It would be a task far from difficult to collect the opinion of the primitive Fathers on these subjects, and to point out their coincidence with the doctrines of the established church. Those of them that flourished nearest to the days of the apostles, such as Tertullian, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, &c. and those venerable ecclesiastics that presided at the council of Nice in Bithynia, and united, at the instance of Constantine the Great, in condemning the heresy of Arius; or the not less respectable names of Augustin and Hierom, who so ably defended the truth against the subtleties and errors of Pelagius;—are authorities in our favor, not only venerable for their antiquity, but, what is more valuable, for the purity and consistency of those systems, in which they guard the truth and combat error, even when abetted by such heræsiarchs as Arius and Pelagius; the former at the head of those, who blaspheme the Deity of the Son of God; and the latter, of those that deny the fall. But, to come nearer home. In the reign of James I. several of our English bishops were sent over by that monarch to the synod of Dort, which was convened for the purpose of examining and condemning the tenets of Arminius. Among these the names of Bishop Hall, and Davenant, shine with distinguished lustre. In the reigns of Edward the VIth, and Queen Elizabeth, the doctrines contained in the 39 articles, and the two books of _homilies_, received the sanction of both houses of parliament; and the former were compiled expressly for the purpose of “avoiding diversity of opinions.” The doctrines contained in them receive no small recommendation from such excellent reformers as Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Hooper; men that sealed the truth with their blood. Let any man of common honesty and candor but read over the homilies and articles, and then say, whether they do not avow, as consonant to the sacred scriptures, those tenets, which, by many, and even by persons that have subscribed them, are, in the present day, branded with terms the most opprobrious. I appeal to the common sense of any man, whether the 1_st_ _Article_ does not expressly and unequivocally receive the doctrine of _the Trinity_—the 2d, the divinity and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father—the 9th, the doctrine of _original sin_—the 10th, the inability of the human will without the prevenient operation of the grace of Christ—the 11th, the nature of _justification_, not by works, but by the merits of Christ—the 13th, the inefficacy, and even sinfulness, of works antecedent to “the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit”—whether the 15th does not disavow the notion of impeccability in this life—and whether the 17th does not as expressly, but more copiously, and, if possible, more unambiguously, state the doctrine of election.