be misrepresentation of facts! and upon the wickedness in general of perverting a man's words! The maxim that "It takes a rogue to catch a rogue" must have a flaw in it somewhere.

We did suppose such zealous advocacy to be equivalent to frank confession of compromise between Arminianism and Calvinism. But perhaps the word "frank" should not be so employed, when we remember that the introduction of Arminianism, as in the days of the Synod of Dort, and of early Unitarianism, has always been accompanied by denial of real departure from established truth. It is at first always affirmed to be but a difference of explanation or philosophy. Doubtless many who, like "Parley the Porter," open the door a little to the enemy, really think him to be a friend; they are not aware that they are making a breach in the dam which the rushing waters will fearfully enlarge. We are willing to make great allowance for good intentions, especially when they are meant to be in the interest of divine truth; but we must be allowed to open the eyes of the churches to the dangers of all similar beginnings of Arminianism. If the "Congregationalist" could only afford to be high-minded, honorable, and true in its spirit and discussions, it might, with its sprightly abilities and warm sympathies, accomplish much good. But if the churches are to receive their opinions of the fathers and standards of the denomination through such monstrous perversions as those which we have exposed, then have we occasion bitterly to say with Isaiah, "The prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail; for the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed." Such is Historic Arminianism, ancient and modern - ever

an alloy of truth-a compromising leaven which tendeth powerfully to corruption. The same in reality, it can be traced from the days in which the Apostle wrote to the Collossians, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit," down to the present tendency to soften down Bible creeds, and pare away the rough angles of doctrinal preaching in order that the Gospel may be made more acceptable to carnal reason. It does not yet reject the supernatural eventsthe miracles of the Bible; but it seeks to put away most that is supernatural in religious faith.

It holds the position in relation to Rationalism which moderate drinking holds to drunkenness which the respectable, cautious drinking-house holds to the open or low groggery-which disease holds to death, it lets its subjects down gently and often unconsciously.

ARTICLE VII.

LITERARY NOTICES.

The Congregational Quarterly, April, 1861. Conducted under the sanction of the Congregational Library Association and The American Congregational Union. By Rev. J. S. CLARK, D. D., H. M. Dexter, A. H. QUINT, and I. P. LANGWORTHY. Boston: Congregational Building, Chauncey Street.

THIS is a good number of an excellent magazine. It has interesting statistics from that peerless statistical man, the Rev. A. H. Quint, several instructive articles from the careful and never-weary pen of the Rev. Dr. J. S. Clark, and an admirable discussion of the question "Where do Scholars and Great Men come from?" by the Rev. I. N. Tarbox, presenting a well-digested mass of curious and valuable facts, and administering much needed correction to the author of the "Professor's Story," in the vein of quiet satire which comes so easy to the Secretary. There are other articles of marked interest from different and practised pens, and the number is embellished by a beautiful steel engraving of John Cotton, "father of Boston." The