and it also distinctly adheres to the Canons of the Synod of Dort on the famous "Five Points," among which are Predestination, Election, and Perseverance. The two great Baptist bodies of the land, the "Regular Baptists " and the "Baptists South," are distinctively Calvinistic in their creeds; the latter especially pronounced in the third article, on "God's decrees." To these add the numerous and influential Trinitarian Congregationalists, who have indeed no one authoritative human platform, but whose Calvinistic belief is vastly in preponderance. Other bodies need not be mentioned, though there are others still, outside the Presbyterian fold, and not unimportant.

That the creeds of these Churches are held with various degrees of strictness we are all aware. The doctrinal creed of the Episcopal Church sits lightly on its clergy, although there are not a few firm Calvinists in its communion. Our Reformed brethren hold the Augustinian theology with tenacity; while among the Baptists, both North and South, are found many of the most uncompromising Calvinists in the land. Even after due allowance for the men who do not profess to hold their doctrinal creed in any strict way, it is yet probable that the Calvinistic doctrines are professedly held by at least half the Evangelical Churches and ministers in America.

These Churches have their theological seminaries, whose Professors teach their doctrines; they have their ordaining bodies, examining candidates for the ministry, and requiring assent to the standards; and some of them have more or less authoritative expositions of the standards, written by their men of highest mark, and published with the denominational imprint. Now whether these theological teachers and ministers would assent to the proposition that the Arminian revolution of opinion has nearly eliminated [" eliminate, to expel, to thrust out"-Webster] the Augustinian theology, it is for them to say. They would probably deem the question, if propounded to them, the most extraordinary one they were ever called to answer.

Possibly. And when we affirm and they deny, the fair issue is made.

Our respected brother will note that our question is not what theological professors teach in their schools, nor what are the printed articles of faith accepted by the ministry, nor what the preachers themselves believe, nor what they claim to FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXV.-19

Speaking now from the Presbyterian stand-point, I deem it true to say that whatever changes in doctrinal views, or in forms of doctrinal statement, have occurred among us, these changes have not been the result of the progress of Arminian

have, as a whole, preached. It is, What kind of sermons do the people in Presbyterian pews hear?

If a census could be taken, we think it would be found that there are now in the Presbyterian and Congregational Churches, induced by personal or other advantages, many thousands of Methodists, or at least Arminians, by education and belief. If all the Arminians in Presbyterian pews were to evacuate, they would leave a decidedly thinned Church. When questioned about it their uniform reply is, "We hear no preaching to which a Methodist could object." When we state the doctrines of the Presbyterian Articles, they reply that "no such doctrines are now preached." If the thousands of Methodists in this position were all asked at once, in every part of the land, we have every reason to believe, by fair induction from ample facts of our own experience, that such would be their unanimous answer.

So late as the last evening before this present writing we were accidentally informed by a well-educated gentleman of Methodist principles and antecedents that for the last two years he had attended the Presbyterian Churches in various parts of the country, and had "never heard any Calvinism." The two years previous to that his father, a leading Methodist layman, and himself had been temporary members of a Congregational Church in Ohio, and both agreed that during that time they never heard a sentiment advanced which they did not, as Methodists, believe. He added, "They do not preach Calvinism anywhere as they used to." All this was said, as usual, by way of eulogy upon them as "liberal" preachers, and in self-defense for attending and supporting their ministry. When, however, we recalled to his mind the real doctrines of Calvinism, as assented to by these preachers, especially as contained in the Presbyterian Articles, and asked him whether (saying nothing against the character of the men) the discrepancy was not a "fact of duplicity," he admitted the statement. When we asked, then, what right, as a layman, he had to support even the best of men in a "duplicity," he admitted that he had never thought of it in that light before. Our friend added that the Sunday previous he had heard a talented clergyman of Newburgh preach a sermon in which the doctrine of freewill was clearly brought out; and when we informed him that the free will which said clergyman held was a freedom to choose but one possible way fixed by the strongest motive, just as a clock-hammer could strike but one possible way, determined by the strongest force, he acknowledged himself to have been deceived. Our friend excusingly added that these men had unfortunately inherited their creed; to which we replied, first, that it was perfectly in their power to change their Articles, or to enter an Arminian Church; and second, that they ought not at any rate to bravely boast, like our friend Dr. Aikman, that they held them as firmly and preached them as abundantly and strictly as they ever did. The essence of this conversation we have had occur countless times; and we believe there are few middle-aged Methodist preachers who have not received similar testimony not only from laymen similarly circumstanced, but from the regularborn Presbyterian membership.

Since writing the above we have put the question to a leading Methodist minister of New Jersey, between whom and Dr. Aikman a cordial friendship exists:

ism. It would probably be true to assert that the "Arminian revolution" has had little or no appreciable influence in producing them.

The Methodist Church is rapidly becoming † a theological

"What proof is there that predestination has ceased to be preached?" Ample proof, he in substance promptly replied, from the common statements of the Presbyterian membership. Talk with them, and they will uniformly reply, "No such doctrines are preached to us now." He named one of the most accomplished Presbyterian ministers of New Jersey who declared that he had never written but one sermon on the decrees in his life, and that he had not looked at it for many years. The Editor of the "Methodist," to whom Dr. Aikman replies, has probably had far better advantages to know what preaching comes from the average Presbyterian pulpits than Dr. Aikman himself. He is a Master in Theology. He has for years preached but once a Sabbath, and has habitually attended the various worships in New York and Brooklyn. He is amply familiar with the Presbyterian Churches, and his editorial under discussion is the result of years of personal observation, and its statements, we think, nearly correct.

*The following paragraph is intended to be generous; but, from the writer's unacquaintance with our doctrinal history, is disparaging to such a degree that no well-informed Methodist would accept it.

"Becoming"? We had imagined, and still entertain no doubt, that we were "a theological power in the land" nearly a century ago; a far greater power in the "Calvinistic controversy" than since. On this subject we call our respected brother's attention to the passage on Methodist Theology quoted from the "London Quarterly" in the Synopsis of our last number.

We assure him that the systematic precision in its theology there ascribed to Methodism has existed in America from the beginning. Wesleyan Methodism took a strongly definite form originally in England in a controversy with Calvinism which shook the whole Methodistic movement to its center. Wesley found the Calvinism of Toplady, Rowland Hill, and Whitefield not only so at issue with his own moral sense, but so adverse to the conversion of souls, that he found it necessary to shake it off with a giant effort from Methodism before Methodism could go forth in triumph to the four quarters of the globe. Calvinistic Methodism shrunk into the mountains of Cambria, where it still dwells. Calvinistic Methodism is Wales-wide, Arminian Methodism is world-wide. Our Methodism then took a complete symmetrical theological form. With that same theology, clearly understood and firmly grasped, our Methodism came to America. She found Calvinism in full possession, and an obstacle in her own way in bringing souls to Christ. Our anti-Calvinistic principles, embodied in Wesley's Sermons and Notes, the Doctrinal Tracts, and Fletcher's Checks, issued from the Book Room, were in the saddle-bags, we may roughly say, of every circuit rider. They formed his well-studied body of theology. And what is specially to be marked is this-the several doctrinal affirmations of Methodism are each and all immediate spiritual forces to the production of conversion and holiness. A Methodist preacher is not obliged, as Dr. Aikman will soon tell us that Nettleton did, to postpone his doctrinal sermon to the end of a revival. Every Methodist sermon in a revival is the preaching of a Methodist doctrine, and, divested of dogmatic technicals, tells on the conversion of sinners and the perfecting of saints. And when Dr. Aikman tells us,

power in the land, but its distinctive work, until of late, has been its practical work of Christian aggression. Its energy and success.in this we all acknowledge to the glory of God. To speak thus is no more disparaging to your Church than it

as he soon will, that Coke and Asbury had something higher to do than to preach Arminianism, we reply, Certainly not; to preach Arminianism was their highest duty, and they did it plentifully and well. The doctrine of free-will (disburdened of necessity or predestination) flung all the responsibility of sin on the sinner; the doctrine of unlimited atonement (disburdened of partial reprobation) opened free salvation for ALL; the doctrine of "gracious ability" encouraged and brought the sinner to faith; the doctrine of the witness of the Spirit led the convert to communion with God; the doctrine of possible apostasy warned him to maintain the constant assurance of a present salvation; the doctrine of entire sanctification inspired him to whole-souled effort for the attainment of every height of holiness. It was this emancipation of the Gospel and of the sinner from all fatalistic shackles, this glad proclamation of a free, a full, and a perfected salvation from sin, in short, this anti-Calvinism, thrilling through every nerve and fiber of Methodism, that has caused her to bound exulting as the roe through the earth.

Now we repeat it, emphatically repeat it, dear Dr. Aikman, Methodism in her joyous and saving career did find Calvinism the dark and baneful antithesis and obstacle to these glorious truths. Calvinism taught the sinner that God willed his every sin; it taught him that all his choices were the necessary effect of circumstances; it drove him into hopelessness by the decree of reprobation; it made God a monster who damns men for the sin he has decreed; it taught the believer that he must never indulge the full assurance of salvation, and at the same time claimed to comfort him by telling him that if he is a Christian, he may live at his ease, he can never be lost; it checked his aspirations for holiness, and made him easy in lukewarmness to be assured that he must expect no complete earthly power over sin. Numbers of our early preachers, having been educated as Calvinists, knew by terrible experience its pernicious effects through years of Antinomianism, or reprobate despair, or hatred of God as depicted by Calvinism. Others encountered it in the excuses and pleas of sinners for sin, truly unanswerable, assuming Calvinism to be true. Others encountered it in the deadness and formality of Churches lying on the lees of assured perseverance and necessary sin fulness. Others encountered it in the skepticism which its repulsive picture of God and its appalling doctrine of reprobation for decreed sin presented. From one end of their extent to the other our ministry put on their high Arminian armor, and for fifty years at least, with an ability seldom surpassed, poured broadsides from their ranks. The large body of the first generation of Methodists in some sections had been Calvinists, or were people who had never heard any Gospel but election and reprobation, and were shriveling into indifference and infidelity by reaction against it. The news of a free salvation called them as alive from the dead. Our own personal ancestry, originally Calvinistic, became Methodists. Our own boyhood and young manhood witnessed and shared the fervor of the battle. So far from there having been no "collision," as Brother Aikman imagines, there was probably but a small minority of towns where the opposing influences did not meet and mingle and modify each other. In this way a great and powerful people has been formed largely from among Calvinists. But for twenty-five years past it has

is to our country, to say that it is just becoming a literary and scientific power in the world. It is the glory of a man, of a Church, and of a nation, to do the work which God puts on either to do first. As you well say, Whitefield did not come to spread his Calvinism in America; and so did not Coke and Asbury go forth to the prodigious labors of their lives that Arminianism might be spread. These all had other and higher work to do. So true is this, that the Articles of Faith of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, adopted in 1784, contain no distinctive Arminianism; nothing whatever to which a Calvinist cannot cordially subscribe. This shows the life-purpose of Wesley, by whom the Twenty-five Articles were sent over to this country, and also of the pioneers of Methodism in America, whose imperishable work was built upon so broad a charity.*

Having performed these labors you have lately entered upon others, organizing colleges and theological schools,† (not made strong in a day,) with men of mark and learning at their head, such as the honored men near me, with whom it is my privilege to have Christian and profitable association. Your time has come to issue commentaries, to produce theological tomes, to compact into printed forms your system of belief, and logicsounded along our lines that the battle is over. All through the land we understand from Methodists familiar with Calvinistic Churches, from their own membership, and from eminent ministers of those Churches, that Calvinism is seldom preached. The result of this impression, sharply as our amiable brother resents it, has been PEACE. The preaching of our own doctrines has taken the pure practical form, and direct antagonisms against Calvinism have generally ceased. As the field has broadened and the population has thickened, each side has had enough to do without antagonizing the other. And then they have so often found each other blessed auxiliaries, side by side, in the same blessed work of Christian good-doing, that they have forgotten to debate.

There is nothing in our Articles against Universalism. Dr. Aikman forgets that Wesley's Notes and Sermons are as truly theological standards, on strict theological points, as our Articles.

It was not by theological schools that Christianity overthrew Paganism, but by an appeal ad populum. Without any such schools, until very lately, the doctrinal system of world-wide Methodism has been all that the "London Quarterly Review" claims; far more precise, consistent, and systematic, and far more firmly and unitedly held, than Calvinism with all her schools and tomes.

On the contrary, our age of great commentaries seems to have long passed. For nearly a century our Book Concern has issued in huge quartos and octavos the Commentaries of Wesley, Adam Clarke, Joseph Benson, Dr. Coke, and Richard Watson. Their great excellence has forestalled enterprise. We were endowed at start with