those doctrines respecting the human will, and the operations of the Spirit, which have since been held by Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and their disciples. But no perfectionism is known to have arisen under his preaching, or been produced by his writings, or nourished by his influence. Ecclesiastical history furnishes no ground for a conjecture, that his doctrines were ever productive of any of those species of fanaticism which have abounded under other systems of theology.

In the beginning of the seventeenth century arose, in England, the Rev. Tobias Crisp, D. D. In the early stages of his ministry he was manifestly an Arminian. Of him Neal says, that " in his younger days he had been a favourer of Antinomianism."* But Neal seems not to have understood, that Arminianism is the high-way from the salutary doctrines of the Scriptures to Antinomianism, and every other species of Perfectionism. By excluding the influence of the Spirit from the heart, and confining it chiefly to the understanding, it lays the foundation for the immediate guidance, revelations and testimony of the Spirit, which sometimes manifest themselves in slight abrogations of the law, and often supersede every particular of the divine requisitions. It is by immediate revelation, that the Crispian perfectionist professes to know, that he is justified and brought into a relation to God, in which, according to his theology, his own disobedience is transferred to Christ, and the obedience of Christ is transferred to him, so that he is as holy as Christ, and Christ as sinful as he. It is by immediate revelation, that the Arminian perfectionist professes to be informed, at first, of whatever he is to do, and eventually of his personal union with Christ. Under the preaching of Doctor Crisp and his associates, the former species of perfectionism, with its corresponding errours, was widely produced, nourished, and extended.

tract, says, "that besides these metaphysical arguments, which lay open to us the fundamental principles of the Pelagian system of theology, both Pelagius and Celestius cited numerous passages of Scripture in proof of the doctrine of perfection; and these Scriptural arguments were precisely the same, as those adduced at the present day, by our perfectionists, as may be seen by their writings, and still more by those of their antagonists. Against the doctrine of perfection, in particular, as advanced and defended by these men, all the opposers of Pelagianism in that age drew the pen; and especially Jerome and Augustine, who wrote treatises solely to confute this one errour. 33

* Brook's Lives of the Puritans. Vol. II. p. 472. † See Crisp's Works.

About the same time, the Rev. John Owen, D. D. preached the same doctrines respecting the will and regeneration, which Augustine had taught more than one thousand years before. He also published his great work concerning the Spirit, in which he explicitly stated, defined, and defended these doctrines. But no species of Perfectionism is known, or pretended, to have followed its course through the churches and families of England. Wherever it went, it diffused a healthful and abundant piety.

In the beginning of the eighteenth century arose the Rev. John Wesley, confessedly an Arminian. He openly taught the Arminian doctrines of the will, and of the operations of grace. So rapidly did he advance in his system, that early in his career he avowed the doctrine of perfection in this life, and published his "THOUGHTS," respecting it. Though, in sustaining his theory he is not found to coincide with modern perfectionists, in totally rejecting the moral law; yet his views, already related, cannot fail to produce the impression, that such an abatement has been made in its demands, as to tolerate infirmities and errours, both in principle and practice; and, notwithstanding these and similar defects, to declare the sincere disciple to be perfect. The inculcation of these views, in connection with his doctrine respecting the operations of the Spirit on the understanding, was followed by an extensive harvest of fanatical Antinomianism. These effects have, to this day, frequently occurred amongst his disciples.

At the same time, the Rev. George Whitefield, confessedly a Calvinist, began to preach the doctrines which Augustine, Calvin, and Owen, had inculcated. Wherever he went, men were turned to God. Their hearts were warmed with divine love, and their mouths were filled with praise; and this continues to be the characteristic of his disciples. They are as fervent in their affections, devotions, and attachments to Christ and to the interests of His kingdom, as those of Wesley; and yet no species of Perfectionism is known to have made inroads upon them. Their warm piety has been preserved from those aberrations which have so frequently occurred under the doctrines of Wesley.

From all the preceding facts and reasonings we are, compelled to conclude, that Augustinism, or Calvinism is in no respect the parent of Perfectionism. It has not only never

produced a company of perfectionists, but actually preserved its fervent disciples from this errour, in circumstances where many children of other systems have fallen. Nor has there ever come forth from its ranks, a single champion to defend this heresy; while on the other hand, Pelagius, Celestius, and occasionally, to this day, some one of their successors, have inculcated its doctrines, defended them, or protected those who received them. We are also compelled to conclude, that the Pelagian, or Arminian doctrine of the will, is a fundamental prerequisite to that instruction respecting the Spirit, which produces Perfectionism; and this will be fanatical, just in proportion to the frequency and earnestness with which these views of the Spirit are inculcated, and to the degree of confidence with which they are received.

ope

It has been wisely said, that it would be well for the Arminian system entirely to exclude the doctrine of the influences of the Spirit in regeneration. This remark seems to have been suggested by the fact, that it appears to furnish little or no cause for His intervention. But however feeble the call, which the necessities of this system make for His operations, the doctrine itself is maintained: and as the current, whose course is impeded, seeks some other passage, regardless of consequences; so this system, by excluding the truth that the Spirit operates on the heart, compels its disciples to interpret and apply all the descriptions of the ration to the understanding, or the conscience. Under a theory which reduces them to this necessity, it would be strange indeed, if they are not found to assign to the Spirit some work of supererogation on the understanding. But any attempt to compress into the channel of the understanding, the whole current of scriptural representations respecting the operations of grace on the other faculties of man, cannot fail to produce an overwhelming accumulation of passages and descriptions, which however consistent with such an application, must be so interpreted as to relate to this faculty alone. This accumulation must break forth in extravagant and mystical descriptions of the work of the Spirit. Thus it is easy to see how it has occurred, that He is described as "operating on the truth," "illuminating the truth," "persuading the will," "raising ideas in the brain," "debating with men," and "revealing to the Saints what

God is about to do." These descriptions of His operations, are the sparks from which the fires of modern Perfectionism and its correlative branches of fanaticism are kindled. And every serious attempt to combine the doctrine of the Spirit, with Pelagian views of the will, and then to apply them to the practical regeneration and sanctification of men, will be found, sooner or later, to result in effects equally deformed.

ART. II. AMERICAN CRITICISM ON AMERICAN LITERATURE.*

By EDWARD S. GOULD, New-York.

THE title of " American Criticism on American Literature" has been chosen for the following remarks, because it is more concise than any other that suggested itself: but, to ensure a distinct understanding, at the commencement, of what is proposed, it may be well to explain, that the term "American Literature," in this instance, refers exclusively to that part of our Polite Literature generally designated as "fictitious writings;" and that the criticisms on the various works of that character, as they appear in our daily and weekly papers, monthly magazines, and quarterly reviews, will be the principal subject of discussion.

The Polite Literature of America has thus far been prolific beyond all precedent in other countries-beyond all expectation in our own. Within the short period of fifty years, it has increased, from a few straggling volumes, to the full compass of a National Library. It already embraces works in every department of letters, and has attained an excellence and a celebrity which no other people, of age and advantages similar to our own, have equalled. Here, as in every chapter of our country's history, may be read the proof of our unparalleled national growth; and perhaps this is the only instance in which there is reason to fear that our progress is too rapid, and our growth unsound.

It is true that, in many departments of abstract science, as well as in Theology, in Law, in Medicine and Surgery,

* A Lecture delivered before the MERCANTILE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION of NewYork, and now published by request. ED.

in Oratory, and in the Mechanical Arts, we have attained a degree of excellence that, probably, is not surpassed by any people under the sun. But in Polite, Literature, our American writers have much to accomplish ere they can stand side by side with the gifted authors of older climes, who draw their first breath in the very groves of the Academy, and inhale inspiration with every breeze that sweeps over the tombs of the immortal dead. I would not, however, by such an allusion, detract one iota from the actual merits of our own writers; nor imply, that the distance between our national literature and that of other countries is impassable. I would, rather, exult in the belief that our writers have already won laurels of enduring freshness and beauty; that, whatever may be our comparative deficiencies, our career in Polite Literature is, now, no more an experiment than the principles and power of the Constitution which cements our Union together; and, that our literary immortality is now no more a matter of contingency, than the question whether our country is rapidly advancing to the highest pitch of national grandeur.

In fact, our having attained excellence in both Literature and the Fine Arts, is not, and cannot be a subject of doubt; but an inquiry must necessarily arise as to the degree of that excellence, and the answer involves high interests, and requires great consideration.

To a certain extent, our improvement in those departments may have kept pace with our national prosperity; but there is a point where (for various reasons) mental acquisition ceases to proceed with the same rapidity as mere physical growth-and at that point we have some time since arrived. For while our country has advanced far toward the summit of physical eminence and power, she is yet, as regards Literature and the Arts, far below the highest attainable elevation of fame. A mere reference to names will sustain this assertion. We have sculptors, painters, novelists, and poets; but we have not a CANOVA, a RAPHAEL, a SCOTT, or a SHAKSPEARE. Nay, we not only have them not, but the incidental repetition of their very names seems to send a chill of discouragement and despair through the mind, even when excited by its wildest hopes and boldest imaginings.

But, although such discouragement is the natural conse