TheReformersandtheTheologyof

theReformation

byWilliamCunningham

TableofContents

LeadersoftheReformationLutherTheReformersandtheDoctrineofAssuranceMelancthonandtheTheologyoftheChurchofEnglandZwingliandtheDoctrineoftheSacramentsJohnCalvinCalvinandBezaCalvinismandArminianismCalvinismandtheDoctrineofPhilosophicalNecessityCalvinismandItsPracticalApplicationTheReformersandtheLessonsFromTheirHistory

LeadersoftheReformation

TheReformation fromPopery in the sixteenthcenturywas the greatestevent,orseriesofevents,thathasoccurredsincethecloseofthecanonofScripture;andthemenwhoarereallyentitledtobecalledthe“LeadersoftheReformation” have a claim tomore respect and gratitude than anyotherbodyofuninspiredmen thathaveever influencedoradorned thechurch.TheReformationwascloselyconnectedinvariouswayswiththedifferent influenceswhichabout thatperiodwereaffecting forgood thegeneral condition of Europe, and, in combination with them, it aidedlargelyinintroducingandestablishinggreatimprovementsinallmattersaffectingliterature,civilization,liberty,andsocialorder.Themovement,however, was primarily and fundamentally a religious one; and all themost important questions that may be started about its character andconsequences, should be decided by tests and considerations properlyapplicable to the subject of true religion. The Reformers claimed to beregardedasbeingengagedinareligiouswork,whichwasinaccordancewith God’s revealed will, and fitted to promote the spiritual welfare ofmen;andweareatonceentitledandboundto judgeof themand theirwork,byinvestigatingandascertainingthevalidityofthisclaim.

There are two leading aspects in which the Reformation, viewed as awhole, may be regarded: the onemore external and negative, and theothermoreintrinsicandpositive.Inthefirstaspectitwasagreatrevoltagainst theseeofRome,andagainst theauthorityof thechurchandofchurchmen in religious matters, combined with an assertion of theexclusive authority of theBible, and of the right of allmen to examineand interpret it for themselves. In the second andmore important andpositive aspect, theReformationwas the proclamation and inculcation,upontheallegedauthorityofScripture,ofcertainviewsinregardtothesubstance of Christianity or the way of salvation, and in regard to theorganization and ordinances of the Christian church. Many men haveapproved and commended the Reformation, viewed merely as arepudiationofhumanauthorityinreligion,andanassertionoftherightofprivatejudgment,andoftheexclusivesupremacyoftheScripturesas

the rule of faith, who have not concurred in the leading views of theReformers in regard to Christian theology and church organization. Inthis sense, rationalists and latitudinarians have generally professed toadopt and act upon what they call the principles of the Reformation,while theyrejectall the leadingdoctrinesof theReformers.Menof thisclassusuallyattempt topayoff theReformerswith thecreditofhavingemancipatedmankindfromecclesiasticalthraldom,establishedtherightof private judgment, and done something to encourage the practice offreeinquiry.ButwhilegivingtheReformerscreditforthesethings,theyhave often rejected the leading doctrines of the Reformation upontheological and ecclesiastical subjects, and have been in the habit ofclaiming to themselves the creditofhaving succeeded,by followingoutthe principles of the Reformation, in educing, either from Scripture orfrom their own speculations, more accurate and enlightened doctrinalviewsthantheReformerseverattainedto.Therehasbeenagreatdealofthissort of thingput forthbothby rationalists and latitudinarianswhoprofessed to admit the authority of the Christian revelation, and byinfidelswho denied it. Dr. Robertson in his Life of Charles v. spoke ofsomedoctrinal discussions of that period in such terms as justly to layhimself open to the following rebuke of Scott, the son of thecommentator, in his excellent continuation of Milner’s “History of theChurchofChrist.”

“It is manifest what is the character that Dr. Robertson here affects,whichisthatofthephilosopherandthestatesman, inpreference, ifnottothedisparagementofthatoftheChristiandivine.Thisisentirelytothetasteofmoderntimes,andwillbesuretosecuretohimthepraiseoflargeandliberalviewsamongthosewhoregardahighsenseoftheimportanceof revealed truth, and all ‘contending earnestly for the faith oncedeliveredtothesaints,’astheinfalliblemarkofnarrow-mindednessandbigotry.”

Dr. Campbell of Aberdeen, too, who was a very great pretender tocandour,has, inthelastofhis lecturesonecclesiasticalhistory,madeitmanifest thatheconsideredthechiefbenefitswhich theReformershadconferredupon theworld to be, the setting an example of free inquiry,and the exposing of church tyranny, superstitious and idolatrous

practices, and clerical artifices; and that he despised all their zealouseffortsandcontendingsinrestoringthepuregospelofthegraceofGod-the truesystemofChristian theology -asconversant only, according tothe common cant of latitudinarians, with metaphysical subtleties andscholasticjargon.

Buttheclimax,perhaps,ofthispracticeofpayingofftheReformerswithsomecommendationoftheirservicesinpromotingfreeinquiry,whilealltheirleadingdoctrinesarerejected,istobefoundinthefacts,thatinourown day such a man as Bretschneider wrote a “Dissertatio deRationalismoLutheri,”andthatWegscheiderdedicatedhis“InstitutionesTheologiseChristianseDogmaticse,”whichisjustasystemofDeisminasortofChristiandress,“PiisManibusMartiniLutheri,”mainlyupontheground that he had opened up liberty of thought, and encouragedposteritytoadvancemuchfartherinthepathonwhichhehadentered.

Asomewhatdifferentaspectofthismatterhasbeenpresentedbycertainwriters,whoarenotdisposedtoallowtotheReformerseventhecreditofhaving encouraged arid promoted free inquiry. It has been alleged thatthere is littleornothingsaid inthewritingsof theReformersabouttheright and duty of private judgment, and that the absence of this,combinedwith their great zeal forwhat they reckoned truth, and theirstrenuousandvehementoppositiontowhattheyreckonederror,provedthat after all they were nothing better than narrow-minded bigots.Hallam, in his “Literature of Europe during the 15th, 16th, and 17thcenturies,”hassomestatementstothiseffect;andthefactsonwhichhefounds are in the main true, though they certainly do not warrant hisconclusions.Itmust,however,wefear,beconcededtoHallamandotherswhotakethisview-1st,thattheReformerswerenotmuchinthehabitofformallyandelaboratelydiscussing,asadistinctandindependenttopic,whathas sincebeencalled the right anddutyofprivate judgment; and2d, that they ever professed it to be their great object to find out theactualtruthofGodcontainedinHisword,thattheywereveryconfidentthat in regard to themain points of their teaching they had found thetruth,andthattheywereverystrenuousinurgingthatothermenshouldreceiveitalsouponGod’sauthority.Andthesefactsareamplysufficientto secure for them, in certainquarters, the reputationofbeingnarrow-

mindedbigots.

The Reformers did not discuss at much length, or with any greatformality,thesubjectoftherightofprivatejudgmentasageneraltopic;but they understood and acted upon their right as rational andresponsible beings to reject all mere human authority in religiousmatters,totryeverythingbythestandardofGod’sword,andtojudgeforthemselves, on their own responsibility, as to the meaning of itsstatements.Andbyfollowingthiscourse,byactingonthisprinciple,bysetting thisexample, theyhaveconferredmost importantbenefitsuponthechurchandtheworld.

ThefundamentalpositionmaintainedbytheReformerswasthis,thattheviewswhichtheyhadbeenledtoform,astowhatshouldbethedoctrine,worship,andgovernmentoftheChurchofChrist,wereright,andthattheviews of the Church of Rome upon these, points, as opposed to theirs,werewrong.Thiswas thegrandposition theyoccupied,and theybasedtheirwholeprocedureuponthegroundoftheparamountclaimsofdivinetruth, its right, as coming from God and being invested with Hisauthority,tobelistenedto,tobeobeyed,andtobepropagated:WhenthePapistsopposedtheminthemaintenanceofthisposition,andappealedon their own behalf to tradition, to ecclesiastical authority, to thedecisions of popes and councils, theReformers in reply pushed all thisaside, by asserting the supremacy of the written word as the onlystandardoffaithandpractice,bydenyingthelegitimacyofsubmittingtomerehumanauthorityinreligiousmatters,andbymaintainingthatmenare entitled and bound to judge for themselves, upon their ownresponsibility,astowhatGod inHiswordhasrequiredthemtobelieveand to do. They asserted these positions more or less fully ascircumstances required, but still they regarded them as in some sensesubsidiaryandsubordinate.Theprimaryquestionwiththemalwayswas,WhatisthetruthastothewayinwhichGodoughttobeworshipped,inwhichasinnerissaved,andinwhichtheordinancesandarrangementsofthe Church of Christ ought to be regulated? They were bent uponanswering, and answering aright, this important question, and theybrushed aside everything that stood in their way and obstructed theirprogress.

There can be no doubt that the only satisfactory explanation of theconductoftheReformersis,thattheyregardedthemselvesasfightingforthe cause of God; and it is creditable to Hallam that, unable, as headmitted, to understand their theology, and having no predilection ontheirbehalf,heshouldhaveseenandassertedthis, inoppositiontotheordinary calumnies of the Papists. But the great, the only reallyimportant,questionis,WasitindeedthecauseofGod?orinotherwords,Wasit indeedthetruthofGodwhichtheydeducedfromHisword,andwhichtheylabouredtopromoteandtoenforce?Ifitwasnotso,thentheyhavedeserved littlegratitude,and they canhave effected little good. Inestimating the value of what God gave to them, and what they havetransmitted to us, almost everything depends upon the truth, thescriptural truth, of the doctrines which they taught and laboured toadvance.ThehighesthonouroftheReformers,orrathertheprincipalgiftwhich God gave them, viewed as public teachers who have exerted aninfluenceupon the state of religious opinion andpractice in theworld,wasthat,inpointoffact,theydiddeducefromthewordofGodthetruthsor truedoctrineswhichare there set forth, and that theybrought themout, and expounded and enforced them in such a way as led, throughGod’sblessing,totheirbeingextensivelyreceivedandapplied.Christiantheology, in some of itsmost important articles, had for a long periodbeen grossly corrupted in the Church of Rome, which thencomprehendedthelargestportionofChristendom.TheLordwaspleased,through the instrumentality of the Reformers, to expose thesecorruptions,tobringoutprominentlybeforetheworldthetruedoctrinesof His word in regard to the worship which He required and wouldaccept, the way in which He had provided and was bestowing, and inwhichsinnersweretoreceive,thesalvationofthegospel,andthewayinwhich the ordinances and arrangements of His church were to beregulated; and to effect that these true scriptural doctrines should beextensively disseminated, should become powerfully influential, andshould be permanently preserved over a considerable portion of Hischurch.TheLorddidthisbyHisSpiritattheeraoftheReformation,andHeemployedindoingittheinstrumentalityoftheReformers.Heguidedthem not only to the adoption of the right method, the use of theappropriatemeans fordetecting error anddiscoveringdivine truth,butwhatwas of primary and paramount importance,He guided them to a

right judgment - that is, right in the main and with respect to allfundamentalpoints,astowhatparticulardoctrinesweretrueandfalse,accordingtothestandardofHisownwrittenword.Theirunquestionablesincerity and integrity, their unwearied zeal and activity, their greattalentsandtheirundauntedcourage,wouldonlyhaveshedafalseglarearoundabadcause,ifitwasnotindeedthecauseofGodwhichtheyweremaintaining.Theirothergoodqualitieswouldhavetendedrathertoevilthan togood results, if ithadnotbeen really errorwhich theyopposedandGod’s truthwhich they supported.We believe nothing because theReformersbelievedit,andweapproveofnothingbecausetheypractisedit;but, judgingof thembythesamestandardwhichtheyappliedtotheChurch of Rome, and by which they professed to regulate their ownopinionsand conduct,becausewebelievewith them that it is the rightstandard, we are firmly persuaded that what they opposed was error -grievousanddangerouserror,andthatwhattheymaintainedwasinthemaintruth-God’sowntruth-taughtinHisword,andappliedtothembytheteachingofHisownSpirit.

ThereissomuchunanimityamongtheReformers,somuchharmonyintheconfessionsoftheReformedchurches,astoentitleustospeakofthetheology of the Reformation as conveying a pretty distinct idea of aparticular system of doctrine upon the leading articles of the Christianfaith;andwethinkitcanbeproved,notonlythatthistheologywassoundand scriptural, as compared with what had previously prevailed in theChurch of Rome, but that the deviations which Protestants have sincemade from ithavebeen in themain retrogressions from truth to error.Wedonot set up theReformers as guides or oracles;wedonot investthem with any authority, or believe anything because they believed it.Thereis,indeed,noauthorityinreligionbutthatofGod;andauthority,in its strict and proper sense, does not admit of degrees. The fact thatcertaindoctrinesweretaughtbysomeparticularclassorbodyofmen,iseither at once and of itself a sufficient reason why we must embracethem,orelseit isofnorealweightandvalidityindeterminingwhatweshould believe. It is entitled to be "received as authoritative anddetermining, only when the men in question can produce satisfactoryevidencethattheyhavebeencommissionedandinspiredbyGod.Thereis a sense, indeed, in which some respect or deference is due to the

opinions of others. But this respect or deference should never betransmuted into anything like authority or obligation. It may afford avalidcallforcarefulattentionanddiligentinvestigation,butfornothingmore. It should have no determining or controlling influence. TheReformers,withrespecttoallpoints inwhichtheyweresubstantiallyofonemind, may be regarded as being upon the whole entitled to morerespectanddeferencethananyotherbodyofmenwhocouldbespecifiedormarkedoutatanyoneperiodinthehistoryofthechurch.Butitholdstrueuniversally,thatGodhasnevergiventoanyuninspiredman,orbodyof men, to rise altogether above the influence of the circumstances inwhichtheywereplaced,intheformationandexpressionoftheiropinionsuponreligioussubjects.AndeventhegreatestadmirersoftheReformersreadily admit that they, all of them, thoughnot in themain features oftheir theological system, yieldedmore or less to the various sources oferror which prevail among men; and more particularly, that theyexhibited,ontheonehand,tracesthattheyhadnotwhollyescapedfromthecorruptinginfluenceofthesysteminwhichtheyhadbeeneducated,andontheotherhand,whatisequallynatural,thattheyweresometimesindanger,inavoidingoneextreme,offallingintotheoppositeone.

These obvious views about the position and services of the ReformershavebeensuggestedtousbytheperusalofPrincipalTulloch’sworkonthe“LeadersoftheReformation.”Itisintendedasapopularsketchofthemain features in thehistoryofLuther,Calvin,Latimer,andKnox;and,regarded in this light, it is fairly entitled to very considerablecommendation.Wecannotsaythattheworkdisplaysanygreatpowerofthought,oranygreatextentofresearch.WehavenoideathatDr.Tullochis familiarwith thewritingsof theReformers, or thathe is qualified toappreciatetheminconnectionwiththehighestdepartmentsoftheworkwhich they performed. But he has given a very intelligent, interesting,and candid survey of the principal features of the life and the generalcharacterandpositionofthemenwhomhehasselectedastheleadersoftheReformation.Hehastakenconsiderablepainstounderstandandtostateaccuratelymostofthepointshehasdiscussed.Hehasshownalargemeasureoffairnessandcandourintheprincipalviewshehasputforth;andhehaspresented themgenerally in a verypleasing and interestingstyle.

Dr. Tulloch’s book, as a whole, would have been entitled to veryconsiderable commendation, if it had not put forth some veryobjectionable and dangerous views in regard to the theology of theReformers,byfarthemostimportantfeatureintheirhistory.Theobjectof the work did not require of Dr. Tulloch to enter into theologicalexpositionordiscussion,andwemighthavepassedover theworkwithcommending what was commendable in it, if he had entirely ignoredtheological subjects.Buthehasnotdone this.Hehasput forth certainviewsinregardtothetheologyoftheReformerswhichwebelievetobeunsound and dangerous, and which we think it incumbent upon us toexpose.

The Reformers themselves reckoned it the great duty which they werecalledupontodischarge, thegreatworkwhichGodgavethemtodo, tobringoutfromthesacredScripturesrightviewsofChristiantheologyandofchurchorganization, inoppositiontothosewhichgenerallyprevailedin theChurchofRome.Theybelieved that theywereenabled,byGod’sgrace, tosucceed toa largeextent indoing this;andallwhohavesinceconcurred with them in this belief have also, as a matter of course,regardedtheirsuccessinthisrespectasaverygreatservicerenderedtothe church and theworld, - as, indeed, the greatest servicewhich theyrendered, or could render. We believe that the theology of theReformation,initsgreatleadingfeatures,bothasitrespectsdoctrineinthemorelimitedsenseoftheword,andasitrespectstheorganizationofthechurchasasociety,istheunchangeabletruthofGodrevealedinHisword, which individuals and churches are bound to profess and to actupon.Dr.Tulloch,wefear,hascometoadifferentconclusionuponthisimportant question, and has plainly enough given the world tounderstand that, in his judgment, the theology of the Reformation,thoughacreditableandusefulthinginthesixteenthcentury,andagreatimprovementonthestateofmattersthatthenprevailedintheChurchofRome,hasnowbecomeantiquatedandobsolete,andquiteunsuitabletotheenlightenmentwhichcharacterizesthisage.

He does not adduce any specific objections against the theology of theReformation; but, having attained to a much greater elevation, a farhigher platform, than the Reformers ever reached, he coolly but

conclusively sets aside the results of all their investigations of divinethings,asnowscarcelyworthyofbeingseriouslyexamined.Thisnotonly,as we have already explained, deprives the Reformers of what all whohave in themainadoptedtheirprincipleshave regardedas thegreatesthonourwhichGodconferredupon them, thegreatest service theywereenabledtorender;butitbears,and,aswebelieve,bearsinjuriously,uponamatterofinfinitelygreaterimportancethananyquestionaffectingthereputationofanybodyofmen,eventheaccurateexpositionofthesystemofrevealedtruth.Dr.Tullochdoesnotprofesstodiscussanytheologicalquestions,andhisviewsuponthesepointsarebroughtoutveryvaguelyandimperfectly.Buthehassaidenoughtoshowthathehasgivenupthetheology of the Reformation as untenable and unsatisfactory; and heevidently thinksthatall liberalmenwhoareabreastof thisenlightenedagemust do the same. It is quite evident that men’s whole views andimpressions in regard to the history of the Reformers must be greatlyinfluenced by the admission or the denial, that they were God’sinstruments in bringing out to a large extent the permanent truthrevealed inHisword,and inrestoring thechurch toa largemeasureofapostolic purity; and it is highly creditable toDr.Tulloch that, denyingthis,heshouldhavetreatedthemwithsolargeameasureofjusticeandfairnessinmostotherrespects.Butitwasscarcelypossiblethatonewhowithholdsfromthemtheirhighestandmostpeculiarhonour,shouldbeperfectly just and fair to them in everything else; and there areindications,thoughnotmanyorimportant,ofhisdepreciatingthemeveninmattersnotmuchconnectedwiththeirtheology.ThereisnotmuchtocomplainofinwhathesaysofLutherandKnox,barringtheirtheology,except that heunderrates their intellectual powerswhenhe says of theformer,that“asatheologicalthinkerhetakesnohighrank,andhasleftlittle or no impress upon human history;” and of the latter,f that “as amerethinker,saveperhapsonpoliticalsubjects,hetakesnorank.”JFew,we think, who have read the principal works of Luther and Knox willconcurinthisopinionofthesemen;andeveninsomeofthethingswhichDr.Tullochhimselfhasrecordedaboutthem,thereisenoughtoconvincediscerningmen that they did take high rank as thinkers on theologicalsubjects.Luther,notwithstandinghisgreatmentalpowers,andthegreatlighthehas thrownuponmany important topics ofdiscussion,had yetsuchdefectsandinfirmitiesastounfithimverymuchforbeingappealed

toasaguideororacleontheologicalsubjects;andKnox,overshadowedbyCalvin, isnotsofrequentlycontemplatedasatheologian, thoughhistreatiseonPredestinationproves,weventuretothink,thatheisentitledto takehighrankasa thinker.For the reasonsnowreferred to,neitherLuther nor Knox seems to have strongly excited Dr. Tulloch’s anti-theological zeal, and he certainly deals out to them a largemeasure ofjustice and candour, though he does not appreciate fully either theirtalentsortheirservices.

Calvin, however, as might be expected, does not fare so well in Dr.Tulloch’shands.HewassothoroughlythegreatrepresentativeofallthatDr.Tullochseemsmostheartilytodisapproveanddislike,-viz.adistinctand definite system of theological doctrine, and a church organizationuponthemodelofapostolicpreceptandpractice,-thatitwasscarcelytobeexpectedthatthegreatReformerwouldgetjusticefromhim.Hedoesnot, indeed, so far as we remember, make any direct attempt todepreciateCalvin’sintellectualpowers,ortodisputehisrighttotakehighrank as a thinker.” Butwe have a strong impression that he comes farshortofajustappreciationevenofCalvin’smentalpowersandcapacities.Anditshouldnotbeforgotten,thatithasbecomeverymuchthefashionnow-a-days, even among Romanists, as a matter of policy, to praiseCalvin’stalents.EvenAudin,hislatestpopishbiographer,whoisjustasthoroughly unprincipled as the champions of Popery usually are, hasgiventheappearanceofsomethinglikecandourtohis“LifeofCalvin,”bystrongstatementsabouthisgreattalents,hisliteraryexcellences,andhiscommandinginfluence.Dr.Tulloch,whilehemakesnodirectattempttodepreciateCalvin’stalents,doesinjustice,wethink,inseveralrespectstohisgeneralcharacter.Hesaysnothing,indeed,againsthimwhichhasnotbeen said often before. He just repeats what has been so frequentlyalleged against Calvin, - his want of the more amiable and engagingqualities,hisprideandcoldness,hissternnessandcruelty.Hedoesnotseem to appreciate the purity and elevation of the motives by whichCalvinwasanimated,andoftheobjectsheaimedat.Hedoesnotappearto have turned to good account the greater accessibility now-a-days ofCalvin’sLetters,whicharesoadmirablyfittedtocounteractsomeoftheprevailingmisconceptions of his character, and to show that therewasnearlyasmuchabouthimtoloveastoadmire,asmuchtoexciteaffection

and confidence as veneration and respect. Dr. Jules Bonnet, who hasdonesomuchtomakeCalvin’sLettersmorewidelyknown,describes,intheprefacetotheEnglishtranslation,hisletterstoFarel,Viret,andBeza,asexhibitingtheoverflowingsofaheartfilledwiththedeepestandmostacute sensibility.” It might have been supposed that no one who hadreallyreadthetwovolumesofCalvin’sLetterstowhichthisstatementisprefixed, would, have any doubt of its truth and accuracy. But Dr.Tulloch, it seems, has not been able to find anything of this sort; and,accordingly, he disposes of Dr. Bonnet’s statement in this way -“OverflowingofanykindisexactlywhatyouneverfindinCalvin,eveninhismostfamiliarletters.”WefearthatDr.Tullochmustunderstandtheword “overflowing” in a different sense from othermen; for if we hadspace,wecouldeasilyproduceplentyofextractsfromhisLetters,whichmostmen,weareconfident,would,withoutanyhesitation,declaretobeoverflowings of the warmest and tenderest feeling, outpourings of themosthearty and cordial kindness and sympathy, and of the purest andnoblest friendship.Calvin’s character, intellectual,moral, and religious,hasbeenmosthighlyappreciatedbythemostcompetentjudges;andthecollection of testimonies in commendation of him and his works,published in one of the last volumes of the Calvin Translation Society,containing his Commentary on Joshua, is probably unexampled in thehistoryofthehumanrace.Butwearenotsureifamoreemphatictributetohisexcellenceandhispowerisnotfurnishedbythehostilityofwhichhe has been the object; often breaking out into furious rancour, andfrequently, evenwhen assuming a greatlymodified aspect, indicating astrongdispositiontodepreciatehim,andtobringhimdowntothelevelof ordinarymen.Butwe cannotdwell longerupon this topic.WemusthastentonoticethepositionwhichDr.TullochhasassumedinregardtothetheologyoftheReformation;andhereitwillbenecessaryinfairnesstogivehimanopportunityofspeakingforhimself.Hisviewsarebroughtoutprettyfullyinthefollowingextracts:-

“The spiritual principle is eternally divine and powerful. It is a verydifferentthingwhenweturntocontemplatethedogmaticstatementsofLuther.SosoonasLutherbegantoevolvehisprinciple,andcoinitslivingheartoncemoreintodogma,heshowedthathehadnotrisenabovethescholasticspiritwhichheaimedtodestroy. Itwas truly impossible that

he could do so. Not even the massive energy of Luther could piercethrough those intellectual influences which had descended as a hoaryheritageofagestothesixteenthcentury.”

“The Reformation, in its theology, did not and could not escape thedeterioratinginfluencesofthescholasticspirit,forthatspiritsurvivedit,and lived on in strength, although in amodified form, throughout theseventeenthcentury. Inone importantparticular, indeed, thescholasticand Protestant systems of theology entirely differed: the latter begantheirsystematizingfromtheveryoppositeextremetothatoftheformer-fromthedivineandnotfromthehumansideofredemption-fromGodand not fromman. And this is a difference on the side of truth by nomeanstobeoverlooked.Stillthespiritisthesame-thespiritwhichdoesnothesitatetobreakupthedivineunityofthetruthinScriptureintoitsown logical shreds and patches, which tries to discriminatewhat in itsmoralessenceisinscrutable,andtotraceindistinctdogmaticmouldstheoperation of the divine and human wills in salvation, while the veryconditionofallsalvationistheeternalmysteryoftheirunioninanactofmutualandinexpressiblelove.Thisspiritofultra-definition-ofessentialrationalism - was the corrupting inheritance of the new from the oldtheology;and it isdifficult to say,all thingsconsidered,aswe trace themelancholy history of Protestant dogmas, whether its fruits have beenworse in the latteror in the former instance.Themists, it is true, havenever again so utterly obscured the truth; but that dimness, coveringafairerlight,almostinspiresthereligiousheartwithadeepersadness.”

“WhilethusclaimingforCalvinismahigherscripturalcharacter,itwouldyet be toomuch to say thatCalvinism, anymore thanLutheranism, orlatterlyArminianism,wasprimarilytheresultofafreshandlivingstudyof Scripture. Calvin, no doubt, went to Scripture. He is the greatestbiblicalcommentator,ashe is thegreatestbiblicaldogmatistofhisage;but his dogmas, for the most part, were not primarily suggested byScripture;andastohisdistinguishingdogma,thisiseminentlythecase.LikeLuther,hehadbeentrainedinthescholasticphilosophy,andbeenfedonAugustine;and itwasnomorepossible for theone than for theothertogetbeyondthescholasticspiritortheAugustiniandoctrine.Anattentive study of the ‘Institutes’ reveals the presence of Augustine

everywhere;andgreatevenasCalvinisinexegesis,hisexegesisismainlycontrolledbyAugustiniandogmatictheory.”

“This appeal to an earlier catholicity on the part of the reformedtheologies-thissupportinAugustine-beyonddoubtgreatlycontributedtotheirsuccessintheirday.Forfewthenventuredtodoubttheauthorityof Augustinianism, and the theological spirit of the sixteenth centuryhardlyatanypointgotbeyond it. Itwasanatural sourceof triumphtothe great Protestant confessions against the unsettled unbelief ormoresuperficialtheologieswhichtheyencountered,thattheywieldedsoboldand consistent a weapon of logic, and appealed so largely to anauthoritativescriptural interpretation.Calvinism couldnot but triumphonanysuchmodesofreasoningorofbiblicalexegesisasthenprevailed;andsolongasitcontinuedtobemerelyaquestionofsystems,andlogichaditallitsway,thistriumphwassecure.

“Butnowthatthequestionischanged,andlogicisnolongermistressofthe field;now,whena spiritof interpretingScripturewhich couldhavehardlybeen intelligible toCalvingenerallyasserts itself - a spiritwhichrecognizesaprogress inScripture itself - adiverse literatureandmoralgrowthinitscomponentelements,andwhichatonce lookingbackwardwithreverenceandforwardwithfaith,has learnedanewaudacity,oranewmodesty,asweshallcallit,accordingtoourpredilections,andwhileitacceptswithalthemysteriesoflifeandofdeath,refusestosubmitthemarbitrarily to the dictation of any mere logical principle; now that thewhole sphere of religious credence is differently apprehended, and theprovincesof faithandof logicaldeductionarerecognizedasnotmerelyincommensurate,butasradicallydistinguished,-thewholecaseastothetriumphantpositionofCalvinism,orindeedanyothertheologicalsystem,isaltered.Anablewriter inourday (Mansel, inhisBamptonLectures)has shownwith convincingpowerwhat are the inevitably contradictoryresultsofcarryingthereasoning facultywithdeterminingsway into thedepartmentofreligioustruth.Theconclusionsofthatwriter,sufficientlycrushing as directed by him against all rationalistic systems, are to thefull .as conclusive against the competency of all theological systemswhatever.Theweaponoflogicaldestructivenesswhichhehasusedwithsuchenergy,isaweaponofoffencereallyagainstallreligiousdogmatism.

Whatbetweenthetortureofcriticism,andtheslowbutsureadvanceofmoral idea, this dogmatism is losing all hold of the most living andearnest intelligenceeverywhere.And it seemsno longerpossible,underanynewpolemicform,toreviveit.Menarewearyofheterodoxyandoforthodoxyalike,andof the former inanyarbitraryanddogmaticshapestill more intolerably than the latter. The old Institutio ChristianaReligionisnolongersatisfies,andanewInstitutiocanneverreplaceit.AsecondCalvin intheology is impossible.Menthirstnot less forspiritualtruth,buttheynolongerbelieveinthecapacityofsystemtoembraceandcontainthattruth,asinareservoir,forsuccessivegenerations.Theymustseek for it themselves afresh in the pages of Scripture, and the ever-dawninglightofspirituallife,ortheywillsimplyneglectandputitpastasanoldstory.”

Theseextractsfullyjustifythestatementswehavemadeinregardtothescopeandtendencyofthisbook;andincommentingupontheminorderto show this, we shall speak of the theology of the Reformation andCalvinism as substantially identical; not meaning by Calvinism thepersonal opinions of Calvin, but the leading features of the Calvinisticsystem of theology as distinguished from the Arminian and Sociniansystems.InthissenseCalvinismmaybefairlycalledthetheologyof theReformation, as it was certainly, though with different degrees ofaccuracy and fullness,maintained by the great body of the Reformers,andprofessedinmostof theconfessionsof theReformedchurches.Wenever hesitate to call ourselves Calvinists, though there are some ofCalvin’s opinions which we reckon erroneous; and in adopting thisdesignation, we mean simply to convey the idea that we are firmlypersuaded that the fundamental principles of the Calvinistic system oftheology, as generally set forth in the symbolical books of churchesusuallyreckonedCalvinistic,aretaught,andcanbeprovedtobetaught,inScripture,astherevealedtruthofGod.Andhereapracticaldifficultyat once arises in dealing with Dr. Tulloch. If we were to judge of himsolely from the statements contained in this book,wewouldhave littlehesitation in saying that he is not a Calvinist in the sense aboveexplained. But of course we are aware that he has, like ourselves,subscribedaCalvinisticcreed,andthatheholdsanoffice,thechiefdutyof which may be said to be to expound this creed. We have therefore

scarcely a right to say that he is not a Calvinist, unless he had said somoreexplicitlyperhaps thanhehasdone.And inanythingwemay saybearing on this point, we wish it to be understood that we make nocategorical assertion as to what Dr. Tulloch’s theological opinions inpointoffactare,andthatweintendmerelytosetforthwhatseemtoustobethescopeandtendencyoftheviewsindicatedinthisbook.Withthisexplanation, we have no hesitation in saying that we are unable tocomprehend how any intelligent Calvinist could have published thestatementswehavequoted;andthatthe-yareplainlyfittedtoleadtotheconclusionthattheauthorhasrenounced,ifheeverheld,thetheologyofthe Reformation. It is a significant fact, that Dr. Tulloch, though aprofessoroftheology,hasnot,fromthebeginningtotheendofhisbook;givenanydistinctindicationthatheisaCalvinist,ormadeanyprofessionofregardingtheReformersashavingsucceededinthemaininbringingoutGod’struthfromHisword.Thereareseveralstatementswhich looklikeaprofessionofCalvinism,butwhich,whencarefully examined,areclearly seen to come short of this. Butwe are not confined to negativematerials.We are plainly told that Calvinism once triumphed, but thatthis triumphwas temporary, and is long sinceover; thatno theologicalsystem can now occupy a triumphant position, since we have at lastreachedademonstrationof the incompetencyofall theological systemswhatever.

Dr. Tulloch’s position is pretty distinctly indicated in the somewhatenigmatical deliverance, “The old Institutio Christianse Religionis’ nolonger satisfies, and a new Institutio can never replace it.” There is asenseinwhichwecouldassenttothenotionssuggestedbythisquotation.ButinthesenseinwhichDr.Tullochevidentlyunderstandsit,weregarditasunsoundanddangerous.“Theold‘InstitutioChristianseReligionis’no longer satisfies.” Every Calvinist will admit this to be true, if it beunderstood to mean merely, that there are views set forth in the“Institutes” of Calvin which can be proved from Scripture to beerroneous, and that the progress of discussion since his time hasindicateddefectsexistinginthatwork,andimprovementsthatmightbemadeuponit,astothearrangementof thesubjects, themodeinwhichseveraltopicsarepresented,singlyorintheirrelationtoeachother,thecomparative prominence assigned to them, and the validity of all the

proofsbywhichtheyaresupported.Therearepointscomingunderthesevariousheads,inwhichthe“Institutes”donotnowsatisfy;andweholditto be a mark of the respect to which Calvin and the “Institutes” areentitled,tobepreparedtospecifythegroundsofourdissatisfaction.Butthose things about the “Institutes”which do not satisfy us are few andunimportant, and do not materially affect the present and permanentvalueof thatgreatwork. It isplainly inanentirelydifferentsense fromthis that itno longersatisfiesDr.Tullochandothermenofprogress inthepresentday.Heevidentlyregardsitashavingprovedanentirefailureinregardtoitsmainsubstance,itsprincipalcontentsormaterials,anditsleadingdesign.Thematerialsofwhichthe“Institutes”arecomposedare,of course, just the leadingdoctrines of Scripture, according to the viewwhichCalvinists,fromAugustinetothepresentday,havealwaystakenoftheirmeaningandimport.Andthemainquestioninjudgingofanyworkwhichprofesses to exhibit ina scientificor systematic form the leadingprinciplesofChristiantheologymustofnecessitybe,Arethematerialsofwhich it is composed, or the doctrineswhich it expounds and defends,accordant in the main with Scripture? Are they as a whole the viewswhichScriptureteaches,andwhichitwarrantsandrequiresustobelieve,as immutable truth resting upon divine authority? Every Calvinistwhohas readCalvin’s “Institutes,” of course, believes that the>materials ofwhichthatworkiscomposedareinthemainthedoctrinesofGod’sword,andthereforepossessedofunchangeableverity.MostCalvinistshavealsobeenofopinion, that thegreatdoctrinesofChristian theologyareuponthewholeaboutaswellarranged,asablyandaccuratelyexpounded,andassatisfactorilyandconclusivelydefendedinCalvin’s“Institutes”astheyeverhavebeenorcanbe.WedonotexactofeveryCalvinistthathemustconcur in this commendationofCalvin’s “Institutes.”But,of course,noman can call himself a Calvinist unless he believe that the leadingdoctrines set forth in the “Institutes” are indeed taught by God in Hisword.And it isnotvery likely thatanymancouldbefound,who,whileprofessing to hold. the Calvinistic doctrines taught in the “Institutes,”should at the same time assert that either he himself, or any one else,couldexpoundthemmoreablyanddefendthemmoreconclusivelythanCalvinhasdone.

Butitisofcomparativelysmallimportanceinwhatlightthe“Institutes”

oughttoberegarded,viewedmerelyasaspecimenofCalvin’spowersandachievements.Theonlyvitalquestionis this-Arethe leadingdoctrinestaughtinthe“Institutes”trueandscriptural?WasthetheologyofCalvin,in its fundamental principles, correctly derived from theword of God?Thisisavitalquestion.Weansweritintheaffirmative,andweconsiderourselveswarrantedinassertingthatDr.Tullochhasansweredit inthenegative. There is, as was natural in the circumstances, a good deal ofvagueness and confusion in his statements upon this subject. It wasscarcelytobeexpectedthathewouldatfirstspeakoutinanexplicitandmanlyway.Men of progress in theology usually require to grope theirway for a time, through hedges and along bye-ways. But with all thevaguenessandconfusionwhich characterize his statements, he has,wethink,affordedsufficientgroundsforcharginghimwithmaintaining,

1st,ThatthemainfeaturesofthetheologyoftheReformation,theleadingdoctrinesoftheCalvinisticsystem,arenotrevealedtousinthewordofGod.

2d,ThattheReformerserredintheirwholetheologicalsystem,becausetheyhaderroneousnotionsofthetrueprovinceoflogic,oftheobjectanddesignofthesacredScriptures,andofthewayandmannerinwhichtheyought to be interpreted and applied in the formation of our religiousopinions.

3d,Thatthecrudeanderroneousnotionsof theReformers inregardtothe province of logic, and the method of explaining and applyingScripture,beingcorrectedand takenaway, it isnowa fixedand settledthingthatalltheologicalsystemsareincompetent.

Webelievethatthesethreepropositionsexhibitaccurately thesumandsubstance of Dr. Tulloch’s teaching upon the most important subjecttouchedon inhis lectures. ItwouldaffordussinceregratificationifDr.Tullochcouldandwouldrepudiatetheseviews,andshowthatwehadnosufficient grounds for imputing them to him. But this, we fear, ishopeless;andthenextbestthingwouldbe,thatheshouldplainlyadmitthatheholdsthesepositionsinsubstance,andhavingthuscomeintotheopen arena, should boldly and manfully defend his convictions. ThereputationoftheReformers,thesettlementofanyquestionsthatmaybe

startedabouttheamountofthecommendationthatshouldbebestoweduponthem,andaboutthegroundsonwhichitshouldbebased,-allthisisinsignificant.ButthequestionofthetruthorfalsehoodofthetheologyoftheReformationistooimportanttobetrifledwith.Theremayturnouttobenothingformidable intheattacknowmadeuponit;but, fromthemagnitude of the interests involved, we like always to see who are theassailants,andwhatmeansofassaulttheyhaveprovided.

AcombinationseemstoexistatpresentforthepurposeofunderminingandexplodingthetheologyoftheReformation,withoutmeetingitfairlyandopenly in the fieldofargument.Amanofhigherstanding thanDr.Tullochhasyetreached,onewhohasrenderedmanyimportantservicestothecauseofChristiantruth,Mr.IsaacTaylor,haslentahelpinghandtothisobject,bypublishing(anonymously)thefollowingstatement:-

“The creeds and the confessions of the Reformation era were, indeed,with scrupulous care based upon the authority of Holy Scripture, and,lookingatthemsimplyastheystoodrelatedtothemanifoldcorruptionsofthetwelvecenturiespreceding,theymightwellclaimtobescriptural.Butinwhatmannerhadtheybeenframed?Acertainclassoftextshavingbeen assumed as the groundwork of Christian belief, then a scheme oftheology is put together accordingly, whence, by the means of thedeductive logic,allseparatearticlesof faitharetobederived.AstoanypassagesofScripturewhichmightseemtobeofanotherclass,orwhichdo not easily fall into their places in this scheme, they were eitherignored, or they were controlled, and this to any extent that might beaskedforbythesternnecessitiesofthesyllogisticmethod.”

Dr. Tulloch has not put forth anything against the Reformers sodiscreditable as this, but he evidently occupies ground the same insubstance, so far as concerns the erroneousness both of the process bywhich they investigated divine truth, and of the results which theyreached.Hecannot,indeed,besoforgetfulofthehistoryandwritingsofthe Reformers as to be capable of believing what Mr. Taylor has saidabout a “certain class of texts.” But in all other respects there is awonderfulharmonybetweenthem.Theyconcurnotonlyinthebeliefthatthe theology of the Reformation is fundamentally unsound anduntenable, but also in their leading viewsof the errors attaching to the

processbywhichthiserroneousresultwasreached.Theyboththinkthatitwas the “deductive logic” thatwas themaincauseofall themischief,combined with certain erroneous notions of the way in which theScripturesoughttobeusedandapplied,meaningbythis,apparently,justthe doctrine of inspiration as it has been usually held by the Christianchurch, and its immediate consequences. They both expect an entirelynew theology,which is to replace the superannuated logical theologyoftheReformation. They expect this first from abandoning the deductivelogic,andthenfromthe introductionofnewmodesofbiblicalexegesis.Mr.Taylor,indeed,heldouttotheworldtheprospectofanew“exegeticalmethod,”whichwastoworkwondersinreformingtheology.Wearenotaware that thisexegeticalmethodhasyetmade its appearance.ButDr.Tullochspeaksasifthenewandimprovedprocessofinvestigatingdivinetruth, and of explaining and applying the Bible, were already inoperation, and had already succeeded not only in bringing downCalvinismtothedust,butevenindoingsomethingtointroduceasimplerandsoundertheology.Inthequotationwehavegivenfromhim,hecallsitacertain“spiritofinterpretingScripture,”whichhedescribesintermsverymagniloquent,butnotsuchastoconveytousanyverydefiniteideaofwhatthisspirit is,orwhere it is tobe found.Wewould like toknowsomethingabout this“spiritof interpretingScripture,”which is toworksuchwonders and to effect such improvements in theology. But asDr.Tullochassuresusthatit“couldhardlyhavebeenintelligibletoCalvin,”we fear we must renounce all hope of ever catching a glimpse of itsimport.

Dr.Tulloch’swork containsno theologicaldiscussion, and thereforeweare not called upon to engage in theological discussion in reviewing it.There is no distinct specification of what it is in the theology of theReformation, or in the system of Calvinism, which is unsound anduntenable.Thereisnospecificationofwhatitwasthatwaserroneousinthose old modes of reasoning or of biblical exegesis, which led to thetemporarytriumphofCalvinism,orofwhatarethegroundsofthatnew“.spirit of interpreting Scripture,”which has demolishedCalvinism andintroducedasounder, that is, amore scantyandobscure, theology.Wedonotrefertotheabsenceofanythingofthissortasifitwereadefectinabookwhichdoesnotprofesstodiscusstheologicaltopics.Werefertoit

forthepurpose,first,ofexpressingadoubtwhetheritwasquiterightandfairinDr.Tullochtointroducewhathassounfavourableabearinguponthe theology generally professed in Scotland, without entering intotheologicaldiscussion,orsettingforthwithsomefullnessthegroundsoftheviewsexpressed;andsecondly,ofshowingthatwearenotcalledon,inreviewingDr.Tulloch’sbook,toengageintheologicaldiscussion,sincehehasnotgivenusanythingdistinctandsubstantialtoanswer.

The nearest approach to anything like definiteness which Dr. TullochmakesunderthisgeneralheadofthetheologyoftheReformation, isanallegationtotheeffectthattheReformersformedtheirsystemofdoctrinebycarryingtoanunwarrantedlengththepracticeofdrawinginferencesfrom Scripture statements, and by exercising greatly too much theirlogical faculties in classifying, combining, and expanding thematerialswhich Scripture affords. But even this is only a vague generality, of norealvalueoruse,apartfromitsprovedapplicabilitytoactualprocessesofinvestigationwhichhavebeenadoptedby individualsorbodiesofmen,andtoactualtheologicalresultswhichhavebeenbroughtout.Noonecanwell dispute, that men are entitled and bound to use their intellectualpowers, not only in investigating themeaning of particular statements,but in classifying and combining a number of statements, in order tobringoutastheresult the full teachingofScriptureuponthesubject towhich the statements relate, and thatwe are o receive, as restingupondivineauthority,notonly-whatis“expresslysetdowninScripture,”butalsowhat “may, by good and necessary consequence, be deduced fromScripture.” It isadmitted,on theotherhand, thatmenhaveoftengonetoofar inmakingdeductionsfromscripturalstatements,andespecially,what is with many a great bugbear in the present day, in makingdeductions fromdoctrines assumed tobe already established,upon theprinciple of what is sometimes called the analogy of faith. But thoughthesearedangerstobeguardedagainst,wefearthatnorulescanbelaiddown,markingoutdistinctlywhatiswarrantableandlegitimateintheserespectsandwhatisnot;andthereforenodecisionuponthesepointscanbe founded upon mere vague general declamation about dangers andexcesses.Eachcaseinwhicherror,eitherintheprocessadoptedorintheresultbroughtout,isalleged,mustbejudgedofanddecideduponitsownmerits. The theology of the Reformers is not to be set aside merely

becausemenhaveoftengonetoanextreme inmakingdeductionsfromscripturalstatements,norevenbecausetheythemselveshavesometimeserredinthisrespect.Weinsistthattheirtheology,asawhole,andeverydoctrinewhichentersintotheirsystem,shallbejudgedoffairlyandfullybythestandardofScripture,andofScriptureusedandappliedaccordingto its real character and design. We embrace the theology of theReformation justbecausewe thinkwecanprove, that all theparticulardoctrineswhichconstitute itare taught inScripture, rightly interpretedandapplied;andwhile,ontheonehand,weundertaketheresponsibilityofassertingandprovingthis,wemust,ontheotherhand,insistthatanyone who repudiates the theology of the Reformation, shall distinctlyspecifywhattheerrorsofthesystemare,andbringforwardtheevidencefromScripturethattheyareerrors.

ButDr.Tullochassuresus thatMr.Mansel, inhis “BamptonLectures,”hasconclusivelyestablishedthe incompetencyofall theologicalsystemswhatever.Mr.Mansel has not proved, and has not professed to prove,this. The fundamental principle of Mr. Mansel’s book is really and insubstance just the doctrine which has always been a familiarcommonplace with orthodox divines, viz. that the human faculties areunable adequately to comprehend all truths and all their relations, andthat men have therefore no right to make their full comprehension ofdoctrines, or their perception of the accordance of doctrines with eachother, the testorstandardof their truth.Andtheprincipalmeritof thework is, that it brings out this very important but very obvious andfamiliarprincipleinaphilosophicdress,establishes ituponphilosophicgrounds,andconnects itwith thebestphilosophyof the age.ThemostlegitimateandvaluableapplicationofMr.Manse?sprinciples, so farastheological subjects are concerned, is to expose the unwarrantablepresumption of the objections commonly adduced against the leadingdoctrines that seemed tobe taught inScripture, on thegroundof theiralleged contrariety to reason. We admit that his principles would alsopreclude thecompetencyof foundingapositive argument in support ofthemysteriousdoctrinesoftheology,onwhatmaybecalledrationalisticgroundsderivedfromtheirintrinsicnatureormutualrelation.Butthisisnot sufficient towarrantDr.Tulloch’s allegation that they establish theincompetency of all theological systems, because it is not by any such

unwarrantablerationalisticprocessthattheologicalsystemsareformed.TheadvocatesofeverytheologicalsystemprofesstofindinScriptureallthematerialsofwhich their system is composed,and tobeprepared todefend every doctrine they hold, and their system as a whole, by theauthority of Scripture. The Reformers professed to derive their wholetheology from Scripture, and undertook to produce evidence fromScriptureforeverydoctrinetheyinculcated.AndsodoallCalvinistsstill.Theymayfindsomeconfirmationof theirdoctrines individually,andoftheir system as awhole, in considerations derived fromnatural reasonand the exercise of their logical faculties.But they refer to Scripture asaffording the chief direct positive proof of all they teach, and theyundertake to show that thematerialswhichScripture furnishes, rightlyandrationallyusedandapplied,establisheverypartof their theologicalsystem.Calvinistsdonotpretendthat,whentheyhaveprovedsomeoneoftheirdoctrinesfromScripture,theycanderivealltheirotherdoctrinesfromthisonebymere logicaldeduction.Theyprofesstoproducedirectpositive proof from Scripture sufficient to establish every one of them,and tohave recourse to rational considerations only for confirming theproof,andespeciallyforanswering,orratherdisposingofobjections.Inregard, then, to every one of the doctrines which enter into ourtheological system, we profess to show that it accurately expresses orembodies the sum and substance of what is asserted or indicated inScripture upon the point. There is nothing in man's self “BamptonLectures,”oranywhereelse,whichproves,orevenappearstoprove,thatthereisanythinginthisprocesswhichisincompetentorunwarrantable,or involves a transgression of the just “limits of religious thought.” Iftherebemenwhomainlyrestthetruthoftheirdoctrinesindividually,oroftheirsystemsasawhole,uponanyothergroundthanthisreasonableandcompetentapplicationofscripturalmaterials, theycannotpleadontheirbehalftheexampleoftheReformers,oranyofthebestdefendersofCalvinism. We base all the doctrines of our system upon statementscontainedinScripture;weundertaketoprovethembyafairandrationalapplication of thematerials which Scripture furnishes; and there is noground for alleging that the processes required in doing this, whetherconductedsoastoleadinpointoffacttoacorrectresultinanyparticularcaseornot, gobeyond the fair and legitimate exercise ofmen’smentalpowers.We are entitled to demand that our scriptural proofs shall be

fairlyfacedanddisposedof,inplaceofthewholesubjectbeingsetasideas incompetent, upon the ground of a piece of palpably irrelevantmetaphysics.

Theseremarksmaybeillustratedbyselectinganinstanceofaparticulardoctrine; and we shall choose with this view the great doctrine ofjustification, which in some aspects may be regarded as the greatdistinguishingfeatureofthetheologyoftheReformation.

Dr. Tulloch has given a statement of this great doctrine of Luther in asomewhatmysticalandnotveryintelligiblestyle,towhichitisnotworthwhile to advert. What we have to do with at present is this, that hecomplains that Luther and the defenders of the theology of theReformation, in place of being contented with some vague generalitiesuponthissubject,should,bydefinitionandexposition,havedrawnitoutinto precise and definite propositions, alleging in substance that thewholeprocessbywhich this isdone isunwarrantableand incompetent,andthattheresultisnottruth,buterror.Letustakeoneofthesepreciseand definite descriptions of justification, and see how the case stands;andinordertogiveDr.Tullocheveryadvantage,weshallselectitfromaperiodwhen the odious process of what he calls “ultra-definition” hadbeen carried somewhat farther than was done by the Reformers, andwhen, of course, all that he reckons so objectionable was most fullydeveloped.Aboutthemiddleoftheseventeenthcentury,anassemblyofdivines put forth the following statement of what they believed to betaughtinScriptureonthesubjectofjustification:-

“Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth; not byinfusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and byaccounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anythingwrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not byimputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelicalobediencetothemastheirrighteousness,butbyimputingtheobedienceandsatisfactionofChristunto them, theyreceivingandrestingonHimandHisrighteousnessbyfaith,whichfaiththeyhavenotofthemselves-itisthegiftofGod.”

Everyone acquainted with the history of theological discussion, knows

that thisremarkablestatementnotonlyaffirmspositivelyandexplicitlycertain great truths, but by plain implication denies certain errorsopposedtothem,whichhavebeenheldbyPapistsandArminianstobetaught in Scripture; and the question raised by it is this, - Are thedoctrines asserted, or the doctrines denied, here, revealed to us inScriptureastrue?Itisquitepossiblethatsomemenmayrefusetoadopteither of these alternatives, and may contend that Scripture teaches athirddoctrineuponthesubjectofjustification,differentfromeither,-orthatitdoesnotteachanydefinitedoctrinewhateveruponthepointsherebrought under consideration, and furnishes no materials for anintelligent and rational decision among the contending creeds. Ourpositionuponthesubjectisclearanddecided,andwewishtounderstanddistinctlythepositionofanyonewhoseviewsuponthesematterswemaybecalledupontoconsider.Webelievethatthestatementquotedfromthe“ConfessionofFaith”presentsanaccurateembodimentof thesumandsubstanceofwhatScripturewarrantsandrequiresustobelieveuponthesubject of justification; and we hold ourselves bound to produce, insuitable circumstances, the Scripture proof that all the ProtestantCalvinisticdoctrinesthereassertedaretrue,andthatall thePopishandArminian doctrines there denied are false. In what precise way Dr.Tullochwoulddefinehispositioninregardtothismatter,wecanscarcelyventuretosay.Wepresumehewillnotaffirm,thathebelieveseithertheone or the other set of opinions to be taught in Scripture, and to bebindinguponmensconsciences.He isnot likely,weshouldsuppose, toput forth a third set of opinions upon these points, different from theothertwo.The groundwhich, itwould seem, hemust take, in order toescapefromthedegradationofprofessing, in thisnineteenthcentury,aprecise set of opinions upon justification, is tomaintain that Scripturedoes not furnishmaterials for laying down any such definite doctrinesuponthesubject.Andthiscan-beestablishedonlyinoneorotheroftwoways:eitherbyproducingsomedirectgeneralproofof itapriori,asanabstractposition;orbyfollowingthemethodofexhaustion,andprovingindetailthatnotoneoftheattemptswhichhavebeenmadetodeduceadefinitedoctrineofjustificationfromscripturalmaterialshassucceeded.There is thus a vast deal to be done beyond what has ever yet beenattempted, before the great doctrine of justification as set forth in theconfessions of the Reformed churches can be exploded, and the way

openedupforrestoringthatobscurityandconfusioninregardtothewayofasinner’sjustification,whichtheReformersdidsomuchtodissipate,and which themen of progress in the present day seem so anxious tobringback.

ThereisonetheologicaltopiconwhichDr.Tullochhasgivensomethinglikeadeliverance,anditmaybeworthwhiletoadverttoitasaspecimenoftheneworadvancedtheology.IntreatingofthecontroversybetweenLuther and Erasmus on the subject of the bondage or servitude of thewill,hegivesthefollowingsageandsatisfactorydeliveranceregardingit:-

“Itwouldbeidleforustoenterintothemeritsofthiscontroversy;andintruth, itsmerits are no longer to uswhat theywere to the combatantsthemselves.Thecourseofopinionhasalteredthisaswellasmanyotherpoints of dispute, so that under the same names we no longer reallydiscuss the same things. There are probably none, with any competentknowledgeofthesubject,whowouldcareanylongertodefendtheexactposition either of Luther or of Erasmus. Both are right and both arewrong. Man is free, and yet grace is needful; and the philosophicrefinements of Erasmus, and the wild exaggerations of Luther, havebecome mere historic dust, which would only raise a cloud by beingdisturbed.”

And in referring to the samepoint as controvertedbetweenCalvin andPighius,hedisposesofitinthisway:-

“Sofarasthemeritsofthecontroversyareconcerned, itcannotbesaidthatheisanymoresuccessfulthantheGermanReformer.Heishereandeverywhere more simple and cautious in his statements, but his coldreiterations and evasions really no more touch the obvious difficultiesthanLuther’sheatedparadoxes.”

Thegreatcontroversy,then,aboutthebondageofthewill, towhichtheReformers attached so much importance in their discussions with theRomanists, and the Calvinists in their discussions with the Arminians,Dr.Tullochpronouncestohavebeenamere logomachy,-aquestionofnopracticalimportancewhatever,-unworthy,itwouldseem,ofreceiving

any serious consideration. Here, again, we fear that Dr. Tulloch’sdeliverancemustbeheldtoimplyadenialthatthedoctrinetaughtbytheReformersisreallyrevealedtousinScripture.Thatdoctrine,assetforthby theWestminsterdivines, is, that “man,byhis fall intoastateofsin,hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanyingsalvation.” Luther, in defending this doctrine in reply to Erasmus, hasmadesomerashandexaggeratedstatements,whichnooneadopts.ButCalvin, in defending the same doctrine in reply to Pighius, has, as Dr.Tulloch admits, avoided these excesses. And, independently of allpeculiaritiesofindividuals,wewouldliketoknowhowDr.TullochwoulddealwiththedoctrineasstatedbytheWestminsterdivines.Isthattooamere logomachy, which is just as true and as false as the oppositedoctrinetaughtbyPapistsandArminians?Aretherereallynomaterialsin Scripture for deciding either for or against the great Reformationdoctrineofthebondageorservitudeofthewilloffallenmantosin?Isthewhole of the process of investigating the meaning of Scripture for thedecision of that question, as it has been conducted on both sides,unwarrantable and illegitimate? Or is there really an utter want ofmaterials in Scripture for determining the question, either on the onesideorontheother?ThewayinwhichDr.TullochhasspokeninregardtothisimportantdoctrineoftheReformationsuggestsandwarrantssuchquestionsas these;andwewould like to seehimmeet them,aswellasthose formerlyproposed inregardto justification,openlyandmanfully,inorderthatwemight,ifpossible,learnsomethingaboutthat“spiritofinterpreting Scripture,” of which Dr. Tulloch discourses somagniloquently and unintelligibly, and bywhich Scripture seems to berenderedsoinadequatetobe“alightuntoourfeetandalampuntoourpath.”

There is another important subject, in regard to which the Reformershave been generally regarded as having rendered good service tomankind,viz.therightorganizationoftheChristianchurch.This,inoneaspect,might be comprehended under the general head of theology ordoctrine,as it consistsessentially inbringingoutaportionof themindandwillofGodasrevealedinHisword.Butitiscommon,andinsomerespects useful, to distinguish them, andDr. Tulloch has given them aseparatetreatment.Thequestionstobeentertainedandsettleduponthis

subject are these:HasGodgivenus inHiswordany indicationsofHiswillwithrespecttotheworshipandgovernmentofHischurch,whicharebindinginallages?andifHehas,whatarethey?

ItisgenerallyconcededthattheReformersrestoredthechurchtoalargemeasure of apostolic purity and simplicitywith respect toworship andgovernment. But it cannot be said that they reckoned this matter soimportant as the restoration of sounddoctrine, or that theywere to solargeanextentofonemindintheconclusionstowhichtheycame.Inthisaswellasintheology,morestrictlysocalled,Calvinwasthegreatmaster-mind,whostampedhis impressmostdistinctlyuponthechurchof thatand of every subsequent period. His own contributions to theestablishmentofprincipleandthedevelopmentoftruth,weregreaterinregardtochurchorganizationthaninregardtoanyotherdepartmentofdiscussion,-ofsuchmagnitudeandimportance,indeed,intheirbearingupon the whole subject of the church, as naturally to suggest acomparisonwiththeachievementsofSirIsaacNewtoninunfoldingthetrue principles of the solar system. The Christian church is mainlyindebted toCalvin,muchmore than toanyotherman, forbringingoutdistinctly, pressing upon general attention, and establishing, thefollowinggreatprinciples:-

1st, That it is unwarrantable and unlawful to introduce into thegovernment and worship of the church anything which has not thepositivesanctionofScripture.

2d,Thatthechurch,thoughitconsistsproperlyandprimarilyonlyoftheelectorofbelievers,andthough,therefore,visibilityandorganizationarenot essential, as Papists allege they are, to its existence, is under apositiveobligationtobeorganized,ifpossible,asavisiblesociety,andtobe organized in all things, so far as possible - its office-bearers,ordinances,worship, andgeneral administrationandarrangements - inaccordancewithwhatisprescribedorindicateduponthesepointsintheNewTestament.

3d, That the fundamental principles, or leading features, of what isusually called Presbyterian church government, are indicated withsufficientclearness intheNewTestamentaspermanentlybindingupon

thechurch.

4th,That the church shouldbealtogether freeand independentof civilcontrol, and should conduct its own distinct and independentgovernment by presbyteries and synods, while the civil power is calledupontoafforditprotectionandsupport.

5th, That human laws, whether about civil or ecclesiastical things, andwhetherproceedingfromcivilorecclesiasticalauthorities,donotperse-i.e.irrespectiveoftheirbeingsanctionedbytheauthorityofGod-imposeanobligationupontheconscience..

CalvinprofessedtofindalltheseprinciplesmoreorlessclearlytaughtinScripture;andwehavenodoubtthathesucceededinprovingthattheyareallsanctionedbythewordofGod,andthatthustheymaybesaidtoembodythepermanentbindingconstitutionoftheChristianchurch.Wedo not say that none of these principles had ever been enunciated tillCalvin proclaimed them. But some of them had never before been soclearlyandexplicitlysetforth.Noneofthemhadeverbeforebeensofullybroughtout in their truemeaning,and in their completeevidence.Andthe presentation of them all in combination, expounded and defendedwith consummate ability, and at the same time with admirablemoderation and good sense, furnishes a contribution to the rightpermanent organization of the Christian church such as no man evermade before, and noman could have an opportunity ofmaking again.Calvin may be said, in a sense, to have settled permanently theconstitution of the Christian church, not by assuming any jurisdictionover it, or by any mere exercise of his own talents and sagacity, butsimplybecauseGodwaspleasedtomakehimtheinstrumentofbringingoutfromthesacredScripturesthegreatleadingprinciplesbearingupontheorganizationof thechurch,whichtill that timehadbeenverymuchoverlooked, and had been far from exerting their proper influence.Webelieve that the leading principleswhichCalvin inculcated in regard tothe organization of the church, never have been, and never can be,successfully assailed; while there is certainly no possibility of any onebeingable again tobringout fromScripturea contributionof anythinglikeequalvalue.

Of course, everything depends upon the settlement of the question,whetherornottheseprinciplesaretaughtinScripture,astruthrevealedforthepermanentguidanceofthechurch.Thegeneralprocessbywhichthis is to be investigated and ascertained, is perfectly competent andlegitimate in all its features, though opposite conclusions have beenbrought out by different partieswhoprofessed to follow it. It has beencontended,

1st, That Scripture sanctions the great principles above stated, as thepermanentconstitutionofthechurch.

2d,ThatScriptureteachessomethingwhichisdifferentfrom,orexclusiveof,oropposedto,theseprinciples,uponallormostofthepointstowhichtheyrelate.

3d, That little or nothing bearing upon matters of worship andgovernmentisprescribedtoorimposeduponthechurch,andthattherearenoadequatematerialsfordecidinguponthetruthorfalsehoodofthetwoprecedingpositions.

Something plausiblemay be adduced in support of each of these threepositions.Butthequestionis,Whichofthemistrue?whichhasreallythesanction of Scripture?We embrace the first of them, and profess to beabletoestablishitbyanaccurateexpositionandareasonableapplicationofmaterialswhichScripturefurnishes.Thethirdofthesepositionsisinsubstance that which is maintained by Dr. Tulloch and otherlatitudinarians.Heseemstothink,thatexceptperhapsinregardtosomegreat general principles, so evident as scarcely to leave room for adifferenceofopinion,thechurchisleftatlibertytosettlequestionsaboutgovernmentandworshipforherself,inthewaywhichshemaythinkbestatthetimeandinthecircumstances;thattheviewsuponthesesubjectsbroughtoutbyCalvinandtheReformers,thoughimprovementsuponthepreviousconditionofthings,andwellsuitedtothetimes,furnishnothinglikeapatternofwhatoughttobethepermanentstateofthechurch;andthat Scripture cannot be shown to afford materials for deciding thosecontroversies which have been carried on between different churchesaboutquestionsofgovernmentandworship.Thesearethesortofnotionswhichheindicatesplainlyenoughinsuchpassagesasthefollowing:-

“There are twodistinct views thatmaybe takenof thispart ofCalvin’swork. It presents itself, on the one hand, as a moral influence - aconservativespiritualdisciplinesuitedtothetime,as itwascalledforthbyit;and,ontheotherhand,asanewtheory,ordefinitereconstitutionofthechurch.Inthefirstpointofviewitisalmostwhollyadmirable;inthesecond, itwillbefoundunabletomaintain itselfanymore thantheCatholic theorywhich it so fardisplaced.” “It is a verydifferent subjectthatisbeforeuswhenweturntocontemplatethetheocracyofCalvin,inits formal expression andbasis as anewanddefinite outlineof churchgovernment. In this respect he made more an apparent than a realadvance upon the old Catholic theocracy.He took up the old principlefrom a different and higher basis, but in a scarcely less arbitrary andexternalmanner.There isakingdomofdivine truthandrighteousness,hesaid,andScripture,not thepriesthood, is itsbasis.Thedivineword,and not Roman tradition, is the foundation of the spiritualcommonwealth.Sofarallright;sofarCalvinhadgotholdofapowerfultruthagainstthecorrupthistoricalpretensionsofPopery.Butheatoncewentmuch further than this, and said, not tentatively or in a spirit ofrationalfreedom,butdogmaticallyandinaspiritofarbitrariness,taintedwiththeveryfalsehoodfromwhosethraldomhesoughttodelivermen,‘This is the form of the divine kingdom presented in Scripture.’”f“Presbyterianism became the peculiar church order of a freeProtestantism,carryingwith iteverywhere,singularlyenough,asoneofthe very agencies of its free moral influence, an inquisitorial authorityresemblingthatoftheCalvinisticconsistory.Itrested,beyonddoubt,ona true divine order, else it never could have attained this historicalsuccess.Butitalsoinvolvedfromthebeginningacorruptingstainintheveryway inwhich itput forth itsdivinewarrant. ItnotmerelyasserteditselftobewiseandconformabletoScripture,andthereforedivine,butitclaimed the direct impress of a divine right for all its details andapplications.Thisgaveitstrengthandinfluenceinarudeanduncriticalage,butitplantedinitfromthefirstanelementofcorruption.Thegreatconceptionwhichitembodiedwasimpairedattherootbybeingfixedinastagnant and inflexible system, which became identified with theconceptionasnotonlyequallybutspeciallydivine.”J“Butwerenotthese‘elements,’ some will say, really biblical? did not Calvin establish hischurch polity and church discipline upon Scripture? and is not this a

warrantable course?Assuredly not in the spirit inwhich he did it. Thefundamentalsourceofthemistakeishere.TheChristianScripturesarearevelationofdivinetruth,andnotarevelationofchurchpolity.Theynotonlydonot laydown theoutlineof suchapolity,but theydonot evengive the adequate and conclusive hints of one; and for the best of allreasons, that it would have been entirely contrary to the spirit ofChristianitytohavedoneso;andbecause,inpointoffact,theconditionsof human progress do not admit of the imposition of any unvaryingsystemofgovernment,ecclesiasticalorcivil.Thesystemadapts itself tothelife,everywhereexpandswithitornarrowswithit,butisnowhereinany particular form the absolute condition of life. A definite outline ofchurch polity, therefore, or a definite code of social ethics, is nowheregivenintheNewTestament,andthespiritof it isentirelyhostiletotheabsoluteassertionofeithertheoneortheother.Ӥ

Inordertoestablishhisposition,Dr.TullochisboundeithertoproduceScriptureevidenceinsupportofthegeneralnotionsormaximsonwhichhe bases it, or else to prove in detail the utter inadequacy of all theattemptswhichhavebeenmadetoshow,thatanydefiniteviewsinregardtogovernmentandworshipoughtpermanentlytoguidethechurchesofChrist. We profess to establish our position by both these classes ofargument.Insofarasweprofesstolaydownanygeneralrules,whetherofan imperativeorofaprohibitory character, and in so far asweurgeany specific arrangements as permanently binding, we undertake toproduce sufficient evidence from Scripture for all we assert or require.Dr.Tullochhasnotentereduponanydefenceofthegroundhehastakenuponthissubject;andthereforewearenotcalledupontodiscussit.Butas the loose and dangerous views which he has put forth are veryprevalent in the present day, and as they are by nomeans destitute ofplausibility,while,atthesametime,wearepersuadedthatalargeshareof the favour they have met with is to be ascribed to ignorance andmisapprehension, we shall take the opportunity of making a fewexplanatoryobservationsregardingthem.

Of the views generally held by the Reformers on the subject of theorganization of the church, there are twowhich have been always veryoffensivetomenofalooseandlatitudinariantendency,-viz.thealleged

unlawfulness of introducing into the worship and government of thechurchanythingwhichisnotpositivelywarrantedbyScripture,andthepermanentbindingobligationofaparticularformofchurchgovernment.The second of these principlesmay be regarded, in one aspect of it, ascomprehended in the first. But it may be proper to make a fewobservationsuponthemseparately,intheorderinwhichtheyhavenowbeenstated.

TheLutheranandAnglican sectionsof theReformersheld a somewhatlooser view upon these subjects than was approved of by Calvin. Theygenerallyheldthatthechurchmightwarrant-ablyintroduceinnovationsinto itsgovernmentandworship,whichmight seem fitted tobeuseful,provided it could not be shown that there was anything in Scripturewhich expressly prohibited or discountenanced them, thus laying theonus probanch, in so far as Scripture is concerned, upon those whoopposed the introduction of innovations. The Calvinistic section of theReformers,followingtheirgreatmaster,adoptedastricterrule,andwereofopinionthattherearesufficientlyplainindicationsinScriptureitself,thatitwasChrist’smindandwillthatnothingshouldbeintroducedintothegovernmentandworshipofthechurch,unlessapositivewarrantforitcouldbefoundinScripture.Thisprinciplewasadoptedandacteduponby the English Puritans and the Scottish Presbyterians; and we arepersuaded that it is the only true and safe principle applicable to thismatter.

Theprincipleisinasenseaverywideandsweepingone.Butitispurelyprohibitory or exclusive; and the practical effect of it, if it were fullycarriedout,wouldjustbetoleavethechurchintheconditioninwhichitwasleftbytheapostles,insofaraswehaveanymeansofinformation,-aresult,surely,whichneednotbeveryalarming,excepttothosewhothinkthat they themselves have very superior powers for improving andadorning the church by their inventions. The principle ought to beunderstood in a common-senseway, andwe ought to be satisfiedwithreasonable evidence of its truth. Thosewho dislike this principle, fromwhatever cause, usually try to run us into difficulties by putting a verystringent construction upon it, and thereby giving it an appearance ofabsurdity, or by demanding an unreasonable amount of evidence to

establish it. The principle must be interpreted and explained in theexerciseofcommonsense.Oneobviousmodificationofitissuggestedinthe first chapter of the “Westminster Confession,” where it isacknowledged “that there are some circumstances concerning theworshipofGodandgovernmentofthechurchcommontohumanactionsandsocieties,whicharetobeorderedbythelightofnatureandChristianprudence,accordingtothegeneralrulesoftheword,whicharealwaystobeobserved.”Buteventhisdistinctionbetweenthingsandcircumstancescannot alwaysbe applied very certainly; that is, cases have occurred inwhich there might be room for a difference of opinion, whether aproposed regulation or arrangement was a distinct thing in the way ofinnovation, or merely a circumstance attaching to an authorized thingand requiring to be regulated. Difficulties and differences of opinionsmayariseaboutdetails,evenwhensoundjudgmentandgoodsensearebroughttobearupontheinterpretationandapplicationoftheprinciple;butthisaffordsnogroundfordenyingordoubtingthetruthorsoundnessoftheprincipleitself.

Inregardtoquestionsof thissort therearetwooppositeextremes, intowhich one-sided minds are apt to fall, and both of which ought to beguarded against. The one is to stick rigidly and doggedly to a generalprinciple,refusingtoadmitthatanylimitationsorqualificationsoughttobe permitted in applying it; and the other is to reject the principlealtogether,asif ithadnotruthorsoundnessaboutit,merelybecauseitmanifestly cannot , be carried out without some exceptions andmodifications,andbecausedifficultiesmaybe raisedaboutsomeof thedetailsofitsapplicationwhichcannotalwaysbeveryeasilysolved.Boththese extremes have been often exhibited in connection with thisprinciple.Bothofthemarenatural,butbothareunreasonable,andbothindicate a want of sound judgment. The right course is to ascertain, ifpossible, whether or not the principle be true; and if there seem to besufficient evidence of its truth, then to seek tomake a reasonable andjudiciousapplicationofit.

WithregardtotheScriptureevidenceofthetruthoftheprinciple,wedonotallegethatit isverydirect,explicit,andoverwhelming.Itisnotofakindlikelytosatisfythecoarse,materialliteralists,whocanseenothing

in the Bible but what is asserted in express terms. But it is, we think,amplysufficienttoconvincethosewho,withoutanyprejudiceagainstit,arereadytosubmittheirmindstothefairimpressionofwhatScriptureseems to have been intended to teach. The general principle of theunlawfulness of introducing into the government and worship of thechurch anything which cannot be shown to have positive scripturalsanction, can,we think,bededuced fromthewordofGodbygoodandnecessaryconsequence.Wedonotmeanatpresenttoadducetheproof,butmerelytoindicatewhereitistobefound.Thetruthofthisprinciple,as a general rule for the guidance of the church, is plainly enoughinvolved in what Scripture teaches concerning its own sufficiency andperfectionasaruleoffaithandpractice,concerningGod’sexclusiverighttodetermineinwhatwayHeoughttobeworshipped,concerningChrist’sexclusive right to settle theconstitution, laws,andarrangementsofHiskingdom, concerning the unlawfulness of will-worship, and concerningtheutterunfitnessofmenforthefunctionwhichtheyhavesooftenandso boldly usurped in this matter. The fair application of these variousscripturalviews taken incombination,alongwith theutterwantof anyevidence on the other side, seems to us quite sufficient to shut out thelawfulnessofintroducingtheinventionsofmenintothegovernmentandworshipoftheChristianchurch.

Thereisnoforceinthepresumption,that,becauseso little inregardtothe externals of the church is fixed by scriptural authority, thereforemuch was left to be regulated by human wisdom, as experiencemightsuggestorasthevaryingconditionofthechurchmightseemtorequire.For, on the contrary, every view suggested by Scripture of Christianityand the church, indicates that Christ intended His church to remainpermanently in the condition of simplicity as to outwardarrangements,.inwhichHisapostleswereguided to leave it.Andnevercertainlyhastherebeenacaseinwhichithasbeenmorefullyestablishedby experience, that the foolishness ofGod, as the apostle says, iswiserthanmen;thatwhatseemstomanymenveryplausibleandverywise,isutterfolly,andtendstofrustratetheveryobjectswhichitwasdesignedtoserve. Of the innumerable inventions of men introduced into thegovernment and worship of the church, without any warrant fromScripture, but professedly as being indicated by the wisdom of

experience, or by the Christian consciousness of a particular age orcountry,tobefittedtopromotethegreatendsofthechurch,notonecanwithanyplausibilitybeshowntohavehadatendencytocontribute,ortohave in fact contributed, to the end contemplated; while, taken in themass, - and of course no limitation can be put to them unless theprinciple we maintain be adopted, - they have inflicted fearful injuryuponthebestinterestsofthechurch.ThereisaremarkablestatementofDr.Owen’s on this subject,whichhasbeenoftenquoted, butnotmorefrequentlythanitdeserves;itisthis-“Theprinciplethatthechurchhathpower to institute any thing or ceremony belonging to the worship ofGod, either as to matter or manner, beyond the observance of suchcircumstances as necessarily attend such ordinances as Christ himselfhath instituted, lies at the bottom of all the horrible superstition andidolatry,ofalltheconfusion,blood,persecution,andwars,thathaveforsolongaseasonspreadthemselvesoverthefaceoftheChristianworld.”Itisnodoubtverygratifyingtotheprideofmentothinkthatthey,intheexerciseoftheirwisdom,broughttobearupontheexperience‘ofthepasthistoryofthechurch,or(toaccommodateourstatementtotheprevalentviews and phraseology of the present day) in the exercise of their ownChristian consciousness, their own spiritual tact and discernment, canintroduceimprovementsuponthenakednessandsimplicityofthechurchasitwasleftbytheapostles.Perhapsthebestmodeofdealingwithsuchpersons,istocalluponthemtoexemplifytheirowngeneralprinciple,byproducing specific instances from among the innumerable innovationsthathavebeenintroducedintothechurchinpastages,bywhichtheyarepreparedtomaintainthattheinterestsofreligionhavebeenbenefited;-or, if they decline this, to call upon them for a specimen of theinnovations, possessed of course of this beneficial character andtendency,which they themselves have devised andwouldwish to haveintroduced; and then to undertake to show, what would be no verydifficult task, thatthese innovations,whetherselectedor invented,haveproduced,orwouldproduceiftried,effectstheveryreverseofwhattheywouldascribetothem.

There is a strange fallacy which seems to mislead men in forming anestimateofthesoundnessandimportanceofthisprinciple.Becausethisprinciplehasbeenoftenbroughtoutinconnectionwiththediscussionof

matters which, viewed in themselves, are very unimportant, - such asrites and ceremonies, vestments and organs, crossings, kneelings,bowings, and other such ineptiae, - some men seem to think that itpartakesoftheintrinsiclittlenessofthesethings,andthatthemenwhodefend and try to enforce it, find their most congenial occupation infightingaboutthesesmallmatters,andexhibitgreatbigotryandnarrow-mindedness in bringing the authority of God and the testimony ofScripturetobearuponsuchanumberofpaltrypoints.Manyhavebeenled to entertain such views as these of the English Puritans and of theScottish Presbyterians, and very much upon the ground of theirmaintenance of this principle. Now, it should be quite sufficient topreventorneutralizethisimpression,toshow,aswethinkcanbedone,1st,ThattheprincipleistaughtwithsufficientplainnessinScripture,andthat, therefore, itoughttobeprofessedandappliedtotheregulationofecclesiastical affairs. 2d, That, viewed in itself, it is large, liberal, andcomprehensive,suchasseemsinnowayunbecomingitsdivineAuthor,and in no way unsuitable to the dignity of the church as a divineinstitution, giving to God His rightful place of supremacy, and to thechurch,as thebodyofChrist, its rightfulpositionof elevatedsimplicityandpurity,3d,That,whencontemplatedinconnectionwiththeendsofthe church, it is in full accordance with everything suggested by anenlightenedandsearchingsurveyofthetendenciesofhumannature,andthetestimonyofallpastexperience.Andwithrespecttotheconnectionabove referred to,onwhich the impressionwe are combating is chieflybased,itissurelyplainthat,insofarasitexistsdefacto,thisisowning,not to anything in the tendencies of the principle itself or of itssupporters, but to the conduct of the men who, in defiance of thisprinciple, would obtrude human inventions into the government andworship of the church, orwho insist upon retaining thempermanentlyafter they have once got admittance. The principle suggests no rites orceremonies, no schemes or arrangements; it is purely negative andprohibitory.Itssupportersneverdeviseinnovationsandpressthemuponthe church. The principle itself precludes this. It is the deniers of thisprinciple,andtheyalone,whoinventandobtrudeinnovations;andtheyareresponsibleforallthemischiefsthatensuefromthediscussionsandcontentionstowhichthesethingshavegivenrise.

Men, under the pretence of curing the defects and shortcomings, thenakedness andbareness, attaching to ecclesiastical arrangementsas setbefore us in the New Testament, have been constantly proposinginnovationsandimprovementsingovernmentandworship.Thequestionis, How ought these proposals to have been received? Our answer is,Thereisagreatgeneralscripturalprinciplewhichshutsthemallout.Werefuseeventoenterintotheconsiderationofwhatisallegedinsupportofthem. It is enough for us that they have no positive sanction fromScripture.Onthisgroundwerefusetoadmitthem,and,wheretheyhavecreptin,weinsistupontheirbeingturnedout,although,uponthislatterpoint,Calvin,withhisusualmagnanimity,wasalwayswilling tohaveareasonableregardtotimesandcircumstances,andtotheweaknessesandinfirmitiesof thepartiesconcerned.This isreallyall thatwehavetodowith the mass of trumpery that has been brought under discussion inconnection with these subjects. We find plainly enough indicated inScripture a great comprehensive principle, suited to the dignity andimportance of the great subject to which it relates, the rightadministrationofthechurchofChrist,-aprinciple“majestic initsownsimplicity.”

Weapplythisprincipletothemassofpaltrystuffthathasbeendevisedfor the .purposeof improvingandadorningthechurch,and therebywesweepitallaway.Thisisallthatwehavetodowiththesesmallmatters.Wehavenodesiretoknowortodoanythingaboutthem;andwhentheyareobtrudeduponusbyouropponents,wetakeourstanduponahigherplatform,andrefusetolookatthem.Thisisplainlythetruestateofthecase; and yet attempts are constantly made, and not wholly withoutsuccess, to represent these smallmatters, and the discussions towhichthey have given rise, as distinctively characteristic of English Puritansand Scottish Presbyterians;whereas, in all their intrinsic littleness andpaltriness, they are really characteristic only of those who contend forintroducingorretainingthem.

Itwasagreatservice,then,thatCalvinrenderedtothechurchwhenhebrought out and established this principle, in correction of the looserviewsheldbytheLutheranandAnglicanReformers.IfalltheProtestantchurches had cordially adopted and faithfully followed this simple but

comprehensive and commanding principle, this would certainly haveprevented a fearful amount of mischief, and would, in all probability,have effected a vast amount of good. There is good ground to believe,that, inthatcase,theProtestantchurcheswouldhavebeenallalongfarmore cordially united together, and more active and successful inopposing their great common enemies, Popery and Infidelity, and inadvancingthecauseoftheircommonLordandMaster.

There is another principle that was generally held by the Reformers,thoughnotpeculiar to them,which isveryoffensive toDr.Tulloch andother latitudinarians,viz. thescripturalauthorityor jusdivinumofoneparticular form of church government. This general principle has beenheld by most men who have felt any real honest interest in religiousmatters, whether they had adopted Popish, Prelatic, Presbyterian, orCongregational views ofwhat the government of the church should be.The first personswho gave prominence to a negation of this principle,were the original defenders of the Church of England in QueenElizabeth’s reign, ArchbishopWhitgift and his associates, who scarcelyventured to claim a scriptural sanction for the constitution of theirchurch. They have not been generally followed in this by the moremodern defenders of the Church of England, who have commonlyclaimedadivinerightfortheirgovernment,andnotafewofwhomhavegone the length of unchurching Presbyterians and Congregationalists.But they have been followed by some men in every age who seemedanxious to escape from the controlling authority of Scripture, that theymightbemoreatlibertytogratifytheirownfancies,ortoprosecutetheirownselfishinterest.

From the time ofWhitgift andHooker down to the present day, it hasbeen a common misrepresentation of the view's of jure divino anti-prelatists,toallege,thattheyclaimedadivineright-apositiveScripturesanction - for the details of their system of government. Dr. Tullochseems to have thought it impossible to dispense with thismisrepresentation;andaccordinglyhetellsusthatPresbyterianism“notmerely asserted itself to be wise and conformable to Scripture, andthereforedivine,butitclaimedthedirectimpressofadivinerightforallits details and applications.” This statement is untrue. There may be

differences of opinion amongPresbyterians as to the extent towhich adivinerightshouldbeclaimedforthesubordinatefeaturesofthesystem,and some, no doubt, have gone to an extreme in the extent of theirclaims.ButnoPresbyteriansof eminencehave ever claimed “thedirectimpress of a divine right for all the details and applications” of theirsystem»Theyhaveclaimedadivineright,orscripturalsanction,onlyforitsfundamentalprinciples,itsleadingfeatures.ItistheseonlywhichtheyallegeareindicatedinScriptureinsuchawayastobebindinguponthechurchinallages.Anditisjustthesamegroundthatistakenbyallthemore intelligent and judicious among jure divino Prelatists andCongregationalists.

Dr. Tulloch, in the last of the quotationswe have given fromhis book,endeavours to prove that no form of church government was or couldhavebeenlaiddowninScripture,soastobepermanentlybindinguponthechurch.Hisleadingpositionsareembodiedinthisstatement:-

“The Christian Scriptures are a revelation of divine truth, and not arevelationofchurchpolity.Theynotonlydonotlaydowntheoutlineofsuchapolity,buttheydonotevengivetheadequateandconclusivehintsofone.And for thebestof all reasons, that itwouldhavebeenentirelycontrary to the spirit of Christianity to have done so; and because, inpoint of fact, the conditions of human progress do not admit of theimposition of any unvarying system of government, ecclesiastical orcivil.”

Dr.TullochadmitsthattheScripturesare“arevelationofdivinetruth;’5and since the truth revealed in them is not the theology of theReformation,wehopethatsometimeorotherhewillenlightentheworldas towhat the“divine truth” iswhich theydoreveal.As to thepositionthat“theScripturesarenotarevelationofchurchpolity/5weventuretothink,thatitispossiblethatsomethingmaybetaughtinScriptureonthesubjectofchurchpolityforthepermanentguidanceofthechurch;andiftherebeanythingofthatnaturetaughtthere,thenitmustbeaportionofthe “divine truth” which the Scriptures reveal. Whether anything betaughtinScriptureonthesubjectofchurchpolity,mustbedetermined,notbysuchanoraculardeliveranceasDr.Tullochhasgiven,butbyanexaminationofScriptureitself,byaninvestigationintothevalidityofthe

scriptural grounds which have been brought forward in support of thedifferenttheoriesofchurchgovernment.Dr.Tullochwillscarcelyallege,that there isnothingwhatever taught inScriptureas towhat should bethepolityof thechurch;and if therebeanythingtaught thereupon thesubject,itmustbereceivedasaportionofdivinetruth.Heisquitesure,however,thatthesacredScriptures“notonlydonotlaydowntheoutlineof suchapolity,but theydonot evengive the adequate and conclusivehintsofone.’5Herewearedirectlyat issuewithhim.Wecontend thatnot merely “hints,” but what may be fairly called an “outline 55 of aparticularchurchpolity,aresetforthinScriptureinsuchawayastobebindinguponthechurchinallages.

Weadmit,indeed,thatwhenthispositionisdiscussedintheabstractasageneralthesis,agooddealoftheargumentoftenadducedinsupportofitis unsatisfactory and insufficient, aswell aswhat is adduced against it.When the position we maintain is put in the shape of an abstractproposition, inwhich theadvocates of all the different forms of churchgovernment-Papists,Prelatists,Presbyterians,andCongregationalists-mayconcur;inotherwords,whenthegeneralpositionislaiddown,thata particular form of church government, without specifying what, issanctioned by Scripture, we admit that the materials which may bebrought to bear in support of this position are somewhat vague andindefinite,anddonottellverydirectlyandconclusivelyuponthepointtobeproved.The strengthof the case is brought fully out onlywhen it isallegedthatsomeoneparticularformofchurchgovernmentspecified,asPrelacyorPresbyterianism,issanctionedandimposedbyScripture.Thebestandmostsatisfactorywayofestablishing thegeneralposition, thatthe Scripture sanctions and imposes a particular form of churchgovernment, is to bring out the particular principles, rules, andarrangements in regard to the government of the church which aresanctionedbyScripture,andtoshowthatthese,whentakentogether,orviewed in combination, 'constitute what may be fairly and reasonablycalled a form of church government. By this process not only is thegeneralpropositionmostclearlyanddirectlyestablished,but,whatisofmuchmoreimportance,theparticularformofchurchgovernmentwhichScripture sanctions, and which, therefore, the church is under apermanentobligationtohave,isbroughtoutanddemonstrated.

Attempts, indeed,havebeenmadetoproveandtodisprove thegeneralthesisintheabstractbyapriorireasonings,butmostofthesereasoningsappeartoustopossessbutlittleforceorrelevancy.Itiscontendedonapriorigrounds,ontheonehand,thattheremusthavebeenaparticularformofchurchgovernmentlaiddowninScripture;anditiscontendedonsimilargrounds,ontheotherhand,thatthiscouldnotbedone,orthatitwas impossible consistently with the general nature of the Christianchurch,andthecircumstancesinwhichitwas,andwastobe,placed.Butthe truth is, that nothingwhich can be fairly regarded as very clear orcogent can be adduced in support of either of these abstract positions,unless the ideaofa formofchurchgovernmentbe taken, in the firstofthem, in a verywide and lax, and in the second, in a veryminute andrestricted sense. On the one hand, while there is a largemeasure of apriori probability, that Christ, intending to found a church as anorganized,visible,permanentsociety,verydifferentincharacterfromthepreviouslysubsistingchurchofGod,especiallyinregardtoallmattersofexternal organization and arrangement, should give some generaldirectionsor indicationsofHismindandwill as to its constitutionandgovernment,wehavenocertainmaterialsformakinganyassertionastothe extent to which He was called upon to carry the rules He mightprescribe as of permanent obligation, or for holding that Hemight beconfidentlyexpectedtogiverulessocompleteandminuteastoconstitutewhatmightwith any propriety be called a form of church government.And,ontheotherhand,whileitisevidentthattheChristianchurchwasintendedtobewhollydifferentinexternalorganizationfromtheJewishone,and tohavenosuchminuteanddetailed systemof regulations,asbeing intended for all ages and countries; andwhile on these grounds,but little, as compared with the Jewish system, was to be subjected topreciseanddetailedregulations,andsomethingmightthusbelefttothechurch to be determined by the light of nature and providentialcircumstances, - there is no antecedent improbabilitywhatever, arisingfromanysourceoranyconsideration,intheideathatChristmightgivesuch general directions on this subject as, when combined together,mightjustlyhavethedesignationofaformofchurchgovernmentappliedtothem.Onthesegroundswedonotattachmuchweighttothosegeneralaprioriconsiderations,bywhichmanyhaveundertakentoprove,ontheone hand, that Christ must have established a particular form of

governmentforHischurch,or,ontheotherhand,thatHecouldnothavedoneso;andweregardthecaseuponthiswholesubjectasleftinaverydefective and imperfect state, until the advocates of the principle of ascripturally sanctionedor juredivino formof churchgovernment, haveshown what the particular form of church government is which theScripturesanctions,andhaveproducedtheevidencethatScripturedoessanction that form, and, of course, a form - which will be a sufficientanswertotheallegationthatHecouldnothavedoneso.

WethinkwecanprovefromScripturestatementandapostolicpractice,thebindingobligationofcertainlawsorrules,andarrangements,whichfurnish not only “hints,” but even an “outline of church polity,” andwhich,whencombinedtogether,maybefairlysaidtoconstituteaformofchurch government. In this way, we thinkwe can show that there is aparticular form of church government which, in its fundamentalprinciplesandleadingfeatures,issanctionedandimposedbyScripture,viz.,thePresbyterianone.

Ifthegeneralaprioriconsiderationswhichhavebeenfrequentlybroughtinto the discussion of this subject are insufficient to establish the trueposition, that Scripture does sanction one particular form of churchgovernment,much lessare theyadequate toestablish the falsepositionthat itdoesnot.Dr.Tulloch,aswehaveseen,asserts thatwehave“thebestofallreasons”toshowthattheScripturesdonotlaydownevenanoutline”ofachurchpolity.Buthis“bestofallreasons”arenot likelytosatisfy any but thosewho are determined beforehand to be convinced.His reasons are two: - 1st, “Itwould have been entirely contrary to thespirit of Christianity to have done so;” 2d, “The conditions of humanprogress do not admit of the imposition of any unvarying system ofgovernment, ecclesiastical or civil.” This is the whole proof which headduces;andthesehecalls“thebestofallreasons.”This,forsooth,istoprovethatitisimpossiblethateventhe“outline”ofachurchpolitycouldhave been set forth in Scripture as permanently binding. Even DivineWisdom, itwould seem, could not have devised an outline of a churchpolitywhichwould have been accordantwith “the spirit of Christianityand the conditions of human progress.” Our readers, we presume, willnot expect us to say anything more for the purpose of refuting and

exposing this. “The spirit of Christianity and the conditions of humanprogress”might have had some bearing upon the question in hand, iftherehadbeenontheothersidethemaintenanceoftheposition,thattheScripturesimposeduponthechurchafullsystemofminuteanddetailedprescription of external arrangements, similar in character and generalfeatures to theJewisheconomy.Butwhen it is consideredhowentirelydifferent from everything of this sort is all that is contended for byintelligent defenders of the divine right of a particular form of churchgovernment,mostmen,we think,will see thatDr.Tulloch’sappeal, forconclusiveevidenceagainstitspossibility,tothespiritofChristianityandtheconditionsofhumanprogress,istrulyridiculous.

Thedisproofoftheposition,whichhasbeenreceivedsogenerallyamongprofessing Christians, that Scripture does sanction and prescribe theoutline of a church polity, cannot be effected by means of vague andambiguous generalities, or by high-sounding declamation. It can beeffected,ifatall,onlybythemethodofexhaustion;thatis,bythedetailedrefutationofallthedifferentattemptswhichhavebeenmadetoestablishfrom Scripture the divine right of a particular form of churchgovernment. And this species of work is muchmore difficult, requiresmuch more talent and learning, than declaiming about “the spirit ofChristianityandtheconditionsofhumanprogress.”

Atthesametime,wemustadmitthatithasbecomesomewhatcommonand popular inmodern times, to scout and ridicule the advancing of aclaim to a divine right on behalf of any particular form of churchgovernment. This has arisen partly, no doubt, from the ignorant andinjudicious zeal with which the claim has been sometimes advocated,evenbythosewhoseviewsuponthesubjectofchurchgovernmentwere,in the main, sound and scriptural; but principally, we are persuaded,from certain erroneous notions of the practical consequences that aresupposedtofollownecessarilyfromtheestablishmentofthisclaim.

AllPapistsandmanyPrelatists,inputtingforthaclaimtoadivinerightonbehalfoftheirrespectivesystemsofchurchgovernment,haveopenly,and without hesitation, deduced from their fancied success inestablishingthisclaim,theconclusionthatprofessedlyChristiansocietieswhich had not their form of government were, for this reason, to be

refusedthedesignationandtheordinaryrightsofChristianchurches,oreven to be placed beyond the pale within which salvation is ordinarilypossible.Thismodeofprocedure,inapplyingtheclaimtoadivineright,universalamongPapists,andbynomeansuncommonamongacertainclassofPrelatists,mustappeartomenwhoknowanythingofthegeneralgeniusandspiritof theChristiansystem,andwhoarepossessedofanymeasure of common sense and Christian charity, to be absurd andmonstrous;andbymanythedisgustwhichhasbeenreasonablyexcitedbythisconduct,hasbeentransferredtothegeneralprincipleofclaimingajusdivinumonbehalfofaparticularformofchurchgovernment,fromwhich it was supposed necessarily to flow. All this, however, isunwarranted and erroneous. Presbyterians andCongregationalists haveasgenerallysetupaclaimtoadivinerightonbehalfoftheirsystemsofchurch government as Papists andPrelatists have done; butwe do notrememberthattherehaseverbeenaPresbyterianoraCongregationalistofanynotewhounchurchedallotherdenominationsexcepthisown,orwhorefusedtoregardandtreatthemasChristianchurchesmerelyonthegroundthattheyhadadoptedaformofgovernmentdifferent fromthatwhichhebelievedtohave,exclusively,thesanctionofthewordofGod.

ButmanyseemtosupposethatPresbyteriansandCongregationalists,innot unchurching other denominations on the ground of rejecting whatthey believe respectively to be the only scripturally sanctioned form ofchurch government, are guilty of an amiable weakness, and fall intoinconsistency,bydecliningtofollowouttheirassertionofajusdivinumin judging of others, to its natural and legitimate consequences. Thisnotion is erroneous and unjust, aswill appear by attending to the truestate of the case. All that is implied in claiming a divine right forPresbyterianism, for instance, is that the person who does so believes,andthinkshecanprove,thatChristhasplainlyenoughindicatedinHisword His mind and will, that the fundamental principles ofPresbyterianismshouldalwaysandeverywhereregulatethegovernmentof His church. Prelatists and Congregationalists, professing equally tofollow the guidance of the sacred Scriptures and to submit to theauthorityofChrist,haveformedadifferentandoppositejudgmentastothe true bearing and import of thematerialswhich Scripture furnishesupon this subject, and have in consequence set up a different form of

government in their churches.Thisbeing the true stateof the case, thesumandsubstanceofwhatanycandidandintelligentPresbyterian,eventhoughholdingthejusdivinumofpresbytery,hastochargeagainstthemis just this, - that theyhavemistaken themindandwill ofChrist uponthis point, that they have formed an erroneous judgment about theimportoftheindicationsHehasgiveninHisword,astohowHewouldhave thegovernmentofHis. church tobe regulated.And this,which isreally the whole charge, does not, upon principles generallyacknowledged, afford of itself any sufficient ground for unchurchingthem,orforrefusingtorecogniseandtreatthemasChristianchurches.Itisaseriousmattertoadoptandtoactuponerroneousviewsinregardtoanyportionofdivinetruth,anythingwhichGodhasmadeknowntousinHisword,andwehavenowishtopalliatethisinanyinstance.Butletthecasebefairlystated,andlettheprinciplesordinarilyandjustlyappliedtoothererrorsbeappliedtothisone.Therecanbenopossiblegroundforholding,thattheadoptionandmaintenanceofanerroronthesubjectofthegovernmentofthechurch,bywordsordeeds,involvesmoreguilt,orshouldbemoreseverelycondemned,thantheadoptionandmaintenanceof an erroruponamatterofdoctrine in themore limited senseof thatword; and on the contrary, there is a great deal in the nature of thesubject,viewedinconnectionwiththegeneralcharacter,spirit,tendency,andobjectsoftheChristianeconomy,andinthekindandamountofthematerialsofevidencewhichScriptureaffordsusforforminga judgmentuponsuchquestions,whichindicatesthaterrorsinregardtogovernmentshould be treated with less severity of condemnation, and should lessmateriallyaffecttheintercourseofchurcheswitheachother,thanerrors(within certain limits) with regard to doctrine, which are not usuallyconsidered to warrant the unchurching of other denominations, or toform an insuperable obstacle to the maintenance of friendly relationswiththem.

These grounds, on which we establish the unwarrantableness andunfairnessofthecommonallegation,thatclaimingadivinerightforoneparticularformofchurchgovernment, impliestheunchurchingofotherdenominationswhomay have come to a different conclusion as to thebearingoftheScripturetestimonyuponthissubject,applyequallytothewider and more comprehensive principle, formerly explained, of the

unlawfulnessof introducing anything into the governmentandworshipofthechurchwhichisnotpositivelysanctionedbyScripture.Lutheransand Anglicans generally contend that this principle is not taught inScripture,and,onthisground,refusetobesostrictlytiedupinregardtothe introduction of ceremonies and regulations. We believe that, indenyingthisprinciple,theyhavefallenintoanerrorintheinterpretationand application of Scripture, and that the ceremonies and regulationswhich, inopposition to it, theymayhave introduced, areunlawful, andoughttoberemoved.Butweneverimagined,thatbecauseofthiserrorinopinion, followed to some extent by error in practice, thesedenominationswere to be unchurched, or to be shut out from friendlyintercourse, especially as the scriptural evidence in favour of theprinciple, though quite sufficient and satisfactory to ourminds, is of asomewhat constructive and inferential description, and as differencessometimesariseamongthosewhoconcurinholdingitaboutsomeofthedetailsofitsapplication.

If these views, which are in manifest accordance with the dictates ofcommon sense, and with principles generally recognized in otherdepartments of theological discussion, were admitted, there would bemuchlessdisinclinationtoyieldtotheforceoftheScriptureevidenceinsupportofthetwoprincipleswhichwehaveexplained,andwhichform,we are persuaded, the only effectual security for the purity of churchadministration,andtheauthorityofchurcharrangements.

But there are, in every age, some men who seem anxious to have thereputation of being in advance of all around them in the enlightenedknowledge of theological subjects, and who, with this view, are verydesirous to escape from the trammels of implicit deference to theauthority of Scripture.The great sourceof error in religiousmatters is,thatmendonotfullyandhonestlytakethewordofGodastheirruleandstandard.Theymayprofesstodoso,andtheymaydosotosomeextent;buttherehavebeenmanycontrivances,bywhichmenhavelabouredtounderminetheauthorityofScriptureasaruleoffaithandpractice,whileprofessing to respect it, and have virtually set up themselves or theirfellow-men as the ultimate standard of truth. Papists and Quakers,RationalistsandTraditionalists,FanaticsandMystics,allunderminethe

supreme authority of Scripture, , and substitute something else in itsroom: and the elements of the leadingnotions of these various parties,singly or in combination, are now in extensive operation amongst us.Indeed, one of themost remarkable features of the present age, is theextent to which these different, and apparently opposite, elements arecombinedeveninthesamepersons,andcooperateinproducingthesameresult.Therearepersonsofsomeinfluenceinthereligiousworld,inthepresentday,inregardtowhomitwouldnotbeeasytodetermineunderwhichof theheadsabovementionedtheymightmost fairlyberanked-menwhoseemtobeatoncetraditionalists,rationalists,andmystics,andwho, under the influence of a combination of the elements of thesedifferent systems, set aside, to a considerable extent, the authority ofScripture,andpervertthemeaningofitsstatements,or,atleast,comefarshortinturningtheScripturestogoodaccount,orinderivingfromthemtheamountof clearanddefiniteknowledgeofdivine thingswhichtheyarefittedandintendedtoconvey.

Itmightbeausefulandinterestingsubjectofinvestigation,tobringoutaviewofthewayinwhichthesedifferentandoppositetendenciesare, inthe present day, combined in producing error and unsoundness, andespecially indefiniteness and obscurity, on religious subjects. The greatbugbear, indeed, now-a-days, is the inculcation of clear and definitedoctrinesupontheologicaltopics.Menseemnowquitewillingtoemployany pretence, •derived from any quarter, for discountenancing definiteandsystematicviewsofChristiantruth,andforbringingbackagainoverthechurchall theconfusionandobscurityof thedarkages.Themenofprogressinthepresentdayseemtohaveresolvedtogaindistinctionbyextinguishinglight,andplungingbackintodarkness;andtheyevidentlyhope that in this way they will acquire the reputation of being veryadvancedandveryprofound.

Ineveryagesincetherevivalofletters,therehasbeenaclassofmenwhowereanxioustodistinguishthemselvesfromthosearoundthembygoingahead, by turning aside from the pathwhichmost of their friends andassociates were pursuing, and by taking what they reckon a moreadvanced and elevated position. What they may happen to regard asconstitutingtheadvancementandelevationwhichministertotheirself-

complacency,maydependuponagreatvarietyofcausesandinfluences.Butithasnotusuallybeenfoundverydifficulttodiscoversomethingorotherwhichmightbemadetoappearadvancedandelevated,althoughitreallywasnotsowhentriedbyanystandardreasonablyandlegitimatelyapplicable.Inthisway,menofacertainstamphaveusuallyfounditeasyenoughtogetupsomeplausiblegroundsforregardingandrepresentingthemselvesasliberalandenlightened,andthegeneralityofthosearoundthemasnarrow-mindedandbigoted;andatpresent, thegreatestcreditin theological matters is to be gained, it seems, by taking as little aspossiblefromScripture,byrepudiatingallclearanddefiniteviewsupondoctrinalsubjects,andbydisplayinga“voluntaryhumility”instrivingtoget back to the primeval condition of ignorance and obscurity. Thisconditionofcomparativeignoranceandobscuritymightbeharmlessandinnocentbeforeerrorswerebroachedandcontroversieswerewaged,butit has now become for ever unattainable on the part of intelligent andeducatedmen,andifitwereattainable,couldberealizedonlythroughasinful refusal to improve the opportunities which God has given us ofacquiringanaccurateknowledgeofHisrevealedwill.Thereis,indeed,abigotrywhichisdespicableandinjurious,thebigotryofthosewhorefuseto practise any independent thinking, who slavishly submit to merehumanauthority,whoneverventuretoentertaintheideaofdeviatinginanypointfromthebeatentrack,anddenounceasamatterofcourseallwhodoso,whocanseeonlyonesideofa subject,orperhapsonlyonecorner of one side of it, who are incapable of forming a reasonableestimateofthecomparativeimportanceofdifferenttruthsanddifferenterrors, who contend for all truths and denounce all errors with equalvehemence, who never modify or retract their opinions, who have nodifficulties themselves and no sympathy with the difficulties of others.We meet occasionally with bigots of this sort, and they are verydespicable and very mischievous. There is also a species of progress,which is creditable and praiseworthy, exhibited by men who arethoroughly conversant with, and reasonably deferential to, theattainments of the churches and the achievements of the greattheologians of former times, who can comprehensively survey andjudiciously estimate the past, who can read the lessons “of doctrine,reproof,andcorrection”whichitisfittedtosuggest,whoarethusbythestudyofthepastqualifiedinsomemeasuretoanticipateandtoguidethe

course of discussion in the future, and who, while, it may be, onlyconfirmedbytheirresearchesandmeditationsinthesoundnessoftheirownleadingconvictions,havelearned,atthesametimeandbythesameprocess, a larger measure of friendly forbearance for those who differfromthem.Thisisakindofprogresswhichshouldeverberegardedwithapprobation and respect, and in which all of us, according to ourcapacitiesandopportunities,shouldbeseekingtoadvance.Butthis isavery different kind of thing from the latitudinarianism which finds itsrepresentatives in every age, andwhichatbottom is littlebetter thanadesire of notoriety, and an affectation of superior wisdom where nosuperior wisdom exists. We believe that the general run oflatitudinarians, ormen of progress, to be found in every generation oftheologians from the Reformation to the present day, have upon thewholebeenasignorant,asnarrow-minded,andasself-conceited,asthebigots.Wehavenorespectforanyofthe“menoflatitude”andprogressin the present day regarded as theologians; we have a very decidedconviction, that the leading view7s in which the generality of theReformers concurred, both with respect to the substance of Christiantheology and the organization of the Christian church, can be fullyestablishedfromScripture;andwecertainlynevershallbeshakeninthisconviction by vague generalities, high-sounding pretensions, orsupercilious declamation. But we have no wish to remain in darknesswhilethelightisshiningallaroundus.Andwepromisethat,ifMr.IsaacTaylororDr.Tullochwillabandonthevagueandequivocaldeclamationwhichtheyhaveputforthonthissubject,iftheywillplainlyandexplicitlydeclare what are the Reformation doctrines on theological andecclesiastical subjects which must now be dismissed as untenable,producingatthesametimethedetailedproofthatthesedoctrinesarenotsanctioned by Scripture rightly interpreted and applied, we shall givethem a careful and deliberate hearing; and we shall examine theirstatementswiththemoreearnestnessandrespect,iftheynotonlyrefutethe theology of the Reformation, but at the same time expound andestablishadifferenttheologythatmaybeentitledtotakeitsplace.

Thereallyvitalquestionswhichallmenarecalledupontosolveaswellasthey can, are these: - What ought we to believe concerning God andourselves, concerning Christ and the way of salvation, concerning the

church and the sacraments?Wehave longheld, thatmenwhomade athorough and adequate, an accurate and comprehensive, use of thematerialsfurnishedbyScripture,wouldbeconstrainedtoadmit,thatthetrue,answertoallthesequestionsis,insubstance,whatissetforthintheconfessions of the Reformed churches, the most important body ofuninspired documents in existence. But the subject is too vitallyimportant to be set aside as altogether beyond the pale of furtherinvestigation,andwewouldnotrefusetoattendtoanyfeasibleattempttoshowthatthesequestionsoughttobeansweredinadifferentway.

Dr.TullochrejectstheviewswhichtheReformersderivedfromScriptureupon these points. But he has not told us what other views Scripturerequires us to adopt, and he has given us nothing but some dark,mysterious hints, as to the nature of the process by which it may beshownthatthetheologyoftheReformationwillnotdoforthenineteenthcentury. We know something of the process by which Arminians andSocinians,rationalistsandlatitudinarians,havelabouredtoshowthatthetheology of the Reformation is not taught in Scripture. We are wellsatisfiedthatnothingmoreformidablecanbeadducedagainstitthanhasbeen brought forward, consistently with an honest admission in anysenseof thedivineauthorityofScripture;andweare confirmed in thisconviction by the fact, that some of themost learnedmodern Germancritics have admitted that the apostles believed and taught the leadingdoctrines of the Reformers, while they of course refuse to believeanything so irrational upon the authority of apostles. Surely it is hightime thatMr. IsaacTaylor should develop his new “exegeticalmethod”whichistorevolutionizetheology,andthatDr.Tullochshouldunfoldhis“spirit of interpreting Scripture,” which could have “hardly beenintelligibletoCalvin,”butwhich,itseems,isquiteadequatetodemolishCalvinism.Whateverthismysteriousmethodorspiritmaybe,wearenotafraidofit.Letitbebroughtfreelyouttotheopenfieldofconflict,andletit do its best to overturn the theology of theReformation.We have noanxietyabouttheresult.

Oneof theworstpassages inDr.Tulloch’sbook is theconclusionofhissketchofLuther.Itissobadthatwemustquoteitatlength:-

“TheywereconsistentindisplacingtheChurchofRomefromitsposition

of assumed authority over the conscience, but they were equallyconsistent, all of them, in raising a dogmatic authority in its stead Infavouroftheirownviews,theyassertedtherightoftheprivatejudgmentto interpret and decide the meaning of Scripture, but they hadnevertheless no idea of a really free interpretation of Scripture. TheirorthodoxyeverywhereappealedtoScripture,butitrestedinrealityuponanAugustiniancommentaryofScripture.Theydisplaced themediaevalschoolmen,butonlytoelevateAugustine.Andhavingdonethis,theyhadno conception of any limits attaching to this new tribunal of heresy.Freedomofopinion,inthemodernsense,wasutterlyunknowntothem.TherewasnotmerelyanabsolutetruthinScripture,buttheyhadsettled,by thehelp ofAugustine,what this truthwas; and any variations fromthisstandardwerenottobetolerated.Theideaofafreefaithholdingtovery different dogmatic views, and yet equally Christian, - the idea ofspiritual life and goodness apart from theoretical orthodoxy, - had notdawnedonthesixteenthcentury,norlongafterwards.Heresywasnotamere divergence of intellectual apprehension, but amoral obliquity - astatutory offence - to be punished by themagistrate, to be expiated bydeath. It is the strangest and most saddening of all spectacles tocontemplatetheslowandpainfulprocessbywhichthehumanmindhasemancipated itself from the dark delusion, that intellectual error is asubject of moral offence and punishment, as if even the highestexpressions of the most enlightened dogmatism were or could beanythingmorethanthemeregropingsafterGod’simmeasurabletruth-themerepebblesbytheshoreoftheunnavigablesea-themerestar-dustintheboundlessheaven,pointingtoa‘lightinaccessibleandfullofglory,whichnomanhathseen,neitherindeedcansee.’Itrequiredthelapseofmanyyearstomakemenbegintofeel-anditmaystillrequirethelapseofmanymoretomakethemfullyfeel-thattheycannotabsolutelyfixintheirfeeblesymbolsthetruthofGod;thatitiseverburstingwithitsownfree might the old bottles in which they would contain it; and thatconsequently,accordingto thatvery lawofprogressbywhichall thingslive, it is impossible to bind the conscience by any bonds but those ofGod’sownwisdom(word)inScripture-aspiritualauthorityaddressingaspiritual subject - a teacher, not of ‘the letter which killeth, but of theSpiritwhichgivethlife.’”

Wehavenotnowspaceforexposing,asitdeserves,thisremarkableandsignificantpassage.Wecanonlysuggestafewhintsastoitsimportandbearing.

1.Dr.Tullochmakesthestatementabsolutelyandwithoutqualification,that heresy is not a “moral obliquity,” - that it is “a dark delusion thatintellectual error is a subjectofmoral offence andpunishment.” Is thisanything different from whatWarburton, a century ago, denounced as“themastersophismofthisinfidelage,theinnocenceoferror”?

2.WhenDr.Tullochintimateshisapprobationof“theideaofafreefaith,holding toverydifferentdogmaticviews,andyetequallyChristian,”wepresume he just means, in plain English, to tell us, that Calvinism,Arminianism,andSocinianism,areallequallyChristian.

3. In this passage he seems to confound or mix up together allinterference with heresy or “intellectual error” in religious matters,whetherby the civil or the ecclesiastical authorities,as if all exerciseofecclesiasticaldisciplineonsuchgrounds,werejustasunwarrantableandoffensiveaspersecution, in theshapeof the inflictionofcivilpainsandpenaltieson thegroundoferror in religion.Thisconfoundingof thingsthat differ, was one of the leading artifices of the infidels and semi-infidels,whodiscussedthesesubjectsintheearlypartoflastcentury,theTindalsandCollinses,theHoadleysandSykeses.

4.Dr.Tulloch seemshere toemployanother sophismderived from thesame not very respectable source, when, upon the grounds that creedsandconfessionsarehumanproductions,andofcourseexhibitindicationsof human imperfections, and that they are not fitted to serve all thepurposestowhichtheyhavebeensometimesapplied,hewouldintimatethat theyareofnoworthorvaluewhatever, andarenot fitted to serveanygoodorusefulpurpose.Hisviewsupon thispointare certainlynotbroughtoutclearlyandexplicitly,butwhathasnowbeenstated,seems,so far as we can judge, to be the substance of what he intended toindicate,especiallyinthelastsentenceofthequotation.Thereisanotionwhichseemstobeprettyprevalentinthepresentday,thoughasyetinasomewhat latent and undeveloped form, and which produces somesympathy in theminds ofmanywithwhat is said in disparagement of

creeds and confessions. It is a doubt, at least, whether creeds andconfessions,whicharetobemadetermsofministerialcommunion,and,ofcourse,groundsofdivisionamongchurches,shouldbesolongandsominuteassomeofthemare.Wehavenoticedoflatesomeindicationsofthisfeelinginmenwhoarefarsuperiortothevulgaraversiontocreeds,andwhom there is no reason to suspect of unfaithfulness to their ownconfession. We admit that this is a fair and reasonable topic fordiscussion,andwearenotawarethat,asdistinguishedfromsomeoftheotherbranchesofthecontroversyaboutconfessions,ithaseveryetbeensubjectedtosothorough,deliberate,andcomprehensiveaninvestigationasitsimportancedeserves.Wehavenowishtoencouragetheraisingofadiscussion upon this subject. But we see symptoms which seem toindicate,thatitislikelytobepressedupontheattentionofthechurches,anditmaybewellthatmenshouldbeturningtheirthoughtstoit.

5.Menwho are familiarwith the common cant of latitudinarians,w’illeasily see that some of the statements contained in this passage,especially those which speak of the influence of Augustine, and of an“Augustinian commentary of Scripture,” are intended to convey suchnotions as these, - that theReformers derived their leading theologicalviews,notfromthewordofGod,butfromthewritingsofAugustine;thatthey adopted Augustine’s views, not because they had satisfiedthemselvesoftheir.accordancewithScripture,butfromdeferencetohisauthority,or fromsomeotheradventitious,oraccidental,or, itmaybe,unworthy cause; thathavingadoptedAugustinianviews for someotherreason than their accordance with Scripture, they then did what theycouldtobendandtwistScripturetothesupportofAugustinianism,andthat in this way they brought out of Scripture what is not to be foundthere,whatitdoesnotsanction.AllthisDr.Tulloch’sstatementsseemtous to imply. Itwouldhavebeenmore creditable to him to have openlyandexplicitlyassertedit.Butashehasproducednoevidenceinsupportof these notions, we could only meet even an assertion of them by adenialoftheirtruth.Weassert,thatthenotionswhichDr.Tullochhereindicateswith regard to the theological views of theReformers are nottrue; and in flat contradiction to them we assert, that the Reformers’adoptedAugustine’sviewsbecausesatisfied,astheresultofcarefulanddeliberateinvestigation,thattheywereinaccordancewiththeteachingof

Scripture; that theywere right inentertaining this conviction; that theybrought out the evidence of the scriptural authority of the doctrines ofAugustinemuchmorefullyandsatisfactorilythanhehimselfhaddone;in short, that they proved conclusively and unanswerably, thatAugustinianismorCalvinismisrevealedtousbyGodinHisword.

ThesubstanceofwhatheseemstoallegehereagainsttheReformers,wehavenodoubthewoulddirectequallyagainstthosebenightedmenwhoin this nineteenth century are willing to acknowledge themselvesCalvinists. He perhaps thinks that we too have been led to professAugustinianorCalvinisticdoctrines,not froman intelligentandhoneststudy of the sacred Scriptures, but from some adventitious, irrelevant,inadequate, perhaps unworthy, motive or influence, and that we areperverting,orinsomewayorothermisapplying,thematerialsfurnishedbyScripture,inordertoprocuresupporttoouropinions.Dr.Tullochhasno right to expect that anymere assertionof his on such a subjectwillcarrymuchweightorexcitemuchfeeling.Butsincehehasnothesitatedto set aside the theology of the Reformation, the theology which hasgenerallybeenprofessedinScotlandfromtheReformationtothepresentday,and todo this incircumstanceswhichdidnotadmitof theologicaldiscussion, we think it probable that he is willing and ready to bringforwardthegroundsonwhichhisviewsuponthissubjectarebased.Wemustpresume,afterwhathehassaid, thathe ispreparedtogivetotheworld a detailed exposure of the theology of the Reformation, a new“RefutationofCalvinism.”Hecanscarcelyavoidattemptingsomethingofthis sort, and we venture to assure him beforehand that he will notsucceed.

Luther

It is admitted by all Christians that the church is, in some sense, theorganandtherepresentativeofChristuponearth.Thisprinciple,trueinitself,isveryliabletobeabusedandperverted.Itispervertedgrosslyinthe hands of Romanists, when it is represented as implying that thechurch,asavisiblesociety,hasvirtually the samepowerandauthority,the same rights and prerogatives, as itsMaster in heaven. The generalprincipleaboutthechurch,understoodinthissense,andcombinedwiththeassumptionthatthechurchofChristuponearthisthechurchwhichacknowledgestheauthorityoftheBishopofRomeasChrist’svicar,isthefoundationof thepapal claims to supremacyand infallibility.The sameprincipleisalsoemployedlargelytodefendorpalliatesomeofthemoreoffensiveconsequencesof theseclaims,andsomeof themoreoffensivemodesof enforcing them.On thegroundof this identificationofChristandthechurch,theopponentsofthechurchcometoberegardedastheenemiesofChrist,andHisvicarisheldtobeentitledtodealwiththem,sofarashecan, justasChristmaydealwiththosewhocontinuefinallyobstinateandimpenitentenemiestoHiscause.InthiswayPapistscometo subordinate everything, in the mode in which they regard and dealwiththeirfellow-men,tothefanciedhonourandinterestsofthechurch,and to lookupon the opponents of the churchnot as their fellow-men,whomtheyareboundtolove,butsimplyastheenemiesofChrist,whomthey are entitled to injure. It is deeply ingrained on the minds ofRomanists,thatthosewhoarebeyondthepaleofthetruechurchforfeittheordinaryrightsofmenandmembersofsociety;andthat,especiallywhentheytakeanactiveandprominentpartinopposingandinjuringthechurch,theyoughttobetreatedasoutlawsoraswildbeasts.

Itisthisidentificationofthechurchanditsvisiblehead,thePope,withChrist himself, that produces and accounts for that extraordinarysubordination of everything to the interests of the church which is soremarkableafeatureofPopery;andthatexplainsthepersecutionswhichRomanistshaveatalltimesbeenquitewillingtoperpetrate.Allthismaybe regarded as exhibiting the natural and appropriate result of Popish

principles, and as, in some sense, rather helping, when viewed inconnection with certain tendencies of human nature, to palliate thecruelties which have disgraced the history of the Church of Rome. Butthere is an abuse of the principle which has been often acted upon byPapists, though not often openly avowed, and which is altogetherdestituteofanyappearance-ofexcuse;itisthatofactingasifitwereheldthat men who oppose and resist the Church of Rome not only forfeittherebytheordinaryrightsandprivilegesofmen,ofneighbours,andofrelatives, but lose all right even to claim that the ordinary rules ofintegrityandveracityshouldbeobservedinregardtothem.Ithasbeenno uncommon thing for Papists to act as if not only the social anddomestic affections, and the duties connected with them, but even thelawsof immutablemorality,weretobesubordinatedtothe interestsof.thechurch.ThisistheprincipleinvolvedinthedecisionoftheCouncilofConstance,andoftenactedupon in theChurchofRome,aboutkeepingfaithwithheretics.Thatdecisionwas intended to sanction thedoctrinethatheretics,.theopenenemiesof the church,haveno right todemandthefulfilmentofengagementsandpromises,andthatnopledgesgiventosuchpersonsshouldeverbeallowedtostand in thewayofanyschemefor promoting the church’s objects. These notions exert a constant andabidinginfluenceuponthemindsofmostRomanists,evenofmanywhowould shrink from embodying them in formal propositions. Theconsummationofwhatismostdiscreditableinthismatteristobefoundin the fact, that some Jesuit writers have openly proclaimed thelawfulness of putting forth deliberate and intentional slanders for thepurpose of injuring their enemies, - a fact established by Pascal in thefifteenthofhis“ProvincialLetters,”andonethatoughttoberememberedandappliedinjudgingofthereliancetobeplaceduponthestatementsofRomishcontroversialists.

WithsuchviewsandimpressionsprevailingamongRomanists,itwasnotto be expected that the Reformers, who did so much damage to theChurchofRome,wouldbetreatedwith justiceordecency.Accordingly,wefindthatamostextraordinaryseriesofslandersagainstthecharacterof the leading Reformers, utterly unsupported by evidence, and whollydestitute of truth and plausibility, were invented and propagated byRomishwriters.LutherandtheotherReformerswerecharged,inPopish

publications,withheinouscrimes,ofwhichnoevidencewasorcouldbeproduced; and these accusations, though their falsehood was oftenexposed, continued long to be repeated in most Popish books. WithrespecttothemoreoffensiveaccusationsthatusedtobeadducedagainsttheReformers,aconsiderablecheckwasgiventothegeneralcirculationof them, by the thorough exposures of their unquestionable falsehoodwhich were put forth by Bayle in his Dictionary, a work which wasextensively read in the literary world. Papists became ashamed toadvance, in works intended for general circulation, allegations whichBayle’s Dictionary had prepared the reading public to regard, withouthesitation, as deliberate falsehoods, though they continued to repeattheminworksintendedforcirculationamongtheirownpeople.ScarcelyanyRomishwriterswhopretendedtoanything likerespectability,have,for a century and a half, ventured to commit themselves to an explicitassertionofthegrossercalumnieswhichusedtobeadducedagainsttheReformers. Some of them, however, have shown a considerableunwillingnesstoabandonthesechargesentirely,andlikestilltomentionthem as accusations which were at one time adduced, and which menmaystillbelieveiftheychoose.

Butwhile Romanists have now ceasedwholly or in a greatmeasure tourgethegrosserchargeswhichtheyusedtobringagainsttheReformers,their general principles and spirit continue unchanged; the outwardimprovementintheirconductbeingowningsolelytofearorpolicy,andnottoanyrealadvancementinintegrityandcandour.It isemphaticallytrueofalmostallthedefendersandchampionsofPopery,thattheyfearnothing but awitness and a judge, and do not scruple tomisrepresentand slander their enemies, so far as they think they can do this withimpunity to themselves and benefit to their cause. They confinethemselvesnow, inagreatmeasure, tochargesofa lessheinousnaturethanthosewhichbeforeBayle’stimetheywereinthehabitofadducing,and tochargeswhichhavesomeappearanceat leastofevidence torestupon. But these lighter and more plausible accusations are in generalalmostasunfoundedastheothers.Protestants,ofcourse,donotregardtheReformersaseitherinfallibleorimpeccable.Theybelievethatmostofthemheldviews,uponsomepoints,moreorlesserroneous,andthatallofthemgaveabundantevidencethattheywerestainedwiththecommon

infirmitiesofhumanity.ButtheyregardthemasmenwhowerespeciallyqualifiedandraisedupbyGodfortheadvancementofHisowncause,forbringingout theburied truthand reforming the corruptedchurch,whowereguidedbyGod’swordandSpirit toviews, inthemainaccurate,ofthe leading principles of Christian doctrine, and who, in the habitualtenor of their lives, furnished satisfactory evidence of acting under theinfluenceofrealreligionandgenuinepiety.BelievingthisconcerningtheReformers,Protestantsfeelittobeboththeirdutyandtheirprivilegetodefend them from the assaults of adversaries, and especially to refuteanythingthatmayseemtomilitateagainstthetruthofthestatementnowgiven, of what they believe as to the general character and position oftheseillustriousmen.

ThegreatgeneralpositionwhichRomanistsareanxious toestablishbyall they can collect against the Reformers, from their writings or theirlives,fromtheirsayingsortheirdoings,isthis,thatitisveryunlikelythatGodwouldemploysuchmenintheaccomplishmentofanyspecialworkfor the advancement of His gracious purposes. In dealing with thisfavourite allegation of Romanists, Protestants assert and undertake toprovethefollowingpositions:-1stThattheallegationisirrelevanttotherealmeritsofthecontroversybetweenusandtheChurchofRome,whichcanbedeterminedonlybythestandardofthewrittenword;2d,thattheallegation is untrue, - in other words, that there is nothing about thecharacter of the Reformers as a whole which renders it in the leastunlikelythatGodemployedtheminHisownspecialgraciouswork;and3d, that the general principle on which the allegation is based can beapplied in the way of retort, with far greater effect, to the Church ofRome. Protestants, by establishing these three positions, effectuallydisposeoftheRomishallegation.Itiswiththesecondofthemonlythatwehaveatpresenttodo,andevenonitwedonotmeantoenlarge.

Romanists have taken great pains to collect every expression from thewritings of theReformers, and to bring forward every incident in theirlives,thatmaybefitted-especiallywhentheyareallpresentednakedlyandincombination-toproduceanunfavourableimpressionastotheirmotives and actions. In the prosecution of this work, they are usuallyquite unscrupulous about the completeness of their quotations and the

accuracyoftheirfacts,andinthiswaytheysometimesmanagetomakeout, upon some particular points, what may appear to ignorant orprejudicedreaderstobeagoodcase.IndealingwiththematerialswhichPapists have collected for depreciating the character of the Reformers,andthusestablishingtheimprobabilityofGodhavingemployedthemasHis instruments in restoringdivine truth, and in reforming the church,there are three steps in the process that ought to be attended to anddiscriminated,inordertoourarrivingatajustandfairconclusion:-

1st, We must carefully ascertain the true facts of the case as to anystatementoractionthatmayhavebeenascribedtothemortoanyoneofthem;andwewillfind,innotafewinstances,thattheallegationsfoundin ordinary Popish works on the subject are inaccurate, defective, orexaggerated, - that the quotation is garbled and mutilated, or may beexplainedandmodifiedbythecontext,-orthattheactioniserroneouslyor unfairly represented in some of its features or accompanyingcircumstances.

2d,When the real facts of the case are once ascertained, the next stepshould be to form a fair and reasonable estimate of what they reallyinvolve or imply, taking into account, as justice demands, the naturalcharacter and tendencies of themen individually, the circumstances inwhichtheywereplaced,theinfluencestowhichtheyweresubjected,thetemptationstowhichtheywereexposed,andthegeneralimpressionsandordinarystandardonsuchsubjectsintheageandcountryinwhichtheylived.

3d,ThereisathirdstepnecessaryinordertoformarightestimateofthecommonPopishchargesagainsttheReformers,andofthesoundnessoftheconclusionwhichtheywishtodeducefromthem,viz.thatweshouldnot confine our attention to their blemishes and infirmities, real oralleged, greater or smaller, but take a general view of their wholecharacter and proceedings, embracing, as far as we havematerials, allthattheyfelt,andsaid,anddid,andendeavourinthiswaytoformafairestimateofwhatweretheirpredominatingdesires,motives,andobjects,ofwhatitwasthattheyhadreallyatheart,andofwhatwasthestandardbyaregardtowhichtheystrovetoregulatetheirconduct.

Acarefulapplicationoftheseobviouslyjustandfairprincipleswilleasilydisposeof thematerialswhichPapistshavesoassiduouslycollected forthe purpose of injuring the character of the Reformers, and convinceeveryintelligentandhonestinquirer,thatthereisnotoneoftheleadingmen among themwho has not, with all his errors and infirmities, left'behindhimsufficientandsatisfactoryevidence,sofarasmencanjudgeof their fellow-men, that he had been born again of the word of Godthrough thebeliefof the truth, thathehadhonestlydevotedhimself toGod’sservice,andthatinwhathedidforthecauseoftheReformationhewasmainlyinfluencedbyadesiretopromotethegloryofGod,toadvancetheprosperityofChrist’skingdom,andtosecurethespiritualwelfareofmen.

But Romanists are not the only persons who havemisrepresented andcalumniatedtheReformers.ManyhavesympathizedwithandabettedtheeffortsofRomaniststodamagethecharacteroftheReformers,whohadnot the palliation, such as it is, which they can plead of avenging thedamagedonetotheirchurch,andwhoseemtocarenothingaboutPoperyand Protestantism as such. What Dr. M‘Crie said of John Knox holdsequally true of the other Reformers, and has been perhaps more fullyrealizedinthecaseofthoseofthemwhoexertedastillwiderandmorecommandinginfluence:-

“The increaseof infidelityand indifference to religion inmodern times,especiallyamongthelearned,hascontributedinnosmalldegreetoswellthetideofprejudiceagainstourReformer.WhateversatisfactionpersonsofthisdescriptionmayexpressorfeelatthereformationfromPopery,asthemeansof emancipating theworld fromsuperstition andpriestcraft,theynaturallydespiseanddislikemenwhowereinspiredwiththeloveofreligion,andinwhoseplansofreformtheacquisitionofcivilliberty,andtheadvancementof literature,heldasubordinateplacetotherevivalofprimitiveChristianity.”

Therehasscarcelyeverbeenaninfidelorsemi-infideldeclaimeragainstbigotry and intolerance, however insignificant, who has not attemptedsomething smart aboutCalvinburningServetus.”BothLordBroughamandMr.Macaulayhavesunktothelevelofroundingoffasentenceinthisway. And Luther, from his peculiar position and history, and from his

specialweaknessesandinfirmities,hasfurnishedverycopiousmaterialstoso-calledProtestant,aswellastoPopish,calumniators.Acombinationofcircumstanceshashad theeffectof lateyearsofbringingout, in thiscountry,fromdifferentclassesofwriters,agooddealofmatterfittedandintendedtodamagethecharacteroftheReformers.Thosewholabouredlongtoun-ProtestantizetheEnglishChurchbeforetheyleftittojointheChurchofRome,wereofcourseanxioustodepreciatetheReformers;andNewmanandWard,whoarenowbothRomanists,didwhattheycouldinthis way. Moehler, a Romish divine of learning and ability, whoseSymbolismhasbeenmuchcommendedandread,haslabouredskillfullytoexcitestrongprejudicesagainstthetheologicalviewsoftheReformers,and has succeeded all the better because of the appearance of candourandmoderationwhich he presents, as comparedwith the generality ofPopishcontroversialists.Mr.Hallam,inhis“Historyof theLiteratureofEuropeduring theSixteenth andSeventeenthCenturies,”wasnaturallyled to speak of the writings of the Reformers; but having only a verypartialacquaintancewiththeirworks,andnotbeingable,ashecandidlyenoughadmits, tounderstandmuchof their theology,heveryseriouslymisrepresents them, and especially Luther. Hallam’s great learning,accuracy, and impartiality upon general and ordinary topics, areuniversally admitted; but he was very imperfectly acquainted with thewritings of the Reformers; and experience seems to afford abundantevidence thatmenmaybecandidand impartialonmostquestionsof ahistorical,political, and literarykind,andyetbe stronglyprejudicedonreligioussubjects.ThiswebelievetobethecasewithMr.Hallam,while,asmightbeexpected,hisdepreciatorycriticismsupontheReformersandthe Reformation are now triumphantly quoted by Popishcontroversialistsastheconcessionsof“aneminentProtestantauthority.”And,lastly,SirWilliamHamilton,whosereputationstandssodeservedlyhighasaphilosopherandamanoferudition,hasthoughtpropertogooutofhiswayinordertoindulgeinsomeattacksuponthecharacteroftheReformers,firstinanarticleintheEdinburghReviewfor1834,ontheAdmissionofDissenterstoEnglishUniversities;andagain,in1843,inapamphlet on the controversy about the appointment of pastors, whichproducedinthatyeartheDisruptionoftheChurchofScotland.

In consequence of these things, the late lamented Archdeacon Hare

undertook the defence of Luther in a very elaborate and admirabledissertation,bearingtheformofanotetohisworkonthe“MissionoftheComforter,” published in 1846. In this note, marked by the letter W,which extended to above 300 pages,Mr.Hare, with great ability, withadmirable scholarship, and a thorough knowledge of the subject,defendedLutherfromthemisrepresentationsofHallam,Newman,Ward,Moeller,andSirWilliamHamilton.Soonafter,SirWilliampublishedhisstill incomplete edition of the works of Reid, with notes andsupplementarydissertations,andsubjoinedtoitanadvertisement,datedNovember1846,inwhichhepromisedtopublishsoon,andpreviouslytoany other work, a production entitled, Contributions towards a TrueHistory of Luther and the Lutherans. Part I., containing notice of theVenerableArchdeaconHareandhisPolemic”These“Contributions”havenotyetappeared;butin1852,SirWilliamgavetotheworld“Discussionson Philosophy and Literature, Education and University Reform,” inwhichinrepublishingthearticlefromtheEdinburghReviewcontaininghisoriginalattackuponLuther,headdedtoitsomenotes,taking“noticeofArchdeaconHareandhisPolemic.”Mr.Harehadbeen requestedbymany, who were satisfied and delighted with his defence of theReformers,topublishhisnoteasaseparatework;andaccordingly,afterthepublication,in1852,ofhis“ContestwithRome,”whichweregardasuponthewholetheablest,andinsomerespectsthemostvaluableofhisworks,histime,webelieve,waschieflyoccupied,amidtheinterruptionsofdeclininghealth,inpreparingmaterialsforsubjoiningtohisdefenceofLuther abundant proofs and illustrations, with an exposure of SirWilliam’srecentnotes.

It isagreat loss to theological literature thatMr.Hare’shealthand lifewerenotsparedtoenablehimtocompletethiswork.The“VindicationofLuther,”publishednearlyayearago,soonafterhisdeath,andnowlyingbeforeus,ismerelyarevisedrepublicationofthenoteWinthe“MissionoftheComforter,”thoughformingbyitselfagoodlyoctavo.Allthatwasavailableofwhathehadbeenpreparingfortheneweditionisthemerereferences to above eighty notes, which we have no doubt would havecontainedatreasureof interestingandvaluablematerials.SirWilliam’snotes to his Discussions do not contain, or profess to contain, theevidence of his most offensive charges against Luther - charges made

nineyearsbefore-evidencewhichhehasbeenrepeatedlychallengedtoproduce. With the exception, indeed, of a grand theological display,aboundinginblunders,on thedoctrineofAssurance,SirWilliam’snewmatterconsistschieflyofanattackuponMr.Hare.Mr.Haremightveryeasily have repelled and retorted Sir William’s charges against him,without producing any great amount of valuablematter; but, from thenumberandcharacterof thereferenceswhichhavebeenpreservedandpublished, there is every likelihood that the notes would have been anenduringmonumentofhistalentsandscholarship,andofhismanynobleandbeautifulqualitiesofcharacter.We,therefore,deeplylamentthathew’asnotsparedtocompletethiswork,whileweestimateveryhighlywhathe has done, and regard his “Vindication of Luther” as a very valuablecontributiontotheologicalliterature,andanimportantservicerenderedto the cause of that Protestant evangelical truth which Luther washonouredtobethegreatinstrumentofreviving.

We believe that on some important points Mr. Hare’s doctrinal viewswere defective and erroneous; but he had certainly imbibed verythoroughlyboththegeneralspiritandthespecifictheologyofLuther.Hewas firmly established, both theoretically and practically, in Luther’sgreat article of a standing or a falling church, - the doctrine ofjustificationbyfaithalone.Hiscordialappreciationofthisgreatdoctrine,andhisheartyloveandesteemforLuther,whosequalitiesasamanwereinmany respects so very different fromhis own, are among the thingswhichsatisfythosewhoknowhimonlyfromhiswritings,thathelivedbyfaith on the Son of God, that he had a claim to the love of all Christ’speople for the truth’s sake that was in him; while he combined, in noordinary degree, almost all those claims to respect and affectionwhichareinferioronlytothisone.WeareconvincedthatMr.Hare’sreputation,like Dr. Arnold’s, will grow and extend after his death; and that eventhosewhodifferedmostwidelyfromsomeofhisdoctrinalviews,willbemoreandmorepersuadedthathisearlydeathwas,humanlyspeaking,aseriouslosstothecauseofChrist.

Mr.Hare’sthoroughknowledgeofLuther,andcordialaffectionforhim,admirably fitted him for defending the Reformer from the numerousattacks which have recently been made upon him from a variety of

quarters. We do not say that all that he has written in vindication ofLutherischaracterizedbystrictimpartialityandbyrigidaccuracy.Lovemay operate in pervertingmen’s judgments aswell as hatred. But stilllove is the right state ofmind to cherish in forming a judgment of ourfellow-men,anditspresencewillpervertthejudgmentmuchlesswidely,andmuch less injuriously, than theopposite feeling. In regard tomanysubjects,indeed,itmaybesaidthattheprevalenceofloveintheheartisnecessarytoformingasoundandaccurate judgment;andthecharacteroftheReformersisoneofthesubjectstowhichthisobservationapplies.Mr.Hare’s lovetoLutherhasononeor twooccasions ledhimto judgemore favourably, or rather less unfavourably, of Luther’s conduct thanperhaps a review of the whole circumstances would warrant, and tosoftenorsluroversomeofhisrashandoffensiveexpressions.Butwhilethismaybeconceded,itisnotthelesstruethathisrepresentationofthecharacterandopinionsofLutherisimmeasurablymorejustandaccuratethanthatgivenbyhisopponents;andthatinhis“polemic”withthem,hehasestablishedamostdecidedsuperiority.

There is a great deal about Luther’s character and history to call forthadmirationandlove;whilethereisalsoagooddealabouthimtoaffordan excuse to those who, fromwhatever cause, wether as Papists or onsome other ground, are disposed to regard himwith opposite feelings.With many high and noble endowments, both from nature and grace,bothofheadandheart,whichinmanyrespectsfittedhimadmirablyforthegreatworktowhichhewascalled,andtheimportantserviceswhichherenderedtothechurchandtheworld,thereweresomeshortcomingsanddrawbacksbothabouthisunderstandingandhis temperament; theresults and manifestations of which have afforded many plausiblehandles to his enemies, and have occasioned corresponding annoyanceanddifficultytohisfriends.

Lutheroccupiedaposition,andexertedaninfluenceinthehistoryofthechurch, and altogethermanifested a character, well fitted to secure forhim the admiration of all who are interested in the advancement ofChristian truth, orqualified to appreciatewhat isnoble,magnanimous,fearless,anddisinterested.Wehaveabundantevidenceofhiscontinuingto retain the common infirmities of humannature, aggravated in some

respectsbythesysteminwhichhehadbeenoriginallyeducated,bythecondition of society in the age and country in which he lived, and theinfluencestowhich,afterhecommencedtheworkofreformation,hewassubjected; but we have also the most satisfactory evidence of his deeppiety, of his thorough devotedness to God’s service, of his habitualwalkingwithGod,andlivingbyfaithinthepromisesofHisword.NoonewhosurveysLuther’shistoryandwritings,andwhoiscapableofforminganestimateofwhatpietyis,canentertainanydoubtuponthispoint.

TheleadingservicewhichLutherwasqualifiedandenabledtorendertothe church, in a theological point of view, was the unfolding andestablishingthegreatdoctrineof justification,which formanyageshadbeengrossly corruptedandperverted; andbringing the truthupon thissubjecttobearupontheexposureofmanyoftheabuses,bothintheoryandpractice,thatprevailedintheChurchofHome.Hisengrossment,toalarge extent, with this great doctrine, combined with the peculiarcharacterofhismind, ledhim toviewalmostevery topic chiefly, ifnotexclusively,initsrelationtoforgivenessandpeaceofconscience,tograceand merit; and thus fostered a certain tendency to exaggeration andextravagance inhisdoctrinal statements.Besides thisdefect inLuther’stheology,giving it somethingofone-sidedness,hehadsome featuresofcharacterwhichdetractfromtheweightofhisstatements,andfromthedeferencetowhichotherwisehemighthaveappearedentitled,andwhichwe feel disposed to accord to such a man as Calvin. He was naturallysomewhatpronetoindulgeinexaggeratedandparadoxicalstatements,topress points too far, and to express them in unnecessarily strong andrepulsive terms.And this tendencyhe sometimesmanifestsnot only inspeakingofmenandactions,butevenintheologicaldiscussions.Hewasnotcharacterizedbythatexactbalanceofallthementalpowers,bythatjustandaccurateperceptionofthewholerelationsandtrueimportanceof things, and by that power of carefully and precisely embodying inwords just what he himself had deliberately concluded, and nothingmore,which, insomemen,havesostrongatendencytopersuadeustogive ourselvesup to their guidance, under a sort of intuitive convictionthat theywillnot leadusoftenor farastray fromthepathsof truth. InLuther’sworks,withagreatdeal toadmire, to interestandimpress,weoftenstumbleuponstatementswhichremindusthatwemustbeonour

guard, that we must exercise our own judgment, and not follow himblindly wherever he may choose to lead us. The leading defects of hischaractermaybesaid tobe: -1st,The impetuosityofhis temperament,leadingoftentotheuseofexaggeratedandintemperatelanguage,bothinconversation and in writing; though, as has been frequently and trulyremarked, very seldom leading him into injudicious or imprudentactions, amid all the difficulties in which he was involved: and 2d, acertainspeciesofpresumptionorself-confidence,which,puttingon thegarb of better andhigher principles, sometimesmade him adherewithgreatobstinacytoerroneousopinions,shuttinghisunderstandingagainsteverything that could be brought forward in opposition to them; andmadehimindulgesometimesinratherridiculousboasting.Theresultofallthesequalitieswas,thathehasleftmanystatementsofanintemperateand exaggerateddescription,whichhave afforded a great handle to hisenemies, and which, when collected and set off by being presented inisolation from accompanying statements and circumstances, and incombination with each other, are apt to produce a somewhatuncomfortableimpression.

And thenconsiderhow this extraordinaryman,of sopeculiar amentalcharacterandgeneraltemperament,wastriedandtested.Heoccupiedaverysingularposition,andwassubjectedtoverypeculiarinfluences.Hewas tried in a very unusual measure, with almost everything fitted todisturbandpervert,toelevateandtodepress,withfearsandhopes,withdangers and successes. Let it be further remembered, that of thisman,whowassoconstitutedandsocircumstanced,therehavebeenpreservedandpublishedno fewer than about 2300 letters,many of themprivateand confidential effusions to his friends; and that a great deal of hisordinaryconversationortabletalkhasbeenrecordedandtransmittedtous,withoutourhavinganygoodevidenceofitsbeingaccuratelyreported.

Itissurelynottobewonderedatthatitshouldbeeasytoproducemanyrash,extravagant, inconsistent,and indefensible sayingsofLuther.Andif, notwithstanding the tests to which he has been subjected, he stillstands out as unquestionably a man of high religious principle, ofthorough and disinterested devotedness to God’s service, and of manynoble and elevated qualities, - all whichmost even of his depredators,

except the Popish section of them, will probably concede, - howthoroughly base and despicable is it in any man to be grasping atopportunities of trying to damage his character and influence, bycollecting and stringing together (perhaps exaggerating and distorting)his rash and inconsistent, or it may be extravagant and offensive,sentiments and expressions. Papists, of course, are labouring in theirpropervocationintrying,perfasautnefas,todamageLuther’scharacter.Popishcontroversialistsareeverreadytosacrificeconscience,andeverymanly and honourable feeling, to the interests of the church; andTractarians,followingintheirfootsteps,haveimbibedalargeportionoftheirspirit.

OfMr.Hare’s“VindicationofLuther,”aboutninetypagesaredevotedtoanexposureof theTractarianattacksuponhimbyNewmanandWard,whohavesincejoinedtheChurchofHome;aboutfortytoanexposureofaPopishattackuponhimbyMoehler;andtheremaining170pagesareoccupied with an answer to the assaults of “the great Protestantauthorities,”Mr.HallamandSirWilliamHamilton.

Newman had attacked Luther only incidentally, and somewhatcautiously, in his book on “Justification and though he is convicted ofseveralmisrepresentationsofLuther’sopinions,heisuponthewholeleteasilyoff.NewsmanhadspokenslightinglyofLuther,asnotbeing, likeAugustine,afatherofthechurch,butmerelythefounderofaschool.Thishas given occasion to Mr. Hare to indite the following very fine andstrikingpassage:-

“But though Lutherwas notwhatwas technically termed a father, andcouldnotbeso, fromtheperiodwhen, for thegoodofmankind, itwasordainedthatheshouldbeborn,yetithaspleasedGodthathe,aboveallothermensincethedaysoftheapostles,should,inthetruestandhighestsense,beafatherinChrist’schurch,yea,thehumanfatherandnourisherof the spiritual life ofmillions of souls, for generation after generation.Three hundred years have rolled away since he was raised, throughChrist’sredeeminggrace, fromthemilitantchurchintothetriumphant;and throughout those three hundred years, and still at this day, it hasbeen and is vouchsafed to him, - and so, God willing, shall it be forcenturiestocome,-thatheshouldfeedthechildrenofhalfGermanywith

themilkof thegospelbyhisCatechism; thatheshouldsupply thepoorandsimple,yea,andallclassesofhiscountrymen,withwordswherewithtocommendtheirsoulstoGodwhentheyrisefromtheirbed,andwhentheyhedowninit;thatinhiswordstheyshouldinvokeablessingupontheirdailymeals,andofferuptheirthanksforthem;thatwithhisstirringhymns they should kindle and pour out their devotion, both in thesolemnassemblyandinthesanctuaryofeveryfamily;thatbyhisGermanwords, through the blessed fruit of his labours, they should daily andhourlystrengthenandenlightentheirhearts,andsouls,andminds,withthatBookofLifeinwhichGod’smercyandtruthhavemettogether,Hisrighteousnessandpeacehavekissedeachother,andaretreasuredupfortheedificationofmankinduntotheendoftheworld.Ifthisisnottobeafather in Christ’s church, I know not what is. Nay, more, his spiritualchildrenarenotconfinedtohisowncountry.Thewordoftruthwhichhewassenttopreach,hassoundedfromlandtoland,andwasheardinourland also, coming as it did from the home of our forefathers, for thepurificationofthechurch,andfortheguidingofnumberlesssoulsawayfromavainconfidenceintheworksoftheflesh,toalivingtrustintheirSaviour.”

Mr. Ward’s assaults, originally published in the British Critic, andafterwardscollectedinhisbookentitled“IdealofaChristianChurch,”arelikewise based chiefly upon Luther’s doctrine of justification, which isgrosslymisrepresented, inorder toaffordmaterials foraccusinghimofAntinomianism. Mr. Ward is conclusively convicted of grossincompetencyandunfairness,nay,ofbitterspite.Butreallytheallegationthat Luther was an Antinomian is so thoroughly contradicted by thewholetenorofhiswritings,andbythewholecourseofhislife,andissoutterly destitute of all evidence, except some rash, unbecoming, andexaggerated statements about the law, the real meaning of which isevidentenoughtoeverycandidinquirer,thatwedonotthinkitnecessarytodwelluponthistopic.

Mr. Hallam’s attack upon Luther rests chiefly upon the same generalground, and is directed to show that he has made statements of anAntinomiantendency.HismodeofdealingwiththissubjecthasmoretheappearanceofhonestignorancethanMr.Ward’s.Heiscertainly,asMr.

Hare has proved, and as indeed he himself acknowledges, veryimperfectly acquainted with Luther’s works. He is also, from whatevercause, pretty strongly prejudiced against him. He plainly enoughindicatesthathehadbeensomewhatinfluenced,injudgingofLuther,bythe representations ofBossuet; and as this is a topic towhichwe shallhave occasion afterwards to advert, in pointing out Sir WilliamHamilton’s obligations to the great Popish champion, we quote aninterestingpassagefromthissectionoftheVindication:-

“An explanation, however, of this, and of much more, seems to beafforded by the first sentences inMr. Hallam’s remarks on Luther: ‘Itwouldnotbe just,probably, togiveBossuet credit in everypartof thatpowerfuldelineationofLuther’stheologicaltenets,withwhichhebeginstheHistoryoftheVariationsofProtestantChurches.Nothing,perhaps,inpolemicaleloquence,issosplendidasthischapter.TheeagleofMeauxisthere truly seen, lordly of form, fierce of eye, terrible in his beak andclaws.Butheistoodeterminedapartisantobetrustedbythosewhoseekthe truthwithout regard topersonsanddenominations.HisquotationsfromLutherareshort,andinFrench.Ihavefailedinseveralattemptstoverify the references.’ Mr. Hallam, who here and elsewhere expressessuch fervent admiration for Bossuet’s eloquence, says of Luther’s Latinworks: ‘Their intemperance, their coarseness, their inelegance, theirscurrility, theirwildparadoxes thatmenace the foundationsofreligiousmorality,arenotcompensated,sofarat leastasmyslightacquaintancewiththemextends,bymuchstrengthoracuteness,andstill lessbyanyimpressive eloquence.’ To me, I own, in the face of this mild verdict,Luther, - ifwe take the twomasses of his writings, those in Latin andthose in his own tongue, which display different characters of style,accordingtothepersonsandobjectstheyaredesignedfor,inthehighestqualities of eloquence, in the faculty of presenting grand truths,moralandspiritualideas,clearly,vividly,inwordswhichelevateandenlightenmen’s minds, and stir their hearts and control their wills, - seemsincomparablysuperiortoBossuet;almostassuperiorasShakespearetoRacine,orasUllswatertotheSerpentine.Infact,whenturningfromoneto theother, Ihave felt at timesas if Iwerepassingoutof a gorgeous,crowdeddrawing-room,with its artificial lightsanddizzying sounds, torun up a hill at sunrise. The wide and lasting effect which Luther’s

writingsproducedonhisownnationandontheworld,isthebestwitnessoftheirpower.

“I should not have touched on this point unless it were plain thatMr.Hallam’s judgment onLuther had been greatly swayed by the ‘HistoiredesVariations.’ It is somewhatstrange tobeginone’saccountofamanwith saying, that ‘itwould not be just, probably, to give credit in everypart"towhatadetermined,able,andnotveryscrupulousenemysaysofhim,writingwiththeexpresspurposeofdetectingallpossibleevilinhimand his cause. In truth, what could well be less just than thissupererogatorycandour? Innocourtof lawwould suchan invectivebeattended to, except so faras itwasborneout by the evidence adduced.Mr.Hallamsayshehadfailedinseveralattemptstoverifythereferences.If he had succeeded, he would probably have found that the passagescitedaremostlymisrepresented.Howfarthemisrepresentationiswilful,I do not take upon myself to pronounce. Bossuet’s mind was souncongenial toLuther’s, soartificial, sonarrow, sharing in thenationalincapacity for seeing anything except through a French eye-glass; hisconceptionofFaith,asIhavehadoccasiontoremarkelsewhere,wassomeagre, soalien fromLuther’s; and the shackles imposeduponhimbyhischurchsodisqualifiedhimforjudgingfairlyofitsgreatenemy,-thatwe need not be surprised at any amount of misunderstanding in himwhen he came forward as an advocate in such a cause. Still, howeverfiercelythe‘eagleofMeaux’mayhavedesiredtousehisbeakandclaws,he might as well have pecked and clawed at Mount Ararat as at himwhomGodwaspleasedtoendowwithamountainofstrength,whenHeordainedthatheshouldriseforthesupportofthechurchoutofthefloodofdarknessandcorruption.

“Here, as the assertion I have made concerning Bossuet’smisrepresentationsshouldnotbemadeunsupportedbyproofs,Iwillcitetwoor threeexamples,showinghowthequotations fromLuther,whichin his pages seem very reprehensible, become innocent when viewedalongwiththecontextintheiroriginalhome.Norshalltheseexamplesbeculled out from the six books employed in the attack on Luther. Theyshallbetakenfromthefirstsectionsofthatattack;thustheywillbetterillustratethemannerinwhichitiscarriedon.”

This is followedupbywhat is certainly very conclusiveproof that bothBossuetandMr.HallamhaveputforthsomegrossmisrepresentationsofLuther’ssentiments.

Mr. Hallam and Mr. Ward are about equally incompetent to form acorrect estimate of Luther’s theological views; butMr.Hallam ismuchthemorefairandhonestofthetwo.Mr.Wardlabourstocollectevidencefrom all quarters against Luther, and Mr. Hare gives the followingsummaryoftheresultsofhisresearches:-

“TheevidencewhichMr.Ward’slearninghascollectedinthismatter,isaquotationtakenfromtheEnglishtranslationof‘Audin’sLifeofLuther;’two quotations from the English translation of ‘Moehler’s Symbolic;’ aquotationfromanarticleofhisownintheBritishCritic,whichappearstheretohavebeenborrowedfromtheFrenchtranslationofMoehler;andcertain extracts from an article in the Edinburgh Review, and from apamphlet on the recent schism in the Church of Scotland. Verily, aformidable arrayofwitnesses, pickedoutwith a due recognitionof thejudicial maxim, that second-hand testimony is to be rejected! To onepoint,however,theydobearconclusivetestimony,whichisconfirmedbyalltherestofthevolume,namely,toMr.Ward’sutterincompetencyforpronouncing an opinion on any question relating to the GermanReformation.”Thequotations fromAudinarenotofmuch importance;butMr.Haresubjects toa thoroughscrutiny thematerialswhichWardhas borrowed from Moehler and Sir William Hamilton; and theinvestigation of these things forms the most important portion of hisVindication. Moehler’s Symbolism has been so much praised of late,having been even pronounced to be the most formidable attack onProtestantismsincethetimeofBossuet,thatitmaybeinterestingtoourreaderstoknowsomethingofthegeneralcharacterof thiswork,andofthe answers it has called forth. On these points Mr. Hare writes asfollows:-

“Here, - as Moehler’s work has been translated into English, as it hasbeenmuchbepraisedbyourRomanizers,andhasevidently exercisedagreatdealofinfluenceamongthem,andasitiswellcalculatedtofostermost delusive prejudices against theReformation, and in favour of theChurchofRome,inreaderspreparedbyvisionsaboutthegloriesof the

middle ages, and who are ready to regard the Protestant churches asoutcastsfromthepaleofChristianity,because, throughwhatevercause,theyhaveadoptedadifferentformofgovernment,-letmebeallowedtoremark, that, ableas theSymbolik certainly is, considering the cause ithas tomaintain, and plausible as it must needs seem to such as havenothing more than a superficial acquaintance with the topics which itdiscusses,still,inadditiontotheerrorsalreadyspokenof,itsvalueintheserviceoftruthisdestroyedbytwopervadingfallacies.Inthefirstplace,while the author’s professed object, as is intimated by his title, is tocompare the Protestant Symbolical Books with those of the Romishchurch, in order to ascertain and examine the doctrinal antithesesbetween them, he soon finds out that if he confines himself to thesedeliberatedogmaticalexpressionsofdoctrineheshallnotbeabletomakeoutacase;thereforehescrapestogetherallsortsofpassages,notmerelyout of professedly dogmatical treatises, - which, under certainrestrictions,wouldbeallowable,-butoutofoccasionalpamphlets,outofsermons,outofprivate letters,nay,evenoutofLuther’s ‘TableTalk,’ tokindleandfananodiumwhichhecannototherwiseexcite.Yetitisplainthatsuchaprocedurecanonlymisleadanddupethereaderwithregardtothegreatsubject-matterofthecontroversy;whichisnot,whethersuchand such individual Protestants may not at times have writtenextravagantly orunadvisedly, but is instituted todetermine the relativevalue of the body of truth set forth by each church in the solemnconfessionof its faith.Strange too itmay seem, that the thoughtof the‘Lettres Provinciales’ did not come across him, and warn him of thetremendous retribution hemight provoke.Moreover, after he has thuscraftily shifted the whole ground of the contrast, so that, while it isnominallybetweenthesymbolicaldeclarationsofdoctrinerecognizedbytheopposite churches, in lieuof theProtestant symbolical declarations,he iscontinuallyslippinginwhatevererrorshecanpickup in themosttrivialwritingsoftheReformers,andthesetoonotseldomaggravatedbygrossmisrepresentations, - even this does not content him: a like trickmustbeplayedwiththeotherscale.Astheonesideisdegradedbelowthereality,theotherisexaltedaboveit.Thefallacyspokenofabove,inp.32,runs through the whole book. The opposition of the Reformers isrepresented as having been directed not against the gross corruptionsanderrorswhichprevailedwhentheybegantheconflict,butagainstthe

modified exposition of Romish doctrine, drawn up with such singularadroitness at the semi-reformation of Trent: nay, even this is oftenrefined and spiritualized by the interpolation of views belonging to thetheologyandphilosophyofthenineteenthcentury.Henceitisnottobewondered at thatMoehler’swork should imposeon such readers asdonot see through these fallacies, but suppose his representations of theoppositepartiestobecorrect.

“Yetitsinfluenceoughttohavebeenexplodedlongago.ForneverinthehistoryofcontroversieswasthereacompletervictorythanthatgainedbythechampionsofProtestant truthwho replied to it. Indeed, the attack,instead of being injurious, was eminently beneficial to the GermanProtestants.Itledthemtoexaminethefoundationsoftheirstrength,-tobring out the divine armour of truth stored up in the writings of theReformers.Amongtheanswerswhich.Moehlercalledforth,some,whicharehighlyspokenof,-forinstance,Hengstenberg’sandMarheineke’s,-Ihave not seen; but the two that I have read are triumphant. That byNitzsch is a masterly assertion and vindication of the great ProtestantprincipleswhichMoehler assailed, and its calm and dignified tone andspirit,itsphilosophicpoweranddeepChristianwisdom,renderitoneofthenoblestamongpolemicalworks.Baur,ontheotherhand,takesuphisHerculean club and smashes Moehler’s book to atoms. Immeasurablysuperior to his adversary, through his vast learning and wonderfuldialecticpower,hepursueshimthroughsophismaftersophism,unravelsfallacyafterfallacy,andstripsoffmis-statementaftermis-statement,tillheleaveshimatlastinaconditionofpitiablenakednessandforlornness.In several of Baur’s other works, the Hegelian predominates over theChristian,tothegreatdisparagementandsacrificeofChristiantruth;andhiscriticismhasof lateyearsbecomeextravagantlydestructive;even inhisanswer toMoehler,hisphilosophyat times is tooobtrusive.ButhisvindicationofthedoctrinesoftheReformation,andhisexposureof theTridentinefallacies,aswellasofMoehler’s,iscomplete.”

Moehler has produced and given prominence to what is certainly theworstandmostoffensivepassagethathasyetbeenfoundinLuther;andMr.Harehascarefullyconsideredit,andconclusivelydefendedit, -notcertainly from the charge of great rashness, extravagance, and

offensiveness, in point of phraseology, but from that which the words,taken by themselves, seemat first view to suggest, viz. of embodying adeliberateexhortationtothepracticeofimmorality.AsthiswillprobablycontinueforsometimetobeafavouritetopicofinvectivewithRomanistsandRomanizers,itisproperthatweshouldgivesomegeneralideaofthepoint,whilewemustrefertotheVindicationforparticulars.ThepassagefromLuther,asgivenintheEnglishtranslationofMoehler’sSymbolism,is this: “Sin lustily (pecca fortiter), but be yetmore lusty in faith, andrejoiceinChrist,whoistheconquerorofsin,ofdeath,andoftheworld.Sin we must, so long as we remain here. It suffices, that through therichesofthegloryofGod,weknowtheLambwhichtakethawaythesinsoftheworld.FromHimnosinwillseverus,thoughamilliontimesinadayweshouldfornicateorcommitmurder.”Thequestionherenaturallyoccurs, To whom was this startling statement addressed? And it is nounimportantpoint inLuther’s defence, that thesewords formpart of aletter addressed to Melancthon in 1521, when Luther was living inconcealmentintheWartburg.Mr.Harereferstothistopicinthisway:-

“Verily it does seem here as though hell were casting up its spray intoheaven.Still, afterourampleexperienceof themanner inwhichwordsmaybemisrepresented,andafterthethousandthousandproofsaffordedbyLuther’swritingsandlifethathedidknowsomethingofthegospel,wewillnotbedisheartened.Atallevents,wewilltrytomakeoutwhattheseawfulwords canmean, - towhom they can have been said, - forwhatpurpose.WeretheysaidtoSimondeMontfortwhenhemarchedagainstthe Albigenses? or to Alva when he entered on his government in theNetherlands?ortoLouisXIV.whenherevokedtheEdictofNantes?ortopoorMarywhenshemounted the throneafter thedeathofherbrotherEdward?WeretheyadramadministeredtoCharlesIX.andtoCatherineofMedicisontheeveofStBartholomew?orabilletdouxsenttoCharlesII.duringtheprogressofhisconversion?orweretheyamottowrittenupinthehallsoftheInquisition?orcanitbethatLutherwasonceengagedin a friendly correspondencewithMunzer? orwithAlexanderVI.?No;but to Melancthon, of all men that ever lived! Not to Munzer; not toAlexanderVI.;nottoLeoX.;nottoClementVII.;buttoMelancthon!Astrangeperson,truly,tochooseastheconfidantofsuchadoctrine,-astherecipientofsuchanexhortation!Thetempter,againstwhomLuther

sooftenbattled,mustforoncehavegainedcompletepossessionofhim,andturnedhimintoaninstrumentfordestroyingthesoulofhisyoungerfriend.”

Mr. Hare then proceeds to show, from a careful consideration of thecircumstancesinwhich,andtheobjectsforwhich,theletterwaswritten,andfromanaccurateanalysisofthetrainofthoughtthatrunsthroughit,howitwasthatLuthercametousesuchwords,without,ofcourse,havinghad the remotest intention of teaching that sin was a light matter, orencouragingMelancthontocommitit.WemustrefertotheVindicationforthedetailsofallthis,butwewillquotetheconcludingpassage:-

“Now in the passage of Luther which we are considering, the realoffensiveness lies in the monstrous exaggeration of the language. Theindignationbestoweduponhimmight,indeed,havebeenbestowedmostdeservedly upon the truly atrocious and blasphemous propositionwhereby the venders of indulgences, whom he assailed, tried to lurepurchasers for their trumpery, - Venias papales tantas esse, ut solverepossinthominem,etiamsiquisperimpossibileDeiGenitricemviolasset.SuchapropositionisindeedanabominationinthesightofGodandman;yetthisdoctrine,whichMr.Wardmightwellcalltoobadforthedevils,the flagitious hierarchy encouraged; or at least they would not repressandcondemntheiremissariesforproclaimingit,evenwhencalleduponandearnestlyimploredtodoso.Luther’sproposition,ontheotherhand,isfundamentallytrue;hiswordsrenderitprobablethathewasthinkingofDavid’scrimes;theadditionofmilliesmillies,aseverybodyacquaintedwith his writings will recognise at once, is a mere Lutheranism. MostreaderswillrememberhisanswertoSpalatin,withregardtotheadviceofhis friends, who would have dissuaded him from venturing toWorms,thateveniftherewereasmanydevilsinWormsasthereweretilesonthehouse-tops,stillhewouldgothither.So,again,inhisgrandlettertotheElectorfromtheWartburg,whenhedeclareshisresolutionofreturningtoWittenberg, he sayshewill not bewithheld by fear ofDukeGeorge.ThisIknowfullwellofmyselfifaffairsatLeipsicwereinthesamecaseasnow at Wittenberg, I would ride thither even though (your ElectoralGracemustforgivemyfoolishspeech)itweretorainpureDukeGeorgesforninedays,andeachoneof themwerenine timesmore furious than

this.Theseinstancesarenotorious;amultitudeofsimilaronesmightbecited from Luther’s writings, especially from those belonging to thiscritical period of his life, when all his powers were stretched beyondthemselves by the stress of the conflict. To our nicer ears suchexpressions may seem in bad taste. Be it so.When a Titan is walkingabout among the pigmies, the earth seems to rock beneath his tread.MountBlancwouldbeoutofkeepinginRegent’sPark;andwhatwouldbetheoutcryifitweretotossitsheadandshakeoffanavalancheortwo?Such, however, is the dulness of the elementary powers, they have notapprehendedthedistinctionbetweenforceandviolence.Inlikemanner,when the adamantine bondage in which men’s hearts, and souls, andminds had been held for centuries, was to be burst, it was almostinevitablethatthepowerwhichwastoburstthisshouldnotmeasureitsmovementsbytherulesofpolishedlife.Erasmusdidso;Melancthondidso: but a thousand Erasmuses would never have effected theReformation;norwoulda thousandMelancthons,withoutLuther to gobeforehimandtoanimatehim.”

WenowproceedtoconsiderSirWilliamHamilton’sattacksuponLutherand the other Reformers. TheseMr., Hare has exposed fully and withseverity - great, but not greater than they deserve. SirWilliam enteredupontheworkofassailingthecharacteroftheReformersspontaneouslyandwithoutcall.InanarticleintheEdinburghReviewfor1834,ontheAdmissionofDissenterstoEnglishUniversities,helaidholdofanexcuseformakingtheaverment,“ThatthereishardlyanobnoxiousdoctrinetobefoundamongthemodernLutherans(theRationalists)whichhasnotits warrant and example in the writings of Luther himself;” andproceededtoestablishthispositionbywhathecallsa“hastyanthologyofsomeofLuther’sopinions,andinhisownwords, literallytranslatedHethengivesquotationsfromLuther,underthethreeheadsofspeculativetheology,practical theology,andbiblicalcriticism.Under the firsthead,hisquotationsconsistonlyoffourshortpassagesupontheonesubjectoftheprocedureofGodinregardtosinandsinners.Underthesecond,hemerely gives some extracts from a single document, setting forth thegrounds on which Luther and Melancthon gave their consent to theLandgraveofHessemarryingasecondwife,while,atthesametime,hecontinued to live with the first. He has thus brought forward only one

topic under the head of speculative theology, and only one topic undertheheadofpracticaltheology.Andonneitherofthesetwotopicscanitbesaidthat themodernLutherans followthe“warrantandexample in thewritings of Luther himself,” though it was professedly to establish thisthatSirWilliamcollectedhis“hastyanthology.”Nineyearsafterwards,-at the era of the disruption of the Church of Scotland, - Sir Williampublished a pamphlet on the election of pastors, entitled, “Be notSchismatics, be not Martyrs by Mistake; a Demonstration that theprincipleofnon-intrusion,sofarfrombeingfundamentalintheChurchofScotland,issubversiveofthefundamentalprinciplesofthatandeveryother Presbyterian Church Establishment.” In this pamphlet he again,withoutanyprovocation,assailedthecharacteroftheReformers,thoughthis had nothingmore to dowith the election of pastors thanwith theadmission of Dissenters into English universities. In this pamphlet,indeed, he retracted the charge which, nine years before, in theEdinburghReview,hehadbroughtagainsttheReformersinconnectionwiththeLandgrave’ssecondmarriage,thattheywereguiltyinthataffairof a “skulking compromise of all professed principle.” But he retractedthis charge only to substitute another in its room, - viz. that theyapprovedofpolygamyasgoodandlawful,nay,thattheywishedtohavepolygamy sanctioned by the civil law, and did something, thoughunsuccessfully, inordertobringaboutthisresult.Andtothisnewformofthechargeundertheheadofpracticaltheology,headdedtheoffensiveallegation, that Luther publicly preached in recommendation ofincontinence, adultery, and incest. As some of these charges againstLutherhadnotbeenbroachedbeforebyanyofhisopponents, itwillbeproper to give the very terms in which they were, for the first time,promulgatedtotheworld,bySirWilliamHamilton,atEdinburgh,intheyearofgrace1843:-

“Look,then,tothegreatauthorandthegreatguideofthegreatreligiousrevolutionitself-toLutherandMelancthon;eventhey,greatandgoodasthey both were, would, had they been permitted by the wisdom of theworld to carry their theological speculations into practice, haveintroducedastateofthingswhicheveryChristianofeverydenominationwill now confess, would not only have turned the Reformation into acurse,buthavesubvertedall that ismostsacredbymoralandreligious

law.

“Among other points of papal discipline, the zeal of Lutherwas rousedagainstecclesiasticalcelibacyandmonasticvows;andwhitherdiditcarryhim?Not content to reasonagainst the institutionwithinnatural limitsandonlegitimategrounds,hisfervourledhimtodenyexplicitly,andineveryrelation,theexistenceofchastity,asaphysical impossibility,- ledhim publicly to preach (and who ever preached with the energy ofLuther!)incontinence,adultery,incesteven,asnotonlyallowable,but,ifpractisedunder theprudential regulationswhichhehimself laysdown,unobjectionable,andevenpraiseworthy.Theepidemicspread,-afearfuldissolutionofmannersthroughoutthesphereoftheReformer’sinfluencewas,foraseason,thenaturalresult.TheardouroftheboisterousLutherinfected, among others, even the ascetic and timorous Melancthon.Polygamyawaitedonlythepermissionofthecivilrulertobepromulgatedas an article of the Reformation; and had this permission not beensignificantly refused (whilst, at the same time, the epidemic inWittenberg was homeopathically alleviated, at least, by the similar butmoreviolentaccess inMunster), itwouldnothavebeenthefaultof thefathersof theReformation if Christian liberty has remained less amplethanMohammedanlicence.Asitwas,polygamywasneverabandonedbyeither Luther or Melancthon as a religious speculation: both, in morethanasingleinstance,accordedtheformalsanctionoftheirauthoritytoits practice, - by those who were above the law; and had the civilprudence of the imprudent Henry VIII. not restrained him, sensualdespotashewas, fromcarryingtheirspontaneouscounsel intoeffect,aplurality of wives might now have been a privilege as religiouslycontendedforinEnglandasinTurkey.”

“Idonot foundmerelyorprincipallyuponpassagesknown toBossuet,Bayle,etc.,andthroughthemtopersonsofordinaryinformation.These,Iadmit,wouldnotjustifyallIhaveassertedinregardtothecharacterofthedoctrinepreachedbyLuther.

“I do not found my statement of the general opinion of Luther andMelancthoninfavourofpolygamyontheirspecialallowanceofasecondwifetoPhiliptheMagnanimous,oronanyexpressionscontainedintheirConsilium on that occasion. On the contrary, that Consilium, and the

circumstances under which it was given, may be, indeed always havebeen, adduced to show that in the case of the Landgrave theymade asacrificeofeternalprincipletotemporaryexpedience.ThereverseofthisIamabletoprove,inachronologicalseriesoftestimoniesbythemtothereligious legality of polygamy as a general institution, consecutivelydownwardsfromtheirearliestcommentariesontheScripturesandotherpurely abstract treatises. So far, therefore, was there from being anydisgracefulcompromiseofprincipleinthesanctionaccordedbythemtothebigamyoftheLandgraveofHesse,thattheyonly,inthatcase,carriedtheirspeculativedoctrine(held,bytheway,alsobyMilton)intopractice;althoughtheprudencetheyhadbythattimeacquiredrenderedthem,onworldlygrounds,aversefromtheirsanctionbeingmadepubliclyknown.Iamthemoreanxioustocorrectthisgeneralmistaketouchingthemotivesoftheseillustriousmen,becauseIwasmyself,onaformeroccasion, ledtojoinintheinjustice.”!

Itwasinthesecircumstances,andwithsuchacasebeforehim,thatMr.Hare prepared and published in 1846 his elaborate andmost valuableNote in defence of Luther in the second volume of the “Mission of theComforter,”andreviseditforrepublicationinaseparateformpreviouslytohisdeathin1855,notwithstandingSirWilliam’sthreatofananswerin1846,andhisattemptatself-defence,orratheratretaliation,inthenotesto his “Discussions,” published in 1852. When a man in Sir William’sposition comes forward ultroneously, and without call adduces suchchargesastheseagainstLutherandhisfellow-reformers,hemustlayhisaccountwithhisallegationsbeingnarrowlyscrutinized,andhisevidence,if he produce any, being carefully sifted. Sir William’s acknowledgedeminence as a philosopher and a man of erudition, gives a certaininfluence to anything he may choose to -dyer, and makes it the morenecessarythatsuchstatementsasthosewehavequotedfromhimshouldbe scrutinized with care, and, if found erroneous, exposed with allplainness.

The facts, that Sir William brought forward such charges, couched insuchatoneandspirit,firstinanarticleintheEdinburghReview,ontheAdmission of Dissenters to English Universities, and then again, nineyears after, in a pamphlet on non-intrusion, or the election of pastors,

indicateveryplainlyacertainanimuswithrespecttothemensoassailed:whichisnotdisprovedbyhiscallingLutherandMelancthon“greatandgoodmenandbyhisassuringusthat,asofarfromdislikingLuther,weadmirehimwithallhisaberrations(forheneverpalteredwiththetruth),notonlyasoneoftheablest,butasoneofthebestofmen.”Onthesamepagewhere this profession occurs, SirWilliam hasmade the followingstatements about the Reformer, - statements, it should be noticed,published for the first time in 1852: - “Luther was betrayed intocorrespondingextravagancesbyanassuranceofhispersonalinspiration;ofwhich,indeed,hewasnolessconfidentthanofhisabilitytoperformmiracles.Hedisclaimedthepope,hespurnedthechurch,but,varyinginalmost all else, he never doubted of his own infallibility. Themanwhomadethesestatementsknows,andeverymanwhohaseverreadanythingconcerning Luther knows, that in 1545, the year before his death, thegreatReformerwroteaprefacetoacollectededitionofhisworks,whichbeganwiththesewords:-“1havelongandearnestlyresistedthosewhowished my books, or rather the confusions of my lucubrations, to bepublished;bothbecauseIwasunwillingthatthelaboursoftheancientsshould be covered up by my novelties, and the reader hindered fromreading them, and because now7, by God’s grace, there are manymethodical books, among which the Commonplaces of Philip excel, bywhich the theologian and the bishop may be beautifully formed,especially since the sacred Scripturesmay now be had in almost everylanguage; while my books, as the want of method in the eventsoccasioned and necessitated, are, indeed, but a rude and indigestedchaos, which it is not easy now even for myself to bring into order.Inducedby these considerations, Iwishedallmybooks tobeburied inperpetual oblivion, that there might be room for better ones.” Thisprefacealsocontainsthefollowingstatements:-“But,beforeallthings,Ibeseechthepiousreader,andIbeseechhimforourLordJesusChrist’ssake, that he would read these productions with judgment, nay, withmuch compassion;” “I narrate these things, excellent reader, for thisreason,that,ifyouareabouttoreadmylittleworks,youmayrememberthatIhavebeenoneof thosewho,asAugustinewritesofhimself,havemadeprogressbywritingand teaching, and that I amnotoneof thosewho from nothing suddenly become great, though they have done, ortried,orexperiencednothing,butwithoneglanceatScriptureexhaustits

wholespirit.”SirWilliamknowsthatinthesameyear,1545,Melancthon,with Luther’s consent, published a collection of the “Disputations orPropositions,”putforthanddiscussedbyhiminthetheologicalschoolatWittenberg,from1519to1545;andthatLutherwroteaprefacetothem,which began with these words: - "I permit these ‘Disputations orPropositions’ of mine, handled from the beginning of my cause inopposition to the papacy and the kingdom of the Sophists, to bepublished,chieflyinorderthatthegreatnessofthecause,andthesuccessthereindivinelygrantedtome,maynotexaltme.Forintheseisclearlyshownmyignominy,-thatis,myweaknessandignorance,whichledmeatfirsttotrythematterwiththegreatestfearandtrembling.”

SirWilliam knows, and even “persons of ordinary information” know,thatinnumerablestatements,similarinsubstanceandspirittowhathavebeenquotedfromthesetwoprefaces,arefoundinLuther’swritings;andyet,knowingallthis,heventurestoassert,thatLutherhad“anassuranceofhispersonalinspiration,”and"neverdoubtedofhisowninfallibility.”Every one knows, that on some occasions Luther showed a doggedobstinacy in maintaining errors, and an unwarranted confidence thattheyweretruths,andthatheoccasionallytalkedabouthimselfinastylethat somewhat resembled presumptuous, self-complacent boasting. SirWilliam, we dare say, could easily produce a copious anthology of thissort.Butthiswouldbenosufficientproofofthetruthofthecharge,thatLuther“wasassuredofhispersonal inspiration,”and“neverdoubtedofhis own infallibility,” even though it were not contradicted by thepassageswehavequoted, andbymanyothers of similar import. Thesepassages conclusively disprove the charge, unless, indeed, it be allegedthat they were altogether hypocritical, and expressed feelings whichLuther never entertained; and no human being but a thorough-bredPapistcouldbebaseenoughtobelievethis.'"

TheadductionofthisbaselesschargeagainstLuther,andtheadductionof it forthefirst timein1852,sixyearsafterMr.Harehadexposedthecharges of 1834 and 1843, must satisfy every intelligent man, that SirWilliam’sstatementsaboutthecharacteroftheReformerareentitledtono weight or deference, and ought to be received with the strongestsuspicion.

SirWilliamhas turnedover a goodmanybooks, andpickedup a gooddeal of information of a miscellaneous and superficial, though oftenrecondite, description, upon some theological subjects, and evidentlythinks that he is entitled to treat with contempt all the existingprofessional cultivators of theological literature. The eminence he hasreachedinhisowndepartment,theconfidencewithwhichhedogmatizeson theological and ecclesiastical topics, and the real extent of hisknowledgeregardingthem,thoughit ismuch less thanheclaimscreditfor,arefittedtogiveweighttohisstatementswithacertainclassofthecommunity;while,atthesametime,aswearepersuaded,andthinkwecanprove,hehasgoneastrayinalmostalltheinstancesinwhichhehasmeddledwiththatclassofsubjects.SirWilliamresemblesBayleinmanyrespects,-inthevigourandversatilityofhisintellect,inthevarietyandextent ofhis erudition, and in his propensity to dealwith ecclesiasticalquestions;butheisgreatlyinferiortothatfamousscepticinrealloveforhistorical accuracy, in patient and deliberate investigation of thematerialsofproof,and,aboveall,inthatsoundjudgment,strongsense,andpracticalsagacity,which,indealingwithhistoricalevidence,arefarmorevaluablethanmetaphysicaldepthorsubtilty.SirWilliamhassomeof Bayle’s bad qualities, without his good ones; and this furnishes anexplanationofthepositionwhichwedonothesitatetolaydown,viz.thatin all the leading instances in which he has taken up theological orecclesiastical questions, he has exhibited not only blundering andinaccuracy,butastateofmindandfeelingoffensivetotherealfriendsoftruthandrighteousness.Wethinkthetimehascomewhenthispositionshouldbeopenlyandexplicitlylaiddownandpresseduponpublicnotice,inordertopreventthemischiefwhichtheinfluenceofSirWilliam’snameisfittedtodo,inmattersinwhichnodeferencewhateverisduetohim,andwhichnomanmustbepermittedtomisrepresent;andwewillinglyavailourselvesof theassistanceofMr.Hare’sadmirableVindication, inordertoestablishthis,sofarasconcernshisoffensiveattackuponLutherandhisfellow-reformers.

We have already mentioned that Sir William’s original attack uponLuther,publishedintheEdinburghReviewfor1834,andrepeatedinthe“Discussions” in 1852, consisted chiefly of an ascription to him oferroneousanddangerousopinions:-lst,Onspeculativetheology;2d,On

practicaltheology;and3d,Onbiblicalcriticism;-andthathepromisedtogiveLuther’sopinions“inhisownwordsliterallytranslated,”therebyprofessing to have himself translated Luther’s words from a personalexaminationoftheoriginal.Thewholeofwhatheproducesasaspecimenof Luther’s speculative theology, consists of four short sentences,amounting in all to eight lines, and bears upon the one point of thepurposes and procedure of God in regard to sin and sinners.NowMr.Hare has proved that these eight lines, given originally in the Reviewwithout any references, andas if theywere one continuous extract, aremade up of four scraps from different parts of the treatise, “De ServoArbitrio;” and that they were taken' not from the original, but fromBossuet’s “Historyof theVariations of theProtestantChurches,”wherethey are givenwith somedeviations from the original that are fitted tomake them rather more offensive. Mr. Hare’s proof that Sir William’sextractshad,beentakenmediatelyor immediately fromBossuetwassoperfectly conclusive, that it could not possibly be answered or evaded,and Sir William was under the necessity of having recourse either toconfession or to silence. He chose the former and more honourablealternative; though to a man of his peculiar temperament such aconfessionmusthavebeenverypainfulandmortifying, especially as intheintervalbetweenthecommissionoftheoffenceandMr.Hare’spublicexposure of it, he had disclaimed founding “upon passages known toBossuet, Bayle, etc., and through them to persons of ordinaryinformation.”AsconfessionisnotanexerciseinwhichSirWilliamoftenindulges, and as our readers, who are probablymore familiar with hisboastings,maybeanxioustoseehowheperformsit,wegiveitinhisownwords:-

“InregardtothetestimoniesfromLutherunderthisfirsthead,butunderthisalone,Imustmakeaconfession.TherearefewthingstowhichIfeelagreaterrepugnancethanrelyinguponquotationsatsecond-hand.NowthoseunderthisheadwerenottakenimmediatelyfromLuther’streatise,‘De ServoArbitrio,’ inwhich they are all contained. I had indeedmorethanoncereadthatremarkablework,andonceattentively,marking,asismywont, themore important passages; but at the time of writing thisarticle,mycopywasoutofimmediatereach,andthepressbeingurgent,Ihad no leisure for a reperusal. In these circumstances, finding that the

extractsfromitinTheodulsGasimahlcorresponded,sofarastheywent,withthosealsogivenbyBossuet,andas,frommyownrecollection(andthetestimony,Ithink,ofWerdermann),theyfairlyrepresentedLuther’sdoctrine;Iliterallytranslatedthepassages,evenintheirorder,asgivenby Von Stark (and in Dr Kentsinger’s French version). Stark, I indeednow conjecture, had Bossuet in his eye. I deem it right to make thisavowal,andtoacknowledgethatIdidwhat1accountwrong.But,again,Ihavenohesitationinnow,afterfullexamination,deliberatelysaying,thatI do not think these extracts, whether by Bossuet, or by Stark andBossuet, to be unfairly selected, to be unfaithfully translated, to begarbled,ortomisrepresentinanywayLuther’sdoctrine;inparticularhisopinionstouchingthedivinepredestinationandthehumanwill.”

SirWilliam’sdefence,insubstance,is,thathe,orratherBossuet,hadnotreallymisrepresented Luther; and that the statements as they stand inthe original are as strong and startling as inBossuet’s French or in hisownEnglish.Thisofcoursehasnothingtodowiththematter,insofarasit involvesaquestionofscholar-likeacting.Butas, in thisaspectof theaffair,SirWilliamhasfranklyconfessedthatheactedwrong,weshallsaynothingmoreaboutit.Wecannot,however,concedethatBossuetandSirWilliamhavecorrectlyexhibitedLuther’sactualstatements.Mr.Harehasproved their incorrectness, though perhaps he has somewhat overratedthe magnitude of the differences in point of substance between theoriginalandthetranslations.ThereisonlyoneofthefourscrapstowhichSirWilliaminhisdefencerefersspecificallyorwithanydetail;andabriefnoticeofwhathesaysaboutit.willprovethateveninwhathesays“now,after full examination, deliberately,” he has not reached completeaccuracy. The second of the four sentences given in the Review, - andgivenasifitwerepartofoneandthesamepassagealongwiththeotherthree, this of itself being fitted to convey an unfair impression, eventhoughthewholehadbeencorrectlytranslated,-isinthesewords:“AllthingstakeplacebytheeternalandinvariablewillofGod,whoblastsandshatters in pieces the freedom of the will;” and he now,"after fullexamination,”givesitinhis“Discussions,”inthesamewords,exceptthathesubstitutes“which”for“who.”Bossuet’sFrench-SirWilliam’soriginal-isthis:“Quesaprescienceetlaprovidencedivinefaitquetouteschosesarriventparune immuable, eternelle, et inevitablevolontedeDieu,qui

foudroieetmetenpiecestoutlelibrearbitre.”SirWilliam’sremarkuponthis passage is as follows: “I must not, however, here forget toacknowledge an error, or rather an inadvertence of mine, which hasaffordedagroundforMr.Haretomake,asusual,afutilechargeagainstBossuet.Inthesecondoftheaboveextracts,nothavingLuther’soriginalbeforeme,IhadreferredtherelativepronountoiGod,’whereasitshouldhavebeento ‘thewillofGod.’ In theversionsofStarkandBossuet it isambiguous,andIapplieditwrongly.”JNowitisnottrue,asSirWilliamhereasserts,thatitwashiserrororinadvertenceintranslatingBossuet’s“qui”by“who,”whileitmightequallymean“which,”thatledMr.Haretocharge Bossuet with misrepresenting Luther’s meaning. Mr. Hare hassaid nothing suggesting or implying this, and he has made statementsplainly precluding it. But the strange thing is, that while SirWilliam’sstatementnecessarily impliesthat inLuther’soriginal there isarelativepronoun, on the right application and translation of which the sensesomewhat depends, the fact is, that no such relative pronoun existsexcept'inBossuet;thatSirWilliamhasnotyet,“afterfullexamination,”fulfilled his promise to give us “Luther’s opinions in his own wordsliterally translated;” and that the difference between what Luther saidand what Sir William continues to ascribe to him is not whollyunimportant.TheoriginalpassageinLutherconsistsoftwosentencesasfollow: “Est itaque et hoc in primis necessarium et salutare Christianonosse, quod Deus nihil prsescit contingenter, sed quod omniaincommutabilietseterna,infallibiliquevoluntateetprsevidetetproponitet facit. Hoc fulmine sternitur et conteritur penitus liberum arbitrium.Ideo qui liberum arbitrium volunt assertum, debent hoc fulmen velnegare,veldissimulare,autaliarationeaseabiffere.”

Now there is no relative pronoun here, to connect the crushing of thefree-willeitherwiththeDeusorthevoluntas,asBossuetandSirWilliamrepresent it. Sir William originally ascribed it to the Deus; he nowascribes it to the voluntas: whereas Luther ascribes it to neither; butbreaksofffromthemintoanewsentence,andascribesittohocfulmen.Whatthisfulmenwasmustbeascertainedfromthegeneralscopeofthepassage; and when this is taken into account, it becomes perfectlymanifestthatthecrushingoffree-willisascribedneithertotheDeusnortothevoluntas,strictlyspeaking,buttothegreattruthorfact,thatGod

certainly foresees and governs all things. Even if this difference weremoreinsignificantthanitis,thiswouldbenoexcuseforgivingsogarbledan extract from Luther, and so incorrect a translation of his words.Bossuet did not promise to translate literally, and yet he has givenLuther’s words more fully and correctly than Sir William, who did.Bossuet has acted unfairly, indeed, in overleaping the barrier of thesentence, in extinguishing the fulmen, and in ascribing the crushing ofthe free-will directly to the voluntas, if not to the Deus. Sir Williamadoptsthisinaccuracyfromhim,andhecontinuestoadheretoiteven66after full examination” of the original; while he also perpetrates theadditionalunfairnessofleavingoutthefirstpartofthesentence,bytheintroductionofaportionofwhichevenBossuetindicated,thatitwastheforeknowledge and providence of God about which Luther was herediscoursing.

This is a very curious specimen of blundering. But its importance, weadmit,lieschieflyinitsbearinguponSirWilliam,andthequestionofthereliancetobeplacedupontheaccuracyofhisstatements.ThatrashandexaggeratedsentimentsandexpressionsmaybeproducedfromLuther’swritingsuponavarietyofsubjects,isquitewellknown,andnointelligentProtestantwouldthinkofdisputingthis.Thatstatementsofthissortaretobefoundinhistreatise“DeServoArbitrio,”inreferencetothedecreesandprovidenceofGod,hasalwaysbeenabundantlynotorious.Thatsomeof the statements quoted by Bossuet and SirWilliam do, even as theystand in the original, express Calvinistic doctrines in an unnecessarilyandunwarrantablyharshandoffensiveform,wedonothesitatetoadmit.Indeed,itisaveryremarkablefact,thatnotonlytherashandimpetuousLuther,butalsothecautiousandtimidMelancthon,did, intheirearlierworks, make more unwarrantable and startling statements about thedecreesandtheagencyofGod,intheirbearinguponmen’sactions,thanCalvin ever uttered. When the Lutherans, in the next generation,abandonedtheCalvinismoftheirmaster,theywereverymuchata losswhattomakeofhistreatise“DeServoArbitrio,”which,initsnaturalandobviousmeaning,seemedtobetheproductionofonewho,aswassaidofBeza, was Calvino Calvinior. The most devoted admirers of theMegalander, as they usually called him, admitted, of course, that therearesomerashandexaggeratedstatements in thework.But that isvery

little to their purpose; for Calvinists, too, admit the truth of this, andcontend that, even abstracting everything that might rank under thishead,thetreatiseplainlyandexplicitlyassertsthefundamentalprinciplesoftheCalvinisticsystemoftheology.Intheyear1664,SebastianSchmidt,an eminent Lutheran divine, and professor of theology at Strasburg,published an edition of Luther “De Servo Arbitrio,” copiously providedwith annotations, “quibus,” as is set forth in the title-page, “B. Vir abaccusatione, quasi absolutum Calvinianorum, vel durius, aliquod Deidecretumin libro ipsostatuerit,prsecipuevindicatur.”Theannotations,ofcourse,areutterlyunsuccessfulineffectingtheobjecttowhichtheyaredirected,viz.provingthatLutherdidnot, inthiswork, teachCalvinisticdoctrines.Noamountofstrainingorperversionisadequatetoeffectthat.Schmidt’sannotationsresembleverymuchaSociniancommentaryuponthe beginning of John’s Gospel; and it is rather a curious coincidence,that those scraps which SirWilliam has paraded are duly provided bySchmidt with annotations, intended to show, not that they presentCalvinisminaharshandoffensiveform,butthattheydonotgosofarastoteachCalvinismatall.

ThecompellingSirWilliamtoconfesspublicly, that, ingivingaviewofLuther’sopinionsonspeculativetheology,hehadgothiswholematerialsat second-hand, was an offence not to be forgiven; and accordingly hebringsout,inconnectionwiththistopic,anassault,orratheraseriesofassaults,upontheArchdeacon,evidentlyintendedtobemurderous.Thisgreat philosopher,whenhe engages in theological controversy, exhibitsodiumplusquamtheologicum.Ourreaders,wearesure,willnotwonderat any little severitywe have exhibited in dealingwith him, when theyreadthefollowingchoicespecimensofinvective,culledfromafewpagesof the notes to the “Discussions.” “Mr. Hare’s observations under thishead of speculative theology exhibit significant specimens ofinconsistency,badfaith,andexquisiteerror. Ishalladduce instancesofeach.Buthisbaselessabuse - that I shall overpass.” “He isonlyaone-sidedadvocate,anadvocatefrompersonalpredilectionandantipathies;and even as such, his arguments are weak as they are wordy.” “LordBaconsaysofsomeone,ihasonlytwosmallwants;hewantsknowledgeandhewantslove.’ButwiththeArchdeacon,wecannotwellrestricthiswantstotwo;forhelackslogicbesideslearningandlove;andafourth-

withal a worse defect - is to be added, but a defect which it is alwayspainfultobeforcedtospecify.”“Mr.HareisnotthechampionforLuther;andifhebeeffectuallycounselled,thefarragowillnotagainseethelight”(this refers to Mr. Hare’s intimated purpose to republish Note W, - apurpose accomplished in the volume now lying before us), “for it issimply a verbose conglomeration of what I shall refrain fromcharacterizing; theauthormakingmoremistakesormisrepresentationsthan the note - however confessedly prolix and garrulous - exhibitsparagraphs.ButtheArchdeaconofLewesneitherlearnsnorlistens.Heisnotcontenttoenjoyhisecclesiasticalgoodfortuneinhumilityandsilentthankfulness.Hewillstandforward;hewillchallengeadmiration;hewilldisplayhislearning;hewillplaythepolemic;andthusexposestoscornnotmerelyhimself,”butalso,asSirWilliamgoesontoassert,withsomedetail,thechurchofwhichhewasadignitary.Nowwhatisthecause,andwhatthegroundofthisviolentoutbreak,ofthisalarmingexhibitionofaphilosopher ina fury?The causeof it is simply this, thatMr.Harehaslaidbefore thepublic conclusiveproof thatmuch,we donot say all, ofwhatSirWilliamhashereallegedagainsthisantagonist,istrueOOOjofhimself.Andthegroundofit isnothingmorethanthis,thatMr.Hare’swork, when carefully scrutinized, exhibits a few instances of theoversights, errors, and partialities, whichmay be pointed out,more orless, innineteen-twentiethsof themost respectable controversialworksthat ever were produced, and in which Sir William’s polemic speciallysuperabounds.NomanwithasoundheadandasoundheartcanreadSirWilliam’s onslaught on Mr. Hare, of which we have given somespecimens,withoutseeingthatthechargesaregrosslyexaggerated,andhavereallynosolid foundationtoreston.Wewouldnotgoso faras toallegethatallthatSirWilliamchargesuponMr.Hareistrueofhimself;butwehavenohesitation in saying, that anyonewhomight choose toallegethis,could,withoutdifficulty,produceamuchmoreplausiblepieceofpleadinginsupportofhisallegationthanSirWilliamhasdone.Thisissomanifestlythetruestateofthecase,thatwedonotthinkitnecessaryto go into detail to defend Mr. Hare against an assault which wasevidentlyintendedtodestroyhim,butwhich,fromitsveryrecklessness,hasprovedperfectlypowerless.

It was very natural that Sir William should take under his protection

Bossuet,towhom,incommonwith“personsofordinaryinformation,”hehadbeenindebtedforhisspecimenofLuther’sspeculativetheology;and,accordingly, he says of him, “In this note I have spoken of Bossuet,signifyingmyrelianceupontheaccuracyofhisquotations;andIamasfullyconvincedofhislearningandveracityasofhisgenius.”AsMr.HarehadadducedsatisfactoryevidenceofBossuet’sunscrupulousunfairness,SirWilliam could scarcely do less than guarantee his veracity: and hecoulddothisthemoreeasily,as,inallprobability,heneverhadcarefullyinvestigated the subject. But the truth is, that Bossuet’s character forveracitywasconclusively settled, in theestimationofall intelligentandcompetentjudges,beforethepublicationofhis“HistoryoftheVariationsoftheProtestantChurches,”by the tremendousexposuresmadeofhimbyDrWake,afterwardsArchbishopofCanterbury, inhis“ExpositionoftheDoctrineof theChurchofEngland,”andhis twoDefencesof it.Wehave no doubt that in these works, which have been republished inBishop Gibson’s “Preservative against Popery,” Wake has conclusivelyconvictedBossuetofdeliberatelying,inrepeatedinstances;andthesenotbearingmerelyontheprimarysubjectofcontroversybetweenthem,viz.the original publication of Bossuet’s “Exposition of theDoctrine of theCatholic Church,” but also on several other topics unconnectedwith it.Andinregardtothe“HistoryoftheVariations,”thoughitischaracterizedbyextraordinaryskillanddexterity,and is indeed inall respectsoneofthemostplausibleandeffectivepiecesofspecialpleadingeverproduced,and though it generally avoidsgross andpalpable falsehoods, yet it toohas,wethink,beenprovedtobeutterlydestituteoffairnessandcandour.We think it scarcely possible for any man to read with care anddiscrimination, Basnage’s “Histoire de la Religion des EglisesReformees,”withoutbeingsatisfiedofthetruthofthisstatement.‘Papistsstillboastofhis“HistoryoftheVariations”asunanswerable.Webelievethat ithasbeenmostthoroughlyansweredbyBasnage, insofaras it isargumentative, that everything like argument in it has been completelydemolished,andthatitsauthorhasbeensadlyexposed;whilewecannotbut admit, that even when everything needful to satisfy theunderstandinghasbeenprovided, theadmirable skill andadroitness oftheadvocateoferrorhasnotonlymadethebestofabadcause,butmayprobablyhaveleftsomepainfuldoubtsanduncertaintiesuponthemindsofaconsiderableclassofreaders.

TheargumentofBossuet’sworklieswithinaverynarrowcompass.Itisthis.Variationsindoctrineaffordanevidenceoferror;Protestantshavefromthefirstbeenconstantlyvaryinginthedoctrinestheyprofessedtohold: and, therefore, their views are erroneous. Inopposition to this, ithasbeenproved-1st,Thatthemaximaboutvariationsprovingerrorsisnottrue,orisonlypartiallytrue,inthesenseinwhichaloneitcanserveBossuet’spurposeinargument;2d,Thatsomeofthevariationswhichheascribes to Protestants are produced, and that many more are greatlyswelled in importance andmagnitude, by his own misrepresentations;and3d,Thattheargument,insofarasithasanyweight,mayberetortedwith far greater force upon the Church of Rome. These positions havebeenprovedbyBasnageinthemostsatisfactoryandconclusivemanner;so that, so farasargument is concerned, thebookhasbeen thoroughlydemolished.ButBossuet’sgreatartthroughoutthewholeworkis,thathehascontrivedtobringin, inthemostskilfulanddexterousway,agreatdealthatisfittedtodamagethecharactersoftheReformers,andthustoleave an uncomfortable impression upon men’s minds, even when hisargument, properly so called, is seen to bewholly untenable. Bossuet’swantofintegrity,sofarasthisworkisconcerned,isexhibitedchieflyinproducingandmagnifyingvariations,bymisrepresentingtheviewsoftheReformers and other Protestants; and we think it scarcely possible foranyone to readBasnagecarefully,withoutbeingconvinced, that itwasonly policy that restrained him from practising the grosser and morepalpablefraudsinwhichmostPopishcontroversialists'indulge,andthatwithadmirableskillhehassystematicallycarriedhismisrepresentationsjustasfarashethought,uponthewhole,tobesafeorexpedient.

We have really no pleasure in making such statements about Bossuet,who,inspiteofhiswantofintegrityinmattersinwhichtheinterestsofhis churchwere concerned,was not only possessed of splendidmentalendowments,butevenofsomethinglikeacertainelevationandnobilityof general character. Integrity in matters in which the interests andreputationofthechurchareconcerned,itishopelesstoexpectofalmostanyPopishcontroversialist.ArnauldandNicole, the famousJansenists,were the two other great contemporary champions of Popery; and theyhavecertainlyfurnishedfarbetterevidencethattheywerereallymenofreligiousandmoralprinciplethancanbeproducedinfavourofBossuet.

Andyetwehavegreatdoubtswhethertheyheld fast their integrity.Wegreatly admire all thesemen, though we do not put them in the samecategory;andwhilewewouldnotpervertorexplainawayanymattersoffactastowhattheysaidordid,wefeelstronglydisposedtopalliatetheiraberrations, by laying a portion of the responsibility upon thedemoralizing and conscience-searing system to the influence of whichtheyweresubjected.Italwaysdeepensour indignationagainst theManofSin, theMysteryof Iniquity,whenourattention iscalled toanythingwhich reminds us that that system reduced a man so noble in manyrespects as Bossuet was, to such artifices, and imperilled, at least, theintegrityofsuchmenasArnauldandNicole.WedismissthissubjectwiththefollowingadmirableremarksofMr.Hareonthefamous“HistoryoftheVariations,”whichwebelievetobejustandsound:-

“Indeed,ifanythingweresurprisingamongthenumberlessπαγαλογαofliterature, one should marvel at the inordinate reputation which the‘HistoiredesVariations’hasacquired,notmerelywiththemembersofachurchgladtomakethemostofanypropforarottencause,butamongProtestantsoflearninganddiscernment.Onemainsourceofitscelebritymayheinthatspiritofdetractionwhichexercisessuchabanefulpowerinallclassesofmankind,eversinceCainslewhisbrotheronaccountofhisrighteousness;intheeagernesswithwhichall listentoevil-speakingand slander, finding little diminution of their pleasure though it bestrongly seasonedwith lying; in thatwantof sympathywithheroicandenthusiastic spiritswhich is so prevalent amongmen of theworld, andthe great body of men of letters, and their consequent satisfaction atseeingwhattowersbeyondtheirkencastdowntotheground.Ableasthe‘Histoire des Variations’ doubtless is, if regarded as the statement andpleadingofanunprincipledandunscrupulousadvocate,itisanythingbuta great work. For no work can be great unless it be written with aparamount love of truth. This is the moral element of all genius, andwithoutitthefinesttalentsareworthlittlemorethanaconjuror’ssleight-of-hand.Bossuet,inthisbook,neverseemseventohavesethimselftheproblemofspeakingthetruth,asathingtobedesiredandaimedat.Hepretendstoseathimselfinthechairofjudgment,butwithoutathoughtof doing justice to the persons he summons before him. He does notexaminetoascertainwhethertheyareguiltyornot.Hismindismadeup

beforehand that they are guilty; and his only care is to scrape togetherwhatevermay seem toprove this, thathemayhavea speciouspleaforcondemningthem.Neveronce,Ibelieve, fromthe firstpageto the last,didhetryheartilytomakeoutwhattherealfactwas.Heisdeterminedtosay all possible evil of theReformers; to show that theywentwrong ateverystep, ineverydeed, ineveryword, ineverythought; toprovethatthey are all darkness, with scarcely a gleam of light. Hence hisrepresentationofLutherisnomorelikehimthananimagemadeupoftheblacklinesinaspectrumwouldbelikethesun.Bossuetpicksoutallthe bad he can find, and leaves out all the good. But as even thisprocedurewouldpoorly servehis purpose, themainpart ofhispictureconsists of sentences torn from their context; which, by some forciblewrench,someprocessofgarbling,bybeingdeprivedofcertainlimitingorcounterbalancingclauses,bybeingmadepositiveinsteadofhypothetical,or through some of the other tricks of which we have seen such sadinstancesinthesepages,arerenderedveryoffensive.WithregardtotheLandgrave’smarriage,histreatmentofLutherismoreliketheferocityofa tiger, tearing his prey limb from limb, and gloating over it before hedevoursit,thanthespiritwhichbecomesaChristianbishop.”

ThisleadsustoadverttoSirWilliam’schargesagainstLutherunderthehead of practical theology. We have already mentioned that the onlymaterials originally produced under this head were extracts from thedocument inwhichLuther,Melancthon,andsomeotherdivinesof thatperiod, gave their permission or consent to the Landgrave of Hessemarrying a secondwifewhile his firstwife continued to live with him.Thisstoryis,ofcourse,agreatfavouritewithPopishcontroversialists.ItisanespecialfavouritewithSirWilliam.HeproduceditintheEdinburghReview in 1834; and again, a second time, nine years later, in hispamphletinfavouroftheintrusionofministers,thoughhenowchangedmaterially the nature of the accusation which, in connection with thismatter, he adduced against the Reformers. In the notes to the originalarticle, as republished in the “Discussions” in 1852,hehasnotbroughtforwardmuch additional matter, so far as Luther andMelancthon areconcerned; the chief fruits of his continued researches into thisapparently congenial subject being, that he is at last able to boast -whether truly or not we do not know - that he is now acquainted, he

believes,withall thepublications relative to this story, and thathehascollectedaconsiderablequantityofadditionalmatter(certainlyunknownbefore to “persons of ordinary information”), in order to blacken thecharacterofMelanderandLening, twoProtestantministerswhosignedthedocumentaboutthemarriagealongwithLutherandMelancthon,andwhomight, without any detriment to the public, have been left in theobscurity from which Sir William’s extraordinary information hasdraggedthem.

Itisunpleasanttohavetodiscusssuchasubjectasthis,anditisnoteasytoseewhatbenefitthepubliccanderivefromthediscussionofit;butifSirWilliamHamiltonpersistsindwellinguponit,andinpressingituponpublicattention,andifheisresolvedtoemployitforunjustlydamagingthe character of the Reformers, he thereby imposes upon others anecessityofdealingwithit,insteadofleavingitwhollyinhishands,andallowinghimtouseitforpurposeswhichmanybelievetobeunjustandinjurious.SirWilliammayprobablyallegethatheismerelybringingoutwhatistrue,andthatalltruthoughttobeproclaimedandmadeknown.Wedonotadmitthatall thathehasputforthuponthissubject istrue;and if it were we would still take the liberty of regarding it as notcreditable toanymantomanifestaspecialanxiety topresssuch truthsuponpublicattentionwithoutanyapparentcalltodoso,andtolabourtobring them out in their most offensive and aggravated form.Circumstancesmay occur in which anything that is really truemay bebroughtoutandproclaimedwithoutimproprietybypartiesconcernedin,orcalledtomeddlewithit;butitisnotthelesstruethatweareentitledtojudgeofmenbytheselectiontheymakeofthetopicswhichtheyseemmostanxioustopressuponournotice.SirWilliam,nodoubt,willclaimtohimselfthecreditofhavingbeeninfluencedinallhehasdoneinthismatterbypureloveoftruth;butwethinkwecanventuretoassurehim,that his character would have stood much higher this day in theestimationofhonourablemen,ifhehadnevermeddledwiththesecondmarriage of the Landgrave of Hesse, and had left it to be handled byRomanistsandRomanizers.Wedonotmeantogointodetailsuponthispainfulsubject.Wecanmerelysuggestafewhints,astowhatoughttobethoughtofthisaffair,andofSirWilliam’smodeofdealingwithit.

Luther’sconductinthismatterhasnotbeenapprovedofbyProtestants,but, on the contrary, has been given up as indefensible. They havedifferedsomewhatintheseverityoftheircensures,andinthegroundsonwhich they rest their condemnation of his conduct, but they have notundertakentovindicateit.Basnage,inhisreplytoBousset’s“HistoryoftheVariations,”atonceadmitsthatLuther’sConductwaswrong;andsodoes Seckendorff, in his great work, “De Lutheranismo.” Thisundoubtedly is the right and honest course to pursue in the matter;thoughitisnodoubtquitefairtoseethatthecaseisfullyandcorrectlystated, and not exaggerated or perverted. Mr. Hare has successfullyexposedseveralunfairandmaliciousmisrepresentationsofBossuetinhiscommentariesuponthissubject;andhasalsopointedouttheunfairnessof the selection of the passages by Sir William from the principaldocumentconnectedwiththisaffair.Uponthislastpointhesays:-

“Whenwecomparethemwiththewholebodyfromwhichtheyaretorn,theywhoadmireingenuity,inwhatsoevercauseitmaybedisplayed,willbestruckwiththedexterityshowningarblingtheopinionofthedivines,so as to render it as offensive aspossible.Themainpart of it,whereinthey perform their duty of spiritual advisers honestly and faithfully,tellingtheLandgraveoftheevilslikelytoarisefromhisconduct,andofthedivinewrathwhichhewasprovokingbyhissinful life, iswholly leftout; so that it seems as if they had had no thought of their pastoralresponsibility, but readily consented to do just what the Landgravewished,andweresolelydeterredbyfearof theshameitmightbringonthemselvesandontheircause.”

The proper antidote to this unfairness of Sir William’s, is to give thedocumentinfull.ThisMr.Harehasdone,andtohispageswemustreferfor it. Mr. Hare has brought out fully the leading features of thistransaction, and has suggested almost everything that could be said inpalliationoftheconductoftheReformersinthismatter.Hegoesratherfarther than we are prepared to do in palliation of what they did. Wecannot but admit that his love for Luther has somewhat perverted hisjudgment,-hasmadehimjudgerathertoofavourably.Atthesametimehehasprovedconclusively, thatthereweresomematerialpalliationsoftheirconduct;andhasshownthatitinvolvesgrossignoranceorinjustice

to judgeof thebare factsof the caseby thenotionsand feelingsofourownageandcountry,withouttakingintoaccounttheviewsthatprevailedonsuchsubjectsinthesixteenthcentury,andthewayinwhichtheywerethenoftendiscussed.This isof itself sufficient toestablish the injusticeandunfairnessofthecoursewhichSirWilliamhaspursuedinthematter.But let us briefly advert to his more formal charges, based upon thistransaction.Originallyheaccused themof the“skulkingcompromiseofallprofessedprinciple;”meaning,ofcourse, that ingivingtheirconsenttotheLandgrave’sbigamy,theysanctionedwhattheyknewtobesinful,under the influence of selfish and secularmotives, connected with thegeneral interestsof theReformedcause, towhich thegood-willandthesupport of theLandgravewere very important.This is the viewusuallygivenof the transactionbyPopish controversialists.ButSirWilliam, inhis pamphlet in favour of intrusion, withdraws this charge, andsubstitutesanotherinitsroom;allegingthattheyapprovedofpolygamyas lawful and warrantable, and, of course, acted in the matter inaccordance with their own convictions, - their anxiety for theconcealmentofthemarriagearising,onthissecondtheory,notfromthebelief that it was sinful, but merely from prudential considerations toavoid scandal. He adheres to this latter view in his “Discussions.”Accordingtotheformerviewofthematter,theconductoftheReformersin consenting to the Landgrave’s second marriage was a sin, beingproducedbytheoperationofsinfulmotives,andtendingdirectlytobringaboutthecommissionofsin.Accordingtothelatterview,itwasanerrorof opinion, orwhat, from itsheinous andoffensive character,might becalledaheresy.But thoughthecharge,asoriginallyput, involveda sin,andinitssecondformwasmerelyanerror,mostpeopleinmoderntimeswill probably regard it as being quite as damaging to the character ofLutherandMelancthontohaveinculcatedthelawfulnessofpolygamy,astohavebeentempted,uponaparticularoccasion,tohavegivenconsenttothedoingofwhatwassinful.

Mr. Hare concurs in the general idea involved in SirWilliam’s seconddeliveranceuponthesubject,viz.thattheconductoftheReformersistobe regarded rather as an error than as a sin, though he reaches thatconclusion by a different course, and maintains the incorrectness ofseveral of Sir William’s positions, especially of his leading one, which

ascribestoLutherandMelancthonabeliefinthelawfulnessofpolygamyundertheChristiandispensation.Theleadingfeaturesinhisviewofthecaseareexhibitedinthefollowingquotations:-

“Whenweexaminethewholeopinionconnectedly,wearecompelledtoreject theexcusewhichSirW.Hamiltonsokindlyproposes, inordertorescueLutherfromthefangsoftheEdinburghReviewer.For,fromfirstto last, it isplain that the licence,which thedivinesdeclare themselvesunabletocondemn, ismeantbythemtoberegardedasadispensation,and not as authorizing or sanctioning polygamy; and this is the mainreasonwhytheyaresoearnest inrequiringthatthesecondmarriage, ifenteredupon,shouldbekeptsecret,lestitshouldbelookeduponastheintroductionofageneralpractice.Polygamy,asageneralpractice, theyaltogethercondemn;becausetheyconceivethatourLord’swordsinthepassage referred to re-establish the primary, paradisiacal institution ofmonogamy. At the same time, while they see that polygamy, thoughcontrary to theoriginal institution, is sanctioned in theOldTestament,bothbythepracticeofthepatriarchsandbytheexpressrecognitionofitin the book of Deuteronomy, they do not find any passage in theNewTestamentdirectlyandabsolutely forbidding it.Hereweshouldbear inmind what their rule, especially Luther’s, was.When the word of Godseemedtohimclearandexpress, theneverythingelsewas tobowto it:heavenandearthmightpassaway,butnotittleofwhatGodhadsaid.Ontheotherhand,whereno expressScripture couldbeproduced,heheldthat all human laws and ordinances, and everything enjoined byman’sunderstanding on considerations of expediency, however wide thatexpediencymightbe,issofarflexibleandvariable,thatitmaybemadetobendtoimperiouscircumstancesinparticularcases.

“Thus the document itself forces us to decline SirW.Hamilton’s plea,that Luther wasmerely giving his sanction in a single instance to thatwhichhedesiredatheart toestablishgenerally, thepatriarchalpracticeofpolygamy.”

Then follows a careful investigation of Luther’s general views on thesubject of polygamy, as indicated in his writings, and of his presumedconcurrenceinthesuggestionwhichMelancthonmadetoHenryVIII.ofEngland,thatitwouldbelessobjectionabletotakeasecondwifethanto

divorcehisfirst;afterwhichhestatesthusthegroundonwhichhethinksLutheractedinsanctioningtheLandgrave’ssecondmarriage:-

“But though we must reject the plea that the advice given to theLandgrave is an instance of the predilection which the Reformers, onprinciple, entertained for polygamy, the evidence adduced abundantlyproves, that, in sanctioning a dispensation inwhat appeared to them acase of pressing need, they were not acting inconsistently, but inthoroughconsistencywiththeprincipleswhichtheyhadavowedforyearsbefore.Tous,indeed,thenotionofsuchadispensationwillstillbevery,offensive; but we must beware, as I have already remarked, oftransferring the moral views and feelings of our age to Luther’s. Thecanonlawadmittedthenecessityofdispensations,which,inmatrimonialcases,wereespeciallynumerous.Oneofthemainobjectsofthescholasticcasuistrywastodetermineunderwhatlimitationstheyareadmissible,asmaybeseeninourownauthorsonthisbranchofpracticaltheology,suchas Taylor; and the great importance of casuistry is beginning to berecognizedanewbyrecentwritersonethics.Theignorantpratermaycry,thatLutherought tohave thrownall such thingsoverboard,alongwiththeotherrubbishofRomanism.ButitwasneverLuther’swonttothrowthings overboard in a lump. His calling, he felt, was to preach Christcrucified for the sins of mankind, - Christ, of whose righteousness webecomepartakersbyfaith.Whatever inthe institutionsandpracticesofthechurchwascompatiblewiththeexerciseof thisministry,hedidnotassail unless it was flagrantly immoral. The sale of dispensations, themultiplicationofcases fordispensations, inorder togainmoneyby thesale of them, he regarded as criminal; and the abolition of suchdispensations,wheretheyhavebeenabolished, the reprobation theyheunder,areowing,innosmallmeasure,tohim.Buttheideaoflawwhichmanifested itself to him, convinced him that positive laws can onlypartiallyexpresstherequirementsofthesupremelawoflove,forthesakeof which they must at times bend; and when he consulted his oneinfallible authority, he found that his heavenly Master’s chief outwardconflictduringHisearthlyministry,was toassert the supremacyof thelawof love,which thePhariseeswere continually infringing,while theystickledpertinaciouslyfortheslightestpositiveenactment.”

Hesumsupthematterinthisway:-

“Such,then,istheamountofLuther’ssin,orrathererror-forsinIdarenot call it - in thisaffair, inwhich thevoiceof theworld, ever ready tobelieve evil of great and good men, has so severely condemned him,without investigationof the facts;although themotives imputed tohimarewholly repugnant to thosewhichgovernedhisconduct through life.Hedidnotcompromiseanyprofessedprinciple,astherevieweraccuseshimofdoing:hedidnotinculcatepolygamy,asthepamphleteerchargeshim with doing. But inasmuch as he could not discover any direct,absolute prohibition of polygamy in the New Testament, while it waspractisedby thepatriarchsandrecognizedby the law,hedidnotdeemhimselfwarrantedincondemningitabsolutely,whenthereappeared,inspecial cases, tobea strongnecessity, eitherwith a view to somegreatnationalobject,orforthereliefofatroubledconscience.Hereitbehovesustobearinmind,ontheonehand,whatimportanceLutherattached,asallhiswritingswitness,tothishighministerialofficeofrelievingtroubledconsciences;anditmaymitigateourcondemnationofhiserror,-which,afterall,wasanerrorontherightside,itspurposebeingtosubstituteahallowedunionforunhallowedlicence,-ifwerememberthatGersonhadsaidopenly,acenturybefore,expressingthecommonopinionofhisage,that itwas better for a priest to be guilty of fornication than tomarry.Such was the moral degradation of the church under the Egyptianbondageofordinances,thatevensowiseandgoodamancoulddeemitexpedienttosacrificethesacredprinciplesofrightandpurity,thesenseofduty,andthepeaceofthesoul,forthesakeofupholdingthearbitraryenactmentofatyrannicalhierarchy.Indeed,theclamourwhichhasbeenraisedagainstLutherforthisoneactbytheRomishpolemics,isperhaps,amongallcasesofthebeamcryingoutagainstthemote,thegrossestandthemosthypocritical.

“Nor shouldwe forget what difficulties have in all ages compassed thesettlementofspecialmatrimonialcases.TheymayperhapsbelessnowinEngland than inother countries,notwithstanding thegrievous scandalswhich attend themevenhere; and there is always a prejudice incliningmentosupposethattheirownconditionisthenormaloneforthewholehumanrace:butifwecomparethelawsofmarriagewhichprevailinthe

various branches of Christendom, and know anything of their moraleffectsasmanifestedinfamilylife,weshallperceivehowharditistolaydownanyoneinviolablerule.Whattheobscurityanduncertaintyofthelawwas inLuther’s time,wemayestimate fromtheconflictinganswerswhich were returned to the questionsmooted with reference to HenryVIII.’sdivorce.Ontheotherhand,weshouldtrytorealizewhattheBiblewastoLuther,-thesourceofallwisdom,thetreasure-houseofalltruth,theprimordialcodeofalllaw,thestore-roomfromwhich,withthehelpoftheSpirit,hewastobringfortheveryneedfulweapontofightagainstandtoovercometheworldandthedevil,-how,iftheBiblehadbeenputintheonescale,andallthebooksofallthegreatthinkersoftheheathenandChristianworldhadbeenpiledupintheother,theywouldnothaveavailed,inhisjudgment,toswaythebalancesomuchasahair’s-breadth.Itwasnotmuchthepracticeofhisage - leastofallwas itLuther’s - toestimatethelawfulnessandproprietyofanactbyreferencetoitsgeneralconsequences. He did, indeed, bethink himself of the evil that wouldensue,ifthedispensationwereregardedasaprecedent,andthereforedidhe insist on its being kept secret: but he did not duly consider howimpossible it was that such a step, taken by a man of so impetuous acharacter, should be kept secret; nor how terrible the evilswould be ifeverypastorweretodeemhimselfauthorizedtogivesimilarcounsel;norhowperilousitistotakethecoveringofsecrecyforanyacts,exceptsuchasaresanctionedbythelawsofGodandman,whilethemoralfeelingofsocietythrowsaveiloverthem.”

Since it is necessary to discuss such painful and delicate topics, inconsequence of Sir William’s offensive conduct in forcing them uponpublicattention,wepreferemploying thewordsofanother toourown.WeareverythankfultoMr.HareforvindicatingLuthersowell,andweshrinkfromenlarginguponthesubject.Butjusticedemandsoneortwoobservations.

SirWilliamallegesthatLuthermaintainedthelawfulness,or,ashesays,“the religions legality,” of polygamy, even under the Christiandispensation;andhehasbeenthreateningtheworld fornearly thirteenyearswiththepublicationofwhathecalls“anarticulatemanifestation,”“achronologicalseriesoftestimonies,”insupportofthischarge.Thereis

nothing new, certainly, in this allegation. It was brought forward byBellarmine,| who has been followed in this by the generality of Popishcontroversialists.Ithasalsobeenadducedbythedefendersofpolygamy,that they might have some respectable countenance to theirabominations, as may be seen in the famous, or rather infamous,“PolygamiaTriumphatrix”ofLyser.WedonotsupposethatSirWilliam’s“articulatemanifestation,” if it ever see the light, will contain anythingbutwhathasbeenknownanddiscussedbefore.There is, indeed, somedifficultyinascertainingpreciselyandcertainlywhatLuther’sviewswereonsomepoints connectedwithpolygamy.There is someconfusionandinconsistencyinhisstatements.Atonetimehecertainlydrewsomewhatwideandincautiousinferencesfromthepracticeofthepatriarchsinthisrespect, extending to polygamy what our Saviour said of divorce, that,under the old economy, God permitted it because of the hardness ofmen’shearts.Butheseemsatlengthtohavebecomequitesettledintheconviction, that under the Christian dispensation polygamy wasforbidden by the authority of our Saviour; and if so, Sir William’sallegationthat“polygamywasneverabandonedbyLutherasareligiousspeculation”isunfounded.

ButitmustbenoticedandrememberedthatSirWilliamhasgonefartherthanthis,andassertedthatLutherandMelancthonwishedpolygamytobe sanctioned by the civil authorities, and did something, thoughunsuccessfully,directedtobringaboutthisresult.Allthisisfairlyimpliedin the language he has employed; and this involves a new charge, onewhich,so farasweknowandremember,hasnotbeforebeenadvancedagainstthemeitherbyPapistsorpolygamists.Thispointspeciallyneedsto be proved; and when Sir William produces his “articulatemanifestation,” this special discovery of his own must be dulycommended and established, by an exhibition of the proof which haseludedtheresearchesofallpreviousdepreciatorsoftheReformers.

Wearenotquitesatisfied,aswehavehinted,withsomeofthegroundsonwhichMr.HarehasbasedhisvindicationofLutherinthismatter.Wedo not see that anything short of Sir William’s position, that Lutherbelievedin“thereligiouslegality”ofpolygamy,isaltogetheradequatetotake his conduct out of the category of a sin, and to invest it with the

character of an error.Webelieve that the transaction involved both anerror in judgment and a sin in conduct, the error, indeed, somewhatpalliatingthesin.LutherandMelancthonheld,asMr.Harehasshown,that this was a matter on which dispensations might sometimes begrantedforspecialreasons,onextraordinaryemergencies.Andthisbeliefmaybesaid, inasense, tohavepalliated theirconduct,bybringing thesubject of a dispensation before them as what might be lawfullyentertained. But even if this opinion had been true, instead of beingerroneous,thequestionwouldstillremain,whetherornotthiswasacaseforadispensation tomarrya secondwife; and, at thispoint,we fear itmust be admitted that the element of direct and palpable sinfulnesscomesin.Evensupposingthatdispensationsmaybelawfulinsomecasesof this sort, there seems to be no fair ground for holding that theLandgrave’swasacasewarrantingadispensation;andwhat isspeciallypertinenttothepointinhand,thereisnosufficientgroundtobelievethatLuther and Melancthon really believed it to be a case warranting adispensation.We cannot but conclude, from a deliberate survey of thewholecase,thatLutherandMelancthonweresubstantiallysatisfiedthatthe Landgrave, inmarrying a second wife, was guilty of sin; and that,therefore,ingivingtheirconsenttohisdoingthis,theywerethemselvessinning.Itwasasolitaryoffence,withmuchtopalliateitonavarietyofgrounds, but still it was a sin, committed under the influence oftemptation;andassuchitoughttobecondemned.

It isan interestingandinstructingcircumstance, thatonespot, insomerespects similar, stains the character of John Knox; and we could notpossibly find words that would, in our judgment, describe Luther’sconductinthismattermorecorrectlythanthoseinwhichDrM‘CriehasdescribedatransactioninthelifeofourownReformer:-

“Inonesolitaryinstance,theanxietywhichhefeltforthepreservationofthegreatcause inwhichhewassodeeply interested,betrayedhimintoan advice, which was not more inconsistent with the laws of strictmorality, than itwascontrary to the sternuprightnessandundisguisedsinceritywhichcharacterizedtherestofhisconduct.”

ThethirdheadofSirWilliam’soriginalattackuponLutherwasBiblicalCriticism;andunderthisheadhecollected,chieflyfromthe“TableTalk”

some rash and offensive statements ascribed to Luther, in which he isrepresentedasspeakingdisparaginglyofsomeofthebooksofScripture.Mr.HarehashereagainconvictedSirWilliamofseveralblunders,andoneofthemSirWilliamhasbeenconstrainedtoconfess inthenotestohis “Discussions.” But this topic is notworth dwelling upon. To collectand parade an “anthology” of rash and exaggerated statements fromLuther, and especially to takematerials for doing this from the “TableTalk,”isaboutasunfairanoccupationascanwellbeconceived;andifSirWilliamhadconfinedhimselftothis,wewouldnothavethoughtitworthwhiletohavegivenhimanydisturbance,beyonddenouncinghisconductinthetermsitdeserved..

But it must not be forgotten that there is one other very gross andheinous chargewhichSirWilliamhasbrought againstLuther, a chargenever, so far aswe know, adduced before, and ofwhich, though itwasfabricated by himself, and published to theworld nearly thirteen yearsago,hehasnotyetattempted toproduceanyevidence. It is statedanddisposedofbyMr.Hareinthefollowingbriefextract:-

“The other charges, that Luther ‘publicly preached incontinence,adultery, incest even, as not only allowable, but, if practised under theprudentialregulationswhichhehimself laysdown,unobjectionableandeven praiseworthy,’ cannot be refuted in the same summarymanner. Imightciteanumberofpassagesagainstincontinencefromhiswritings:Imightshowthatheoftenexpressedawish thatadulterywerepunishedcapitally.But Iwillnotwastewordsuponsuchaccusations,proceedingfromawitnesswhose testimonyhasbeenprovedagainandagain tobeutterly worthless. When a dear friend, whose faith and righteousnesshavebeenapprovedduringalonglife,undermanyseveretrials,issaidtohave committed unheard-of enormities, without any specification ofwhen,where, how, orwhat, one is fullywarranted in replying that theassertions cannot possibly be true. Therefore I will merely defy SirW.Hamilton to bring forward evidence in support of these atrociouscharges. Should he attempt to do so, and adduce any passages beyondthosewhichhavebeensatisfactorilyexplainedbyHarlessintheseventhvolume of his Journal, I shall deem myself bound to use my bestendeavours to set them on a right footing. At the same time, let me

remark, that I trust he will not have the assurance to quote certainsayings, which explicitly refer solely to cases of impotence, assubstantiating his allegations. Should he shrink from this test, findingthat he cannot stand it, what can a generous, nay,what can an honestmando inhisplace,butcomeforwardwithanopenrecantation, andahumbleacknowledgmentofthewronghehasdonetooneofthenoblestpillarsofChristianity,oneofthegreatestbenefactorsofmankind?”

SirWilliamhascertainlybroughthimselfunderverypeculiarobligations,to prove, if he can, his own special charges against Luther, viz. that hewishedtohavepolygamysanctionedbythecivilauthorities,andthatherecommended, under certain restrictions, incontinence, adultery, andincest.Andthese,afterall,arethemostimportantpointsinvolvedinthiscontroversy,whetherasaffecting thecharacterofLutherorSirWilliamHamilton. If Sir William cannot conclusively establish these charges,there are no words too strong to characterize his conduct in adducingthem. And yet we do not suppose that his friends will advise him toattempttoestablishhisaccusations.Heissuretofailintheattempt.Wedo not pretend to possess a very thorough acquaintance with Luther’swritings;but,fromwhatwedoknowofhisworksandofhischaracter,weareveryconfidentthattheseodiouschargescannotbeestablished;whilewe are well aware that, if the attempt is made, this will involve thebringingforwardofagreatdealofmattermostunsuitabletobemadethesubject of public discussion. SirWilliam, indeed, has placed himself insuch a situation that he can neither speak nor be silent without justlyincurring discredit and reproach. He has been much better employedsince1843thanindefendinghisextraordinarypamphletofthatyear.Hehassincethattimerenderedmostimportantservicestotheworldinthehighestdepartmentsofphilosophicalspeculation.Hehasyetmuchtodoindevelopingandpromulgatinghisphilosophicalviews;andwetrusthewillbesparedtodothis.Wearenotintheleastafraidofhim.Wehaveperfectconfidenceinthegoodnessofourcause,andintheimprudenceofouropponent.Wehaveexposed,withallplainness,hisattackuponthecharacter of the Reformers, undeterred by the warning which the verypeculiar complexion of his assault upon ArchdeaconHare seems fittedandintendedtoconvey;andwehavedonesobecausewebelievedthistobethedischargeofanimportantpublicduty.Butwewouldratheravoid

incurring, unnecessarily, the responsibility of calling him out again ontheologicalandecclesiasticalquestions;becauseweareverycertainthatthis isa fieldwherehecangainnocredit tohimselfandconfernorealbenefitonhisfellow-men,andwherehemightexhausttimeandstrengththat may be employed more honourably for himself, and morebeneficiallyfortheworld.

Wehavebeen,ofnecessity,somuchengrossedwiththeweaknessesandinfirmitiesofLuther,-withthedefectsofhischaracter,-thatitwouldbeanactof injustice tohimifweweretoconcludewithoutremindingourreadersofhisstrongclaimstoouresteemandaffectionasaman,andoftheinvaluableserviceswhichhewasmadetheinstrumentofrenderingtothechurchandtheworld.ThefirstofthesepointsisbeautifullytoucheduponbyMr.Hare,intheconclusionofhis“Vindication:”-

“To some readers it may seem that I have spoken with exaggeratedadmiration of Luther.Noman ever livedwhosewhole heart, and soul,and life, have been laid bare as his have been to the eyes ofmankind.Openasthesky,boldandfearlessasthestorm,hegaveutterancetoallhis feelings, all his thoughts: he knew nothing of reserve: and theimpressionheproducedonhishearers and friendswas such, that theywere anxious to treasure up every word that dropped from his pen orfromhis lips.Noman, therefore, has ever been exposed to so severe atrial:perhapsnomanwaseverplacedinsuchdifficultcircumstances,orassailedbysuchmanifoldtemptations.Andhowhashecomeoutof thetrial?Throughthepoweroffaith,undertheguardiancareofhisheavenlyMaster,hewasenabledtostandthroughlife;andstillhestands,andwillcontinuetostand,firmlyrootedintheloveofallwhoreallyknowhim.AwriterquotedbyHarlesshaswellsaid,‘Ihavecontinuallybeenmoreandmore edified, elevated, and strengthened by this man of steel, thissterling soul, in whom certain features of the Christian character aremanifestedintheirfullestperfection.Hisimage,Iconfess,wasforsomeyearsobscuredbeforemyeyes.Ifixedthemexclusivelyontheebullitionsofhispowerfulnature, unsubduedas yet by theSpirit of theLord.Butwhen,onarenewedstudyofhisworks, theholyfaithandenergyofhisthoroughlyGermancharacter,thetruthofhiswholebeing,hiswonderfulchildlikeness and simplicity, revealed themselves to my sight in their

glory; then I could not but turn to him with entire, pure love, andexclaim, His weaknesses are only so great, because Ms virtues are sogreat."”f These are the feelings which every rightly constituted andadequatelyinformedmindwillcherishtowardsLutherasaman;andtheserviceswhichhewasenabledtorendertothechurchandtheworldweresuch as to entitle him to be ever regarded with the profoundestadmiration and gratitude. His great leading service, in so far as thehighest of all interests are concerned,was the entire destruction of thedoctrine of humanmerit, and the thorough establishment of the greatscripturaltruthofapurelygratuitousjustificationthroughfaithaloneasthemeansorinstrumentofunitingmentoJesusChrist,andofapplyingto them all that He did and suffered in their room; together with thevigorous and unshrinking application of these great principles to theexposureofallthemassoferroneousdoctrinesandofunauthorizedandsinful practices, by which the Church of Home had been leading men,formallyorvirtually,theoreticallyorpractically,topervert thegospelofthe grace of God, and to build their hopes for eternity upon a falsefoundation.Underthisgeneraldescriptionmaybecomprehended,moreorlessdirectly,mostofthetheologywhichthewritingsofLuthercontain.ThiswastheworkwhichGodraisedhimupandqualifiedhimtoachieve;and a more important work, one more fraught with glory to God andbenefit toman,wasprobablynevercommitted toanyonewhohadnotbeenendowedwiththegiftofsupernaturalinspiration.Luther’sprevioustrainingandexperiencebeforeheappearedpubliclyasaReformer,weremanifestly fittedandintendedto leadhimtounderstandpracticallythetruewayofasinner’sacceptanceanddeliverancefromguiltandbondage;for,afterbeingawakenedtosomesenseofdivinethings,andofhisownrelationtoGod,hewent longabout to establishhisown righteousness,beforehewasbroughtintothegloriouslibertyofGod’schildren.Thiswasevidentlythebestpreparationfortheworktowhichhewasdestined.Hehadtriedallothermethodsofobtainingdeliveranceandpeace,withtheutmost earnestness, and in circumstances inmany respects favourable.Hehadbeendrivenfromeveryrefugeoflies,andshutuptoanabsolutesubmission to the righteousnessofGod, - the righteousnesswhich isofGodbyfaith.Hehadbeencompelled,andhehadbeenenabled,tofighthiswaythroughalltheformidableobstacleswhichthecurrentdoctrinesand practices of the Church of Rome interposed to men’s rightly

discerningandappreciatingtheirtrueconditionashelplesssinners,andthescripturalmethodoftheirdeliverance,andwasthuseminentlyfittedforopeninguptothemiserablevictimsofRomishdelusion,thedangertowhichtheywereexposed,andtheonlysurewayinwhichdeliveranceandenlargementweretobeobtained.Thisobjecthezealouslyandfaithfullyprosecutedduringtheremainderofhislife,keepingitprincipallyinviewinhisexpositionofdivinetruth,andinhisinterpretationofthewordofGod.

Thedoctrineof justification,notwithstandingthepeculiarly full, formal,andelaborateexpositionwhichtheApostlePaulwasguidedbytheSpiritto make of it, became very soon involved in obscurity and error; andthoughsome,nodoubt,ineveryage-apparentlydecreasing,however,innumber,ineverysucceedingcentury-werepractically,andinfact,ledbyGod’sgracetorestfortheirownsalvationupontheonefoundationlaidinZion,yetitis,tosaytheleast,somewhatdoubtfulwhether,aftertheageof themenwho had held personal intercourse with the apostles (fromnone of whom have we anything like detailed expositions of Christiandoctrine), anyman canbeproducedwhohas given, orwho couldhavegiven,aperfectlycorrectexpositionofthewholeofPaul’sdoctrineuponthis vitally important subject. Confusion and error upon this pointcontinuedto increaseandextend, -evenAugustinegivingtheweightofhisdeservedlyhighauthoritytoviewsdefectiveanderroneousregardingit,-until,bytheadmirableskillwithwhichthedoctrinesandpracticesofthe Church of Rome were adapted to foster and satisfy those notionsupon this subject to which depraved men are naturally disposed, allscriptural views of themethod of justification had, for many centuriesbeforetheReformation,disappearedfromtheworld;andwhiletherewasstillavague,unmeaning,andinoperativeacknowledgmentofChristasaSaviour,thegreatbodyofHisprofessedfollowerswerepracticallyandinrealityrelyingupontheirownworksandmerits,andupontheworksandmeritsofothersinfulcreatureslikethemselves,forthesalvationoftheirsouls.

Thiswas the condition inwhichLuther found theprofessing church inregardtotheologyandreligion.Hewasguided,bytheworkofthedivineSpirit upon his own understanding and heart, through the word, to

appreciatearightmen’sutterhelplessnessandinabilitytodoanythingtomeritordeservetheforgivenessoftheirsinsandtheenjoymentofGod’sfavour;toseethatsalvationandallitsblessingsarepurchasedformenbyChrist, and are freely imparted to them individually by God’s gracethrough the instrumentality of faith; and to feel that the practicalreception of these doctrines is the only sure provision for producingholinessofheart,andpeaceandjoyinbelieving.Andhislifewasmainlydevoted to the exposition of these fundamental principles of Christiantruth,and theapplicationandenforcementof them inopposition toallthe corruptions and abuses, theoretical and practical, of the Church ofRome.Hewasenabledtobringouthisviewsonthesesubjectssoclearlyand convincingly, and to establish them so firmly upon the basis ofscripturalauthority,thatinsubstancetheywereadoptedbyalltheotherReformers, embodied in the confessions of all the Reformed churches,including the Church of England, and that they were always held withpeculiar clearness and steadiness in the Lutheran Church, until therationalismoflastcenturysweptawayallregardtotheauthorityofGod’sword, andall right conceptionsofmen’sactual relation toGodand thegospel method of salvation. There is little else in Luther’s theologicalworksthanwhatmaybesaidtobeinvolved,moreorlessdirectly,intheexpositionandapplicationof thesegreat truths;but there is all this setforthwithmuchclearnessandvigour,andappliedwithmuchenergyandsuccess. He scarcely seems ever to have proposed it to himself as anobjecttoopenup thewhole systemof scriptural truth in its connectionand details, and to unfold it in its various aspects. Human merit andability on the one hand, and on the other full and purely gratuitousjustification, as indispensably necessary formen, and actually providedandofferedbyGodthroughChrist,areatoncethepointsfromwhichheever starts, and the centres around which he ever moves: and bythoroughly establishing the one upon the ruins of the other, he hasthrowna floodof lightupon themost fundamentalarticlesofChristiantruth,andupontheinterpretationofthemostimportantportionsofthewordofGod.

Luther can scarcely be said to have investigatedwithmuch care, or tohavediscussedwithmuchsuccess,anydepartmentofdivinetruth,whichwasnotmoreor lessdirectlyconnectedwith these fundamentalpoints;

but then, both from the nature of the case and the forms which thecorruption of the divine method of justification had assumed in theChurchofHome,theexpositionandapplicationofthesetopicsledhimtotraverse amuchwider field of divine truth thanmight at first sight besupposed. Still, as he certainly did not possess the comprehensive far-reachingintellectofCalvin,heviewsmosttopicsonlyintheirbearingsonasinner’sacceptance,withoutalwaystakinginallthedifferentaspectsinwhich they are presented to us in Scripture. It may be worth while toillustratethisbyanexample.

Luther, especially during the earlier part of his career (and the sameholds true, insomemeasure,ofhis immediate followers), in treatingoftheworshipofGod,andtheloadofceremonieswithwhichtheChurchofHomehadencumberedanddisfiguredit,manifestsaninadequatesenseofthesinfulnessofidolatry,viewedsimplyassuch,orasadirectoffenceagainst God, and scarcely any sense of the sinfulness of man’sintroducing rites and ceremonies into theworshipofGod, simplyuponthegroundthatGodhadnotauthorizedorrequired them.HeseemstothinkthatthegreateviloftheRomishritesandceremonies-eventhosewhich, upon scriptural principles, should be chiefly and primarilydenounced as idolatrous, and therefore directly and immediatelyinvolvingasinagainstGod,independentlyofallotherconsiderationsandconsequences-layinthenotionofmeritthatwasconjoinedwiththem,-in the idea which the church inculcated, that through these rites andceremoniesmenwere eithermeritingGod’s favour, or at least securingforthemselvesaninterestinthemeritsofothercreatures.Nodoubtthisview might be justly regarded as being the crowning iniquity of thePopish system, thatwhichmost directly and immediately brought it tobear injuriously upon the salvation of men. But Luther seems to haveseen little evil in these rites and ceremonies, except for the opinion oftheirmeritoriousness,inculcatedalongwiththeirobservance;andwouldprobablyhavebeen little disposed to object to themhad theynot beenformallyandexplicitlyrepresentedbythechurchinthis light,which,ofcourse, brought them into collision with the Scripture doctrine ofjustification. But this view, though true, so far as it went, and veryimportant, did not go to the root of thematter; and itwas assigned toZwingli,andstillmorefullytoCalvin,tobringouttheguiltofidolatry,as

directly and immediately, in every instance, a sin against God,irrespective of all other consequences, - and to establish further theimportant principle, thatGodhas given sufficiently clear indications inHis word, that it is His will that no rites and ceremonies are to beintroduced into His worship, except those which He himself hassanctioned,-aprinciplewhichmighthavebeencommendedtoLuther’sapprobation, if not by its direct and appropriate scriptural evidence,though that is clear enough, at least through an appeal to experience,which clearly proves, thatwhenever unauthorized rites and ceremoniesareintroducedintotheworshipofGod,thereisastrongandnever-failingtendency in men to regard the observance of them as meritorious inGod’ssight.

Sofarasconcernstheexpositionofthosefundamentaltruths,onwhichhechieflydwelt,themaingroundsonwhich,withsomeshowofreason,he has been chargedwith exaggerated and paradoxical statements, arehisindiscriminateabuseoftheLaw,hisseemingtodenythatithasanylegitimate bearingupon regeneratemen, and to deny also that there isanythingreallygoodorholy,eveninbelievers.ThewayinwhichLuthersometimes speaks of the Law, especially in his Commentary on theEpistle to theGalatians, is certainlyunbecomingand indecent;but it isplainenough,fromafairandimpartialsurveyofhiswholedoctrineuponthissubject,thathereallymeantnothingmoreinsubstancethantoshutitout,asPauldoes, fromalldirectshare inthe justificationofasinner,andtoillustrateitsutterunfitnesstoservethepurposesofthosewhoareseekingjustificationbydeedsofLaw.Someofhisincautiousstatementsabout the relation of believers to the Law, gave rise afterwards to acontroversy, in theLutheranChurch,whichwassettledat length,alongwithmanyofthoseotherinternaldisputes,intheFormulaConcordiae,in1588,underthetitle,“DetertiousuLegisbutLuthercertainlyneverreallygave any countenance to Antinomian principles, and strenuouslyinculcatedthenecessityandobligationofholinessofheartandlife.Andhisdeclarationsaboutthenon-existenceofanythingtrulygoodorholyinregenerate persons, though somewhat strongly and incautiouslyexpressed,didnotreallymeanmorethanwhatweallbelievetobeagreatscriptural truth, viz. that the best actions of believers are stained withsuch imperfection and sin, that they can have nothing justifying, and

nothingproperlyandintrinsicallymeritorious,aboutthem.

But the great error of Luther, that which gives the most unfavourableimpression of his character and mental structure, and which, in itsinfluence, most extensively injured his usefulness and obstructed thecause of the Reformation, was his obstinate adherence to theunintelligible absurdity, commonly calledCon substantiation, - the realpresence, not of Christ but of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’sSupper,or theco-existence, insomeway,of the real fleshandblood ofChrist, in, with, or under, in, cum, or sub, the bread and wine in theEucharist.ThiswasarealremnantofPopery,towhich,afterthrowingoffalmost everything in the doctrine of the Papists upon this subject thatmakesitvaluabletothemandoffensivetous,viz.transubstantiation,orthechangeofthesubstanceoftheoneintothatoftheother,asimplyingtheannihilationofthesubstanceofthebreadandwine,-thesacrificeofthe Mass, - and the adoration of the host founded on thistransubstantiation, he adheredwith an obstinacy and intolerancemostdiscreditable and most injurious to the Reformed cause. This was thechiefsubjectofcontroversyamongtheReformersintheearlierperiodoftheir labours. The controversy upon this point occupied a great deal oftime and attention that might have been much better employed inopposingthecommonenemy;itproducedatlengthanentireseparationandmuchalienationoffeelingamongthem;itthusledtootherdisputesandcontentions,andtendedatlasttofixdowntheLutheranChurchinamuchwiderdeviationfromthescripturalorthodoxyofCalvinuponotherpointsthanLutherhimselfcouldhaveconsistentlyapprovedof,orthan,without this separation or alienation, would probably have beenexhibited. The chief responsibility of controversies, and of all the evilsthat flow from them, lies upon those who take the wrong side on themeritsofthepointsindispute,because,iftheyhadtakentherightsideofthe question, as they ought to have done, there would have been nocontroversy. And in this Sacramentarian Controversy, as it was called,Luthercertainlyappearedtoaslittleadvantageinthemoralcharacterofthespiritwhichhemanifested,asinthesoundnessofthedoctrinewhichhemaintained.

Papists have been accustomed to dwell with great complacency on the

changeswhichtookplaceinLuther’sviewsduringseveralyearsafterhepublishedhisthesisuponIndulgences;andonthisgroundtotaunthimwith his inconsistencies, and to taunt Protestants with being blindfollowersof theblind.Audinsays,“What is theLutherandoctrine?Is itfaith minus indulgences, as in 1518; faith minus the priesthood, as in1519; faithminus the sacraments of orders and extreme unction, as in1520;faithwithonlytwosacraments,asin1521;orfaithminusthemassand theworship of the saints, as in 1522?” So. far as the charges herereferred to affect Luther himself, they merely indicate the gradualprogressofanhonestmind,followingtheguidanceoftheSpiritandwordofGodfromdarknesstolight;andastoProtestants,eventhoseofthemwho are commonly called Lutherans from their adopting the leadingviews of divine truth, in which Luther soon settled, they do not affectthemat all.But thesemen seemeddetermined tomakeLuther a pope,whetherhehimself, and thosewhohave adoptedhis leadingprinciplessolelybecause theybelieved themtobesanctionedbyScripture,willornot. They are so prepossessed with the duty of receiving their ownopinionsimplicitlyfromthemouthofafellow-sinner,thattheyseemtobe incapableof conceivingof sucha thingasothermenderiving theirsfrom the word of God, and believing only what they are persuaded issanctionedbyitsstatements.ProtestantsdonotregardLutherasapope:they ascribe to himno infallibility, they receive nodoctrine because hetaughtit;andastoLutherhimself,healwaysfullyconfessed,thatwhenhe first raised his voice against indulgences, hewas little better than ablindPapist; thathewas involved ingreat ignoranceanderror; thathehadyetagreatdealtolearn,andthathelearnedslowlyandgradually.Heretractedhiserrorsfullyandfranklywheneverhewasconvincedofthem,and during the whole progress of his views, gave themost satisfactoryevidenceofthoroughintegrityandloveoftruth.Anditshouldfurtherbenoticed, thatbeforeheappearedpubliclyasaReformer,hehadalreadyadopted, in substance, upon the testimony of God’s word, all thosefundamentalprinciplesinregardtothenaturalconditionofman,andtheway of his acceptance and deliverance, which he continued to holdthrough life; and that the changes which his opinions underwent afterthat period, arose mainly, as is evident from even Audin’s statement,fromhisgainingprogressivelyadeeperinsightintothemysteryofPopishiniquity,fromtheexpansiveinfluenceofthevitalprinciplesofChristian

truthwhichGod had implanted in his heart, in throwing off, one afteranother,thefoulincrustationsinwhichPoperywrapsmen’sspirits,andfromhisapplyingfullyandfearlesslythetouchstoneofthewordofGod,andof thegreatdoctrineofa free justificationpurchasedbyChristandimpartedthroughthefaiththatuniteswithHim,toallthefearfulmassofcorruptionsbywhichtheRomishsystemhaspervertedtheprinciplesofGod’soraclesandthegospelofHisgrace.Luther’sopinionsseemtohavebecomesettledwithinfiveorsixyearsafterthepublicationofhisthesis;andwedonotfindanyevidence,thatafterthatperiodtheyreceivedanymaterialmodification.

Itmay be proper to allude in conclusion to a questionwhich has beenmuch discussed in subsequent times, viz. whether Luther held thepeculiar opinions on doctrinal pointswhich are usually associatedwiththenameofCalvin.WhenLuther’sfollowers,inasubsequentgeneration,openly deviated from scriptural orthodoxy on these points, they setthemselvestoprovethatLutherhadneverheldCalvinisticprinciples;andfor several succeeding generations, Lutheran authors, in general,indulgedinthemostbitterandmalignantvituperationofCalvinandhisdoctrines,moreeventhanthatwhichgenerallyprevailedamongwritersoftheChurchofEnglandduringlastcentury.Butwehavenohesitationinsaying,thatitcanbeestablishedbeyondallreasonablequestion,thatLuther held the doctrines which are commonly regarded as mostpeculiarlyCalvinistic, thoughhewasnever led to explain and apply, toillustrateanddefend,someofthemsofullyasCalvindid.Weneedgonofurther in proof of this, than to his famous work, “De Servo Arbitrio,”published in 1525, in reply to Erasmus, in which he has unequivocallyassertedthemostpeculiarandgenerallyobnoxious tenetsofCalvinism,in respect to God’s sovereign agency in pre-ordaining all things; inconferring, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, allspiritualblessings;andinthusdetermining,according toHisowngoodpleasure, the eternal destinies of men; and has asserted them with anunshrinking boldness, and, we might say, with a rashness andoffensiveness of statementwhich can certainly not be paralleled in theworksofCalvinhimself.ThereisnogroundforallegingthatLuthereverretractedthesentimentscontainedinthiswork.Indeed,atamuchlaterperiodofhislife,in1537,heexpresslydeclaredthatofallhisworks,his

treatise, “DeServoArbitrio,” and his larger “Catechism,”were the onlyoneswhichhenowregardedaswrittenwithduecareandaccuracy.TheLutherans are therefore obliged to attempt to explain away the strongstatements of this very valuablework, and to extract out of them theirmanifestlyCalvinisticsense,underthecoverofadmitting,thattheworkdoes contain some rash and incautious declarations; and in perusingsomeoftheirattemptsofthissort,oneisoftenreminded,bytheboldnessoftheirperversions,ofaSociniancommentaryuponthefirstchapterofJohn’sGospel. It has also been asserted, that in hisCommentary uponGenesis,thelastworkhepublished,hesubstantiallythoughnotformallyretractedanypeculiarlyCalvinisticprincipleswhichhemightpreviouslyhavetaught.Butthereisnogoodgroundforthisallegation;for,uponafairexaminationofthepassagesinthecommentary,itappearsplain,thatthey do not contain, even in substance, any retractation of his formerviews,butmerelycautionstoguardagainsttheabuseofthem,-againsttheirbeingappliedinanerroneousandinjuriousway;whileitiscertainthatcautionstothesameeffect,asfullandstrong,andineveryrespectasjudicious and practical, abound in the writings of Calvin himself. It ishighly creditable toLuther, thatwhilehewasnot led todwell atmuchlengthuponthe illustrationanddefenceofsomeof thedoctrineswhicharecommonlyreckonedCalvinisticpeculiarities,heyethadthesagacityto see, thatwithout including in his system these peculiar doctrines, itwas impossible to maintain and to expound fully and consistently thesovereign agency of God in the salvation of sinners, or to give to theSovereignRulerandDisposerofall thingstheplacewhichHeclaimstohimself.

TheReformersandtheDoctrineofAssurance

SirWilliamHamilton,inthecourseofhisattackuponArchdeaconHare,introduces a lengthened and elaborate historico-theological statement,chieflyuponthesubjectofAssurance.Wequotethepassage,asit isthetextofourpresentdiscourse:-

“Assurance, Personal Assurance, Special Faith (the feeling of certainty)that God is propitious to me, that my sins are forgiven, - (Fiducia,PlerophoriaFidei,FidesSpecialis),-AssurancewaslonguniversallyheldintheProtestantcommunitiestobethecriterionandconditionofatrueor saving faith. Luther declares that ‘hewho hath not assurance spewsfaithout;’ andMelancthon, that ‘assurance is thediscriminating lineofChristianityfromHeathenism.’Assuranceis,indeed,thepunctumsaliensof Luther’s system; and an unacquaintance with this, his great centraldoctrine,isoneprimecauseofthechronicmisrepresentationwhichrunsthroughourrecenthistoriesofLutherandtheReformation.AssuranceisnolessstrenuouslymaintainedbyCalvin;isheldevenbyArminius;andstands, essentially, part and parcel of all the confessions of all thechurchesoftheReformation,downtotheWestminsterAssembly.Inthatsynod assurance was, in Protestantism, for the first, indeed only time,formallydeclared‘nottobeoftheessenceoffaith;’and,

accordingly, the ScottishGeneralAssembly has subsequently, once andagain, condemned and deposed the holders of this, the doctrine ofLuther,ofCalvin,ofalltheotherchurchesoftheReformation,andoftheolderScottishchurchitself.IntheEnglish,andmorearticulately, intheIrish Establishment, assurance still stands a necessary tenet ofecclesiasticalbelief. (SeeHomilies,Book I.Number iii.Part3, speciallyreferred to in the eleventh of the Thirty-nine Articles; and Number w.Parts 1 and 3; likewise the sixth Lambeth Article.) Assurance wasconsequentlyheldbyalltheolderAnglicanchurchmen,ofwhomHookermay stand for the example; but assurance is now openly disavowedwithout scruple by Anglican churchmen, high and low, when

apprehended;butofthese,many,likeMr.Hare,areblissfullyincognizantoftheopinion,itsimport,itshistory,andevenitsname.

“Thisdogma,withitsfortune,pastandpresent,affords,indeed,aseriesofthemostcuriouscontrasts.ForitiscuriousthatthiscardinalpointofLuther’s doctrine should,without exception, havebeen constituted intothefundamentalprincipleofallthechurchesoftheReformation;and,astheircommonanduncatholicdoctrine,havebeenexplicitly condemnedatTrent.Again,itiscuriousthatthiscommonanddifferentialdoctrineofthechurchesof theReformationshouldnowbeabandonedvirtually in,or formally by, all these churches themselves. Again, it is curious thatProtestants shouldnowgenerallyprofess the counterdoctrine, assertedatTrentincondemnationoftheirpeculiarprinciple.Again, it iscuriousthatthis, themost importantvariation inthe faithofProtestants,as, infact,agravitationofProtestantismbacktowardsCatholicity,shouldhavebeenoverlooked, as indeed, inhisdays,undeveloped,by thekeen-eyedauthor of ‘The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches.’Finally, it is curious that, though now fully developed, this centralapproximation of Protestantism to Catholicity should not, as far as Iknow, have been signalized by any theologian, Protestant or Catholic;whilst the Protestant symbol (‘Fides sola justificat' - ‘Faith alonejustifies’), though now eviscerated of its real import, and now onlymanifestinganunimportantdifferenceofexpression,isstillsupposedtomark the discrimination of the two religious denominations. For bothagree that the three heavenly virtuesmust all concur to salvation; andtheyonlydiffer,whetherfaith,asaword,doesordoesnotinvolvehopeand charity. Thismisprision would have been avoided had Luther andCalvinonlysaid,‘Fiduciasolajustificat,'________

‘Assurance alone justifies;’ for on their doctrine assurance wasconvertible with true faith, and true faith implied the other Christiangraces.ButthisprimaryandpeculiardoctrineoftheReformationisnowharmoniouslycondemnedbyCatholicsandProtestantsinunison.”

Wehopetobeabletoprovethatthiselaboratestatementcontainsaboutaslargeanamountofinaccuracyascouldwellhavebeencrammedintothe space which it occupies; and if we succeed in doing this, we maysurely expect that SirWilliam’s authorityupon theological subjectswill

henceforthstandatleastaslowaszero.

ItmayhelpustoformanestimateoftheaccuracyofSirWilliam’shistoryofthissubject,ifwebeginwithabriefstatementofwhatweretheviewsoftheReformersandtheRomanistsuponthispoint,andofwhatwasthegeneral course which the discussions regarding it followed. That theReformers generally held very high views upon the subject, - that theywere in the habit of speaking very strongly of the importance andnecessityofmenbeingpersonallyassuredabouttheirownsalvation,-isof course well known to every one who has the slightest acquaintancewith their history and writings. The causes that tended to produce aleaning towards what may be regarded as exaggerated views andstatements upon this subject, were chiefly these two: - 1st, Their ownpersonalexperienceasconvertedandbelievingmen;and2d,ThegroundtakenbytheRomanistsinarguingagainstthem.

TheReformers,speakingofthemgenerallyasabody,andwithreferencetotheirordinarycondition,seemtohaveenjoyedusuallyanassuranceofbeinginastateofgrace,andofbeingwarrantedtocountuponsalvation.Godseemstohavegiventothemthegraceofassurancemore fullyandmoregenerallythanHedoestobelieversinordinarycircumstances.Andthis is in accordance with the general course of His providentialprocedure.Thehistoryofthechurchseemstoindicatetoustwopositionsastrue,withreferencetothismatter,-viz.lst,Thatassuranceofsalvationhasbeenenjoyedmorefullyandmoregenerallybymenwhowerecalledtodifficultandarduous labours inthecauseofChrist, thanbyordinarybelievers in general; and 2dly, That this assurance, as enjoyed by suchpersons, has been frequently traceable to special circumstancesconnected with the manner of their conversion as its immediate orproximatecause.SoitcertainlywaswiththeReformers.Thepositioninwhichtheywereplaced,andtheworktheywerecalledupontodo,madeit speciallynecessary that they should enjoyhabitually the courageandthe strengthwhich spring fromawell-groundedassuranceof salvation.This,accordingly,Godgavethem;andHegavethemitinmanycases,asHe has often done in subsequent times, by so regulating thecircumstanceswhichprecededandaccompanied their conversion,as tosatisfy them,almost as if byaperceptionof their senses, that theyhad

passed fromdeathunto life.TheReformershavingbeen ingeneral, forthese reasons and by such processes, assured ordinarily of their ownsalvation, were not unnaturally led, from this cause, to give greatprominencetothesubjectofassurance,andtoregardandtorepresentitas in somewayor othernecessarily connectedwith theChristian faith,andasanindispensableconstituentelementoftheChristiancharacter.

But,inthesecondplace,theReformerswerethemoreinducedtoadhereto this view, and to exert themselves to establish and defend it, inconsequenceofthegroundthatwastakenupbytheirPopishantagonists.TheRomaniststhen,aswellasnow,wereaccustomedtoallegethatitwasimpossibleforProtestantstohaveanycertaintyofthesoundnessoftheirviews,orofthesafetyoftheirposition,-thatthoughtheymightbeabletoproduceplausibleandapparentlysatisfactorypleadings insupportofwhat they taught, they could have no adequate ground for perfectassurance of its truth;whileRomanists had a firm ground for absolutecertainty in the testimony or authority of the church. Therewere threeimportant subjects to which chiefly the Romanists were accustomed toapplythisallegedpointofcontrastbetweentheirpositionandthatoftheReformers. They were accustomed to allege that Protestants, uponProtestantprinciples,couldhavenocertainty,andnothingmore thanaprobable persuasion, 1st, That the books generally received, or anyparticularbooksspecified,werepossessedofdivineauthority;or2d,Thatthis and not that was the meaning of a scriptural passage, or thesubstanceofwhatScripture taughtuponaparticular topic; or 3d,Thatanyparticularindividualwasnowinastateofgraceandwouldbefinallysaved. The more reasonable Romanists did not deny that there wererational considerations bearing upon the establishment of the divineauthority of the books of Scripture, sufficient to silence and confuteinfidels; or that, by the ordinary rules and resources of exegesis,something might be done towards settling the meaning of manyscriptural statements; or that men, by a diligent and impartial use ofscriptural materials, combined with self-examination, might attain togoodhopewithrespectto theirultimatesalvation.But theydeniedthatProtestants could ever attain to full and perfect certainty upon any ofthesepoints,-couldeverreachsuchthoroughandconclusiveassuranceas the authority of the church furnished to those who received it.

Protestants, indealingwith this allegation,were not unnaturally led tomaintain,thatuponallthesesubjectstheyhad,ormighthave,notmerelyaprobablepersuasion,butastrictandabsolutecertainty,andto labourto unfold the grounds of the certainty to which they laid claim. It washere that many of the Reformers were led to propound views whichappeartohavebeensomewhatextremeandexaggerated,bothinregardto the kind and degree of the certainty they contended for, and thegroundsonwhich theyprofessed to establish its reality and legitimacy.Protestants are not infallible anymore than Papists. Neither the greatReformers of the sixteenth century, nor the great systematic divines oftheseventeenth,aretobeimplicitlyfollowed.Thetruthis,thatGodhasneveryetgiventoanybodyofuninspiredmentorisealtogether,andinevery respect, in theirmode of dealingwith the doctrines ofHisword,above the influence of their circumstances. There has never been anyuninspiredman,oranycompanyofuninspiredmen, thathasnotgivensomeindicationoftheimperfectionofhumanity,intheirmodeofdealingwithsomeportionorotherofdivinetruth.TheReformers,asabody,areunquestionably more entitled to deference in matters of theologicaldoctrinethananyotherbodyofmenwhohaveadornedthechurchsincethe apostolic age. But there can be no reasonable doubt that there aresomedoctrinal points onwhichmany of themhave gone astray, eitherfromretaining somethingof the corruptionof thePopish systemwhichtheyhadabandoned,or,what isaboutequallynaturalandprobable, inconsequenceoftheimperfectionofhumannature,fromrunningintoanextremeoppositetothatwhichtheyhadforsaken.

ItisprettyevidentthatthePapists,bytauntingtheReformerswiththeirwant of certainty on the three points towhichwe have referred, drovethem into the assertion of extreme and untenable positions. TheReformers claimed for their convictions and conclusions on thesequestionsakindanddegreeofcertaintywhichthenatureof thesubjectdidnotadmitof,andtheyfellintofurthererrorsinendeavouringtosetforththegroundsorreasonsofthecertaintyorassuranceforwhichtheycontended.They contended that theyhad,ormighthave, aperfect andabsolutecertaintyinregardtoallthosematters,-acertaintyrestingnotonlyuponrationalgroundsandahumanfaith,asitwascalled,butuponsupernaturalgroundsandadivinefaith,suchastheirPopishopponents

were accustomed to ascribe to the authority of the church when it setforthanydoctrineandcalleduponmentobelieveitasrevealedbyGod.Andasasubstitutefortheauthorityofthechurch,thePopishgroundforanabsoluteassuranceanddivine faith, theReformerswereaccustomedto bring in the agency of the Holy Spirit, as producing certainty orassurance;andtheydidthisnotunfrequentlyinawaythatseemedtobeliabletothechargeatleastofconfusionandirrelevancy.

The Reformers ought not to have allowed the Romanists to drag themintoperplexedmetaphysicaldiscussionsastothenatureandgroundsofthecertaintywithwhich theyheld thenconvictionsupon the importanttopics to which we have referred. They would thus have escaped thetemptation to which, we think, it must be admitted they sometimesyielded,ofstrainingmattersinordertogetsomethinglikeagroundforakindandmeasureofcertaintywhichthenatureofthecasedidnotadmitof.

Itwasenoughthattheycouldproduceadequaterationalgroundsforalltheir convictions, - grounds which fully satisfied their ownminds, andwhichtheycoulddefendconclusivelyagainsttheobjectionsofgainsayers,as being sufficient and satisfactory reasons of assent. This was all thattheir opponents had a right to demand; and this was all that couldlegitimately come into a controversial discussion. The vividness andefficacyoftheseconvictionsmightbesomewhataffectedbythekindanddegreeofevidencebearingupontheparticulartopicunderconsideration,or by the qualities of theirmental constitution and habits, or by othercollateral and adventitious influences. But a real conviction or assent,based upon rational grounds, whichwere perfectly satisfactory to theirown minds, and the relevancy and validity of which they couldtriumphantlydefendagainstallopponents,wasquitesufficient,whetherthismightbecalledacertaintyoffaithornot;andifthisconvictiondidnotproduce in theirmindssucha senseor feelingofassuranceas theydesired, if it did not prove so practically efficacious as they wished, itwould be quite reasonable that they should ask the special blessing ofGod,theagencyoftheHolySpirit,tobringabouttheseresults.Andtheirprayersmightbeanswered,theSpiritmightbegiven,andthestrongest,themostvivid,andthemostefficaciouscertaintyorassurancemightbe

produced, without anything like a special revelation, and without theintroduction of any new or additional grounds or reasons for theconviction.TheReformers,however,intheireagernesstoclaimfortheirconvictions the very highest certainty or assurance, and to assign anadequate cause for this, by substituting the Holy Spirit instead of thechurch,wentsometimestotheunwarrantableextremeofascribingtotheHolySpiritnotmerelyasubjectiveinfluenceuponmen’sunderstandingsandhearts,butanobjectivepresentationofnewandadditionalgroundsandreasonsforbelief.

ThesegeneralobservationsapplytothewayinwhichtheReformersmetthe allegations of the Romanists, about their want of certainty orassuranceinregardtoallthethreesubjectsformerlymentioned,viz.thedivine authority of the books of Scripture, the meaning of scripturalstatements, and the certainty of personal salvation. In order to have asure and at the same time a compendious way of getting the highestassurance, even the certainty of faith, upon all these subjects, theysubstitutedtheHolySpiritinsteadofthechurch;andtomakethisservethesamepurposeinargumentasthechurchdoesamongRomanists,theywereledtoemploysomemodesofstatementabouttheSpirit’soperationwhicharenotsanctionedbyScripture,thoughexhibitingperhapsratherconfusionofthoughtthanpositiveerror.Butwecannotdwelluponthisgeneraltopic,andmustreturntothespecialsubjectof theassuranceofpersonalsalvation,withwhichalonewehaveatpresenttodo.

TheReformersingeneralenjoyedordinarilytheassuredbeliefthattheywere in a state of grace, and would be finally saved. They felt theimportanceofthisgraceinthearduousworkinwhichtheywereengaged.They saw abundant ground in Scripture for the general position, thatbelieversmight be and should be assured of their own salvation. Theyinculcated this position upon their followers, persuaded that personalassurance would at once tend to preserve them from the pervertinginfluenceofPopishsophists,andfitthemfordoingandbearingallGod’swill concerning them. The Romanists, on the other hand, laboured toshowthatbelieverscouldhavenofullandwell-groundedassurancethatthey had attained to a condition of safety, except either by specialrevelationorbythetestimonyofthechurch;theirobjectofcoursebeing

to make men feel themselves entirely dependent upon the church forsecurity or certainty on all subjects of interest and importance, and todeprive them of the energy and confidence which a well-foundedassurance of personal salvation was fitted to produce, in contendingagainst the prestige of ecclesiastical authority and influence. TheReformers,inordertoshowthattheassurancewhichmightbeattainedwithouteitheraspecialrevelationorthetestimonyofthechurchwasfullandperfect,wereledtoidentifyitwithourbeliefinthedoctrinesofGod’sword,andtorepresentitasnecessarilyincludedorimpliedintheactorexerciseof justifyingandsaving faith;nay,evensometimestogive itastheverydefinitionofsavingfaith,thatitisabeliefthatourownsinshavebeenforgiven,andthatwehavebeenbroughtintoastateofgrace.Thisseemedtobeanobviousandreadymethodofgivingtothebeliefofourpersonal safety for eternity the very highest degree of certainty, andhencemanyoftheReformersweretemptedtoadoptit.

Thisviewwascertainlyexaggeratedanderroneous.Itisveryevidentthatno man can be legitimately assured of his own salvation simply byunderstanding andbelievingwhat is containedor implied in the actualstatementsofScripture.Someadditionalelementofadifferentkindmustbebrought in, inorder towarrant suchanassurance; something in thestateor conditionof themanhimselfmustbe in somewayascertainedandknowninordertothisresult.Itmaynot,indeed,alwaysrequireanylengthenedorelaborateprocessofself-examinationtoascertainwhat isneedful to be known about men themselves, in order to their beingassured that they have been brought into a state of grace. Thecircumstancesthatprecededandaccompaniedtheirconversionmayhavebeensuchas to leave theminnodoubtabout theirhavingpassed fromdarkness to light. Their present consciousnessmay testify at once andexplicitlytotheexistenceinthemofthosethingswhichtheBibleinformsus accompany salvation. But still it is true, that another element thananything contained in Scripture must be brought in as a part of thefoundationoftheirassurance.Andwhentheyarecalledupontostateandvindicatetothemselvesortoothersthegroundsoftheirassurance,theymust of necessity proceed in substance in the line of the familiarsyllogism,“WhosoeverbelievethintheLordJesusChristshallbesaved;Ibelieve,andtherefore,”etc.

Thereisnopossibilityofavoidinginsubstancesomesuchprocessasthis;andwhilethemajorpropositionisprovedbyScripture,theminorcanbeestablished only by some use of materials derived from consciousnessand self-examination. There are no positions connected with religionwhich can be so certain as those which are directly and immediatelytaught in Scripture, andwhich are usually said to be believedwith thecertainty of faith or of divine faith. The introduction of an element, asnecessarytotheconclusion,derivedfromadifferentsource,viz.fromtheknowledge of what we ourselves are, must be admitted in fairness tocomplicate the evidence, and to affect the kind if not the degree of thecertaintyorassurancethatmayresultfromit.Itisunwarrantabletogiveasthedefinitionofsavingfaith,thebeliefthatmysinsareforgiven;foritis not true that my sins are forgiven until I believe, and it holds trueuniversally, that God requires us to believe nothing which is not truebefore we believe it, and which may not be propounded to us to bebelieved,accompaniedatthesametimewithsatisfactoryevidenceof itstruth; and if so, the belief that our sins are forgiven, and thatwe havebeen brought into a state of grace, must be posterior in the order ofnature,ifnotoftime,totheactoffaithbywhichthechangeiseffected,and cannot therefore form a necessary constituent element of the actitself,cannotbeitsessenceorbelongtoitsessence.

It is not very surprising that Luther should have made rash andexaggeratedstatementsuponthissubjectashediduponothers.Butitiscertainly strange, that a man of such wonderful soundness andpenetrationof judgmentasCalvin shouldhave said,ashedid say, “Weshallhaveacompletedefinitionoffaith,ifwesaythatit isasteadyandcertain knowledge of the divine benevolence towards us, which, beingfoundedonthetruthofthegratuitouspromiseinChrist,isbothrevealedtoourmindsandconfirmed toourheartsby theHolySpirit;”and thatthis in substance should have been pretty generally, though notuniversally, received as a just definition or description of saving faith,bothbyLutheranandCalvinisticdivines,forthegreaterpartofacentury.We cannot but look upon this as an illustration of the perniciousinfluenceofmen’scircumstancesupontheformationoftheiropinions,-aviewofthematterdecidedlyconfirmedbythefact,thatneitherLuthernor Calvin, nor the other eminent divines who have sanctioned this

notionofthenatureandimportoffaith,havebeenabletocarryitoutinfull consistency, but have become entangled in contradictions. Luther,indeed, contradicted himself very explicitly upon this point; for whilethere are passages in his works which very unequivocally representpersonalassuranceasnecessarilyinvolvedinsavingfaith,andwhilethisdoctrineistaughtintheConfessionofAugsburg,andintheApologyforit3f-bothwhichworksaresymbolicalintheLutheranchurch,-itiseasyenough to produce from his writings passages in which a broader andmorecorrectviewisgivenofthenatureofsavingfaith,ashavingrespectdirectlyandprimarilyonly to truthsandpromisesactuallycontained inScripture, and of course only secondarily and inferentially to anythingbearing upon our personal condition and prospects. Calvin nevercontradicted himself so plainly and palpably as this. But in immediateconnectionwith thedefinitionabovegiven fromhimof saving faith,hehasmadestatementswithrespecttotheconditionofmindthatmayexistinbelievers,whichcannotwellbereconciledwiththeformaldefinition,exceptupontheassumptionthatthedefinitionwasintendednotsomuchto state what was essential to true faith and always found in it, as todescribewhattruefaithisorincludes,initsmostperfectconditionandinitshighestexercise.Asthepassageisvaluableinitself,andiswellfittedtothrowlightupontherealviewsoftheReformers,andtoillustratethedanger of judging of what these views were from a superficialexaminationoftheirwritingsorofisolatedextractsfromthem,weshallquoteitatsomelength,thoughwefearmostmenwill-beofopinionthatCalvinhasnotveryfullysolvedthedifficultywhichhestarted:-

"Butsomeonewillobjectthattheexperienceofbelieversisverydifferentfromthis;forthat,inrecognizingthegraceofGodtowardsthem,theyarenot only disturbed with inquietude which frequently befalls them, butsometimesalsotremblewiththemostdistressingterrors.Thevehemenceoftemptationstoagitatetheirmindsissogreat,thatitappearsscarcelycompatiblewiththatassuranceoffaithofwhichwehavebeenspeaking.Wemustthereforesolvethisdifficulty,ifwemeantosupportthedoctrinewehaveadvanced.

Whenweinculcatethatfaithoughttobecertainandsecure,weconceivenotofacertaintyattendedwithnodoubt,orofasecurityinterruptedby

noanxiety;butweratheraffirmthatbelievershaveaperpetual conflictwiththeirowndiffidence,andarefarfromplacingtheirconsciencesinaplacid calmnever disturbed by any storms. Yet, on the other hand,wedeny,howevertheymaybeafflicted,thattheyeverfallanddepartfromthat certain confidencewhich they have conceived in the divinemercy.The Scripture proposes no example of faith more illustrious ormemorablethanDavid,especiallyifyouconsiderthewholecourseofhislife. Yet that his mind was not invariably serene appears from hisinnumerable complaints, of which it will be sufficient to select afew.............To render this intelligible, it is necessary to recur to thatdivisionofthefleshandthespiritwhichwenoticedinanotherplace,andwhichmostclearlydiscoversitselfinthiscase.Thepiousheartthereforeperceivesadivisioninitself,beingpartlyaffectedwithdelightthroughaknowledgeofthedivinegoodness,partlydistressedwithsorrowthroughasenseof itsowncalamity;partlyrelyingonthepromiseof thegospel,partlytremblingattheevidenceofitsowniniquity;partlyexultingintheknowledge of life, partly alarmed by the fear of death. This variationhappens throughthe imperfectionof faith;sinceweareneverso happyduringthepresentlifeastobecuredofalldiffidence,andentirely filledand possessed by faith. Hence those conflicts, in which the diffidencewhichadherestotherelicsofthefleshrisesupinoppositiontothefaithformedintheheart.Butifinthemindofthebelieverassurancebemixedwithdoubts,dowenotalwayscometothispoint,thatfaithconsistsnotinacertainandclear,butonlyinanobscureandperplexedknowledgeofthedivinewillrespectingus?Notatall.Forifwearedistractedbyvariousthoughts,wearenotthereforeentirelydivestedoffaith;neither,thoughharassedbytheagitationsofdiffidence,arewethereforeimmergedinitsabyss; nor if we be shaken, are we therefore overthrown. For theinvariable issue of this contest is, that faith at length surmounts thosedifficultiesfromwhich,whileitisencompassedwiththem,itappearstobeindanger.”

Other proofsmight be adduced that theReformers,when judged of asthey should be, by a deliberate and conjunct view of all they have saidupon the subject, did not carry their doctrine of assurance to suchextremesaswemightbewarrantedinascribingtothembecauseofsomeoftheirmoreformalstatements,intendedtotellupontheircontroversies

with Romanists regarding this matter. And more than this, the realdifferencebetweentheReformersandtheRomanistsuponthesubjectofassurance, when calmly and deliberately investigated, was not quite soimportantasthecombatantsoneithersideimagined,anddidnot-reallyrespecttheprecisequestionswhichpersonsimperfectlyacquaintedwiththeworksonbothsidesmightnaturallyenoughregarditasinvolving.

With respect to the nature of saving faith the principal ground ofcontroversywas this, that theRomanistsheld that ithad its seat in theintellect, and was properly and fundamentally assent (assensus); whiletheReformers ingeneralmaintainedthat ithaditsseat in thewill,andwasproperlyandessentiallytrust(fiducia).ThegreatmajorityofeminentProtestantdivineshaveadheredtotheview+softheReformersuponthispoint, though some have taken the opposite side, and have held faith,properly so called, to be themere assent of the understanding to truthpropounded by God inHis word; while they represent trust and othergraces as the fruits or consequences, and not as constituent parts andelements, of faith. This controversy cannot be held to be of very greatimportance,solongastheadvocatesoftheposition,thatfaithisinitselfthe simple belief of the truth, admit that true faith necessarily andinvariably produces trust and other graces, - an admission which ischeerfullymadebyalltheProtestantdefendersofthisview,andwhichitsPopish advocates, though refusing in words, are obliged to make insubstance inanotherform.There isanappearanceofgreatersimplicityandmetaphysicalaccuracyinrepresentingfaithasinitselfamereassenttotruth,andtrustandothergracesasitsnecessaryconsequences.Buttherightquestionis,What is themeaningattachedinScripturetothefaithwhich justifies and saves? Upon this question we agree with theReformers in thinking, that in Scripture usage faith is applied, in itshighestandmostimportantsense,onlytoastateofmindofwhichtrustinChrist asaSaviour is anecessary constituentelement.ThisquestionaboutthenatureofjustifyingfaithisnotdeterminedintheWestminsterConfession, the leading symbol of the great body of Presbyteriansthroughouttheworld;anditiswellthatitisleftinthatcondition,forifithadbeensettledthereinaccordancewiththeviewsoftheReformersandthe compilers of the Confession, this would have excluded from theChurchofScotlandDr.JohnErskineandDrThomasChalmers.

There was not among the Reformers, and there has not been amongmodernProtestants,unanimityastowhatisinvolvedinthefiduciawhichisincludedinjustifyingfaith.Thegeneralityofmoderndivinesandsomeof the Reformers held that this fiducia was just trust or confidence inChrist’sperson,asdistinguishedfrommerebeliefofthetruthconcerningHim, and as involving some special application or appropriation toourselvesofthediscoveriesandprovisionsofthegospel,butnot,directlyand immediately, any opinion or conviction as to our actual personalcondition; while the generality of the Reformers, and some moderndivines, especially those known in Scotland as Marrow-men, haveregardeditascomprehendingthislastelementalso,andhavethuscometomaintain thatpersonalassurance isnecessarilyanddirectly includedintheexerciseofsavingfaith,orbelongstoitsessence.

ButthoughaconsiderablenumberoftheReformersheldthisview,andalthough,aswehaveexplained,theywereprobablyledintotheadoptionofitbytheircontroversywiththeRomanists,yetthetruthorfalsehoodofthis viewdidnot form the real ormain subject of controversy betweenthem. The leading topic of discussion was this, Whether, without anyspecial revelation, believers could and should (possent et deberent) beassured of their justification and salvation. This was practically thequestion thatwas controverted. It is one of great practical importance,andorthodoxProtestantdivines,ingeneral,havecontinuedeversincetoconcurwiththeReformersinansweringitintheaffirmative.Butthoughthiswaspracticallytherealpointcontroverted,-thoughthePapistsweremostanxioustopersuadementhattheycouldattaintonocertaintyuponthispoint,excepteitherbyaspecialrevelationorbythetestimonyofthechurch, - yet this was not just the precise form which the questionassumed in the controversy; and the reason of this was one which wehavealreadyhintedat, viz. that themore reasonableRomanists shrankfrommeeting the question, as thus put,with a direct negative, and fellbackupon the topic of the kindor degree of the assurance or certaintythat was ordinarily attainable by believers. Into this discussion of thenatureandgroundsofthecertaintythatmightattachtothismatter,theReformerswereunfortunatelytemptedtofollowtheiropponents.Intheheat of controversymany of themwere led to lay down the untenableposition,thatthecertaintyorassuranceordinarilyattainablebybelievers

wasofthehighestandmostperfectdescription,-thatitwasthecertaintyoffaith,or,astheysometimesexpressedit,thecertaintyofdivinefaith,the same certainty with which men believe in the plainly revealeddoctrinesofGod’sword.Andthen,again,itwasasanargumentorproofinsupportofthisextremeanduntenablepositionastothehindordegreeofcertainty,thattheywereledontoassert,thatthispersonalassurancewasnecessarily involved in justifying faith, -nay,was itsdistinguishingcharacteristic,andbelongedofcoursetoitsessence.

That the accountnowgivenof the subordinate, andaswemight call itaccidental place held in the doctrinal system of theReformers by theirextreme views of the nature of the certainty or assurance which theyasserted, and of the argumentwhich they advanced in support of it, iswell founded,may be shownby the important fact, thatwhilemany ofthem taught these views in their privatewritings, and in some of theirpolemicalandpractical treatises, theydidnot introduce them into theirconfessionsoffaith,intocompositionsintendedtobesymbolicalandtodefine the termsofministerial communion.Theyare taught, indeed,aswehavementioned,intheConfessionofAugsburg,andtheApologyforvit.TheyarealsosetforthprettyexplicitlyintheSaxonandWurttembergConfessions,whicharebothLutherandocuments,-thefirsthavingbeencomposedbyMelancthon,andthesecondbyBrentius.But theyarenottaught in the confessions of the Reformed or Calvinistic churches. TheearliestconfessionsoftheReformedchurchesarethetwoConfessionsofBasle,and there is no statement of them tobe found there.Calvinhadundoubtedly taught in his “Institutes,” and also in his i( Catechism” ofGeneva, that saving faith necessarily includes or implies personalassurance.ButhedidnotintroduceanystatementtothiseffectintotheConfession of the French Protestant Church. It is doubtful, indeed,whether Calvin composed the French Confession, or only revised andsanctionedit.Butthislatterviewisenoughforourpresentpurpose;andbesides, if theConfessionwasnotoriginallycomposedbyCalvin, itwascomposedbyAntonyChandieuorSadeel,andhehadtaught inhisownwritings the same views asCalvin upon this subject, thoughneither henor Calvin seems to have thought of introducing them into theConfession. In the Palatine or Heidelberg Catechism, which was notoriginallyintendedtobesymbolical,butwasratheradaptedforpopular

instruction, faith is described as necessarily comprehending assurance.TheBelgicConfession,composedin1563,containsnoassertionoftheseviews, though its authors probably believed them, as they afterwardsaddedtheHeidelberg.Catechismto theirConfessionassymbolical.ThelaterHelveticConfession,composedin1566,andapprovedofbymostoftheReformedchurches,givesnocountenancetothesepeculiaropinions.And lastly, the Synod of Dort, in 1618, representing almost all theReformedchurches,notonlygavenosanctiontotheseviews,butmadestatementswhichcanscarcelybereconciledwiththem,andwhichformpartof theevidencebywhich itmaybeshown, thatamorecarefulandexact analysis of these matters was leading men’s minds rather in adirectionopposite to theviewsof theReformersupon this subject, andthus paving the way for the more explicit rejection of them by theWestminsterAssembly.

Now,letitberememberedthatwedonotassertthattheauthorsofthesedocumentsdidnothold the sameviewsasLutherandCalvinupon thesubjectsoffaithandassurance,andtherelationsubsistingbetweenthem.We concede that, generally speaking, they did hold the same views asthese leading Reformers. We concede, too, that in some of theseconfessions there are expressions employed which indicate plainlyenough, to competent judges, that they held these views. But theseconcessions being made, we still think it a consideration of greatimportance,thattheydidnotdistinctlyembodythemintheirconfessionsof faith,as thisproves that theydidnotreallyoccupyanysuchplace intheirsystemoftheologyassomeoftheirstatements,madeintheheatofcontroversy,mightleadustosuppose.

The account we have given of the views of the Reformers and theRomanists upon the subject of faith and assurance, and of the coursewhichthediscussionregardingittook,issufficient,atonceandofitself,ifitbewellfounded,tooverturnsomeofSirWilliam’s leadingpositionsinhishistoryofthismatter.Butwemustnowlookathisstatementsmorecloselyanddirectly.Hisfirstleadingpositionisthis:-

“Assurance, Personal Assurance, Special Faith (the feeling of certaintythat God is propitious to me, that my sins are forgiven, - Fiducia,PlerophoriaFidei,FidesSpecialis),-Assurancewaslonguniversallyheld

intheProtestantcommunitiestobethecriterionandconditionofatrueor saving faith”Here the first thing tobenoted is theassumption, that“personal assurance, special faith, - fiducia, plerophoria fidei, fidesspecialis,” do, in the writings of the Reformers, all mean one and thesamething;andthatthisonethingis“thefeelingofcertaintythatGodispropitious tome, thatmysinsare forgiven.”Wecouldeasily show thatthis assumption involves great ignorance of the usus loquendi of theReformers,thatthedifferentwordsareusedindifferentsenses,andthatthesameword isused indifferent sensesbydifferentauthors.But it isnotworthwhiletodwelluponthispoint.Thestatement,that“assurancewas long universally held in the Protestant communities to -be thecriterionandconditionofa trueandsaving faith,” isnotcorrect.For ithasbeenprovedthatiPeterMartyr,Musculus,andZanchius,threeofthemosteminent!divinesattheperiodoftheReformation,didnotholdthisviewof thenature of saving faith.The allegation that “assurance is thepunctum saliens of Luther’s system” is one which no man acquaintedwithLuther’swritingscanbelieve.Theassertionthat“assurancestands,essentially,partandparcelofalltheconfessionsofallthechurchesoftheReformationdownto theWestminsterAssembly,” isutterlyuntrue.Wehave already explainedhow thismatter stands as a question of fact, inregard to the earliest andmost important confessions. If SirWilliam’sassertionhadanyfoundationintruth,thepassagesteachingthedoctrineofassurancemighteasilybeproduced.Butnosuchpassageshavebeenorcanbeproduced,becausetheyhavenoexistence.

Sir William is in substance right in saying, that in the WestminsterAssembly assurance was formally declared not to be of the essence offaith;andheisrightalsoinsaying,thatthiswasthendoneforthefirsttimebyanecclesiasticalsynod,though,aswehavealreadyremarked,theSynodofDortpavedthewayfor it. It isofmore importancetoremark,that this decision of the Westminster Assembly has been generallyacquiescedineversincebythegreatbodyofCalvinistsandPresbyteriansovertheworld.

SirWilliam’snextstatement,viz.thatonthegroundofthisdeliveranceoftheWestminsterAssembly,“theScottishGeneralAssemblyhasonceandagaindeposedtheholdersofthis,thedoctrineofLutherandCalvin,ofall

theotherchurchesof theReformation,andof theolderScottishchurchitself,” is a curious mixture of truth and error, though the errorpreponderates.Ifthedoctrinethatassuranceisnotoftheessenceoffaithbe plainly asserted in the standards of a church, and be thus explicitlyassentedtobyeveryministerasaconditionofhisordination,itdoesnotappearwhyitshouldbeheldupassomethingmonstrous,thatmenwhomaycomeafterwardstorejectthisdoctrineshouldforfeittheirofficeasministersinthatchurch,thoughitwouldnodoubtbeaverypainfulthingtohavetocutoffabrotherwhoheldnoerroneousviewsexceptuponthisonepoint.SirWilliam’sstatementisplainlyfittedandintendedtoconveythe impression that cases of this kind have occurred in the Church ofScotland;or, thatmenhavebeendeposedmerelybecausetheyheldtheviewsoftheReformersuponthispoint,whiletheywerenotchargedwithanyotherdoctrinal errors.This impression is erroneous.Nosuchcaseshaveeveroccurred.Intheonlyinstances,andtheyhavebeenveryfew,inwhichministersholding that assurance is of theessenceof saving faithhave been subjected to ecclesiastical discipline, this error was held inconjunctionwiththemuchmoreseriousoneofuniversalatonement,oruniversal pardon, which it naturally tends to introduce; and it was nodoubt the maintenance of this second and more serious error thatreconciled the heart and conscience of the church to the infliction ofcensure.

Sir William’s assertion, that the doctrine of assurance being of theessenceoffaithwasthat“oftheolderScottishchurchitself,”

hasanappearanceof truthabout it,but it is fitted likewise to conveyafalseimpressionofthefactsofthecase.ThereissufficientevidencethattheolderScottishchurch,orthefirstgenerationofProtestantministersinScotland,heldingeneralthesameviewsoffaithandassuranceasweretaughtbyLutherandCalvin.But theyhadnotembodied theseviews inanypublicsymbolicaldocuments,orrequiredthebeliefofthemasatermofministerial communion; and yet this is plainly the impressionwhichSir William’s statement is fitted to produce. In the old ScottishConfessionofFaith,preparedbyJohnKnox,andadoptedbytheGeneralAssembly in 1560, these views are certainly not asserted. It containsnothingonthisoranyothersubject,whichmightnotbeassentedtoby

men who had subscribed the Westminster Confession. The only thingbearing upon these views that can in any sense be regarded as adeliveranceofthechurch,is,thattheNationalCovenantof1581containsacondemnationofthe“generalanddoubtsomefaithofthePapists;”-astatementwhich,whateverwemayknowotherwiseoftheopinionsofitsauthors,isfartoovaguetocommitthechurch,oranywhosubscribedthedocument, to the. definite doctrine, that assurance is of the essence ofsavingfaith.

SirWilliam’snext statement isanastoundingone: “In theEnglish,andmore articulately in the Irish Establishment, assurance still stands anecessarytenetofecclesiasticalbeliefThis,wepresume,willbeapieceofnewstotheclergyoftheEnglishandIrishEstablishments.Weventuretoassert,thatnotoneofthe18,000or20,000clergymenwhorepresenttheUnited Church of England and Ireland, has ever imagined that he hadcomeunderanobligationtobelieveandtoteach“assurance;”-bywhichof course SirWilliammeans, as thewhole scope of the passage shows,notwithstandingtheobscurityandconfusionofhislanguage,thedoctrinethat assurance of personal salvation is essential to, and is necessarilyincluded or implied in, justifying faith. But SirWilliam has referred toproofsandauthoritiesuponthispoint,andwhatarethey?Hegivesthemthus:-“SeeHomilies,Booki.Numberiii.Part3,speciallyreferredtointhe eleventh of the Thirty-nineArticles; andNumberw. Parts 1 and 3;likewisethesixthLambethArticle.”Theauthoritiesherereferred toaretwo,viz.thefirstBookoftheHomilies,andtheLambethArticles.

Now, inregard to theBooksof theHomilies,we thinkitcanbeshown,1st, That they are not properly symbolical books of the Church ofEngland, so that the clergyare tobeheldbound tomaintainand teacheverythingcontainedinthem;and2d,ThatthoughtheHomiliescontainplain enough indications that the views entertained by most of theReformerswereheldalso intheChurchofEngland,theydonotexhibitdistinctanddefinitestatementsofthesepeculiaropinions.

TheextenttowhichtheChurchofEnglandiscommittedtotheHomiliesisthis,thatinher35thArticleshehasdeclaredthat“thesecondBookofHomiliesdothcontainagodlyandwholesomedoctrine,andnecessaryforthesetimes,asdoththeformerBookofHomilies;andthereforewejudge

them tobe read in churchesbyministers,diligentlyanddistinctly, thattheymaybeunderstoodbythepeople,”-andthatthe11thArticlerefersto one of the Homilies for a fuller setting forth of the doctrine ofjustification. Now this does not necessarily imply, and has never beenregarded as implying, that the Church of England took her ministersbound tobelieveand to teacheverythingcontained in thesebooks.TheHomilieswereintendedtofurnishmaterialsforpopularinstruction,andnot to regulate the terms of ministerial communion. A conscientiousman, who had subscribed the Articles, would not, indeed, considerhimself at liberty, without first renouncing his position, to oppose thegeneral scope and main substance of the views of doctrine and dutycontained in the Homilies; for, by subscribing the Articles, he hasdeclaredthistobegodlyandwholesome:butthemostconscientiousmenwoulddenythattheywerecommittedtoallandeverythingcontainedintheHomilies.Andtheywouldtakethisground,not fromlooseviewsofwhat subscription to symbols implies, but because they have neversubscribed theHomilies, or done anything equivalent to this. In short,what is said in the Articles about the Homilies does not make theHomilies Articles, does not raise them to the same level, does notincorporate them with that primary and fundamental symbol. Thestatementinthe7thArticle,that“thethreeCreedsoughtthoroughlytobereceivedandbelieved,fortheymaybeprovedby,mostcertainwarrantsof holy writ,” no doubt incorporates the Creeds with the Articles, andmakes them equally binding; but nothing like this is said about theHomilies, and therefore they stand upon a different footing. On thesegrounds we contend, that an incidental statement of the doctrine ofassuranceintheHomilies,wouldnothaveaffordedanadequategroundfor SirWilliam’s allegation, that this doctrine “still stands a necessarytenetofecclesiasticalbelief.”

Wehavenowtoremark,inthesecondplace,thatanythingsaidaboutthisdoctrine in the Homilies is not only incidental, but indefinite. Theprincipalpassagesbearinguponthepointarethese:-“FortherightandtrueChristianfaithis,notonlytobelievethattheHolyScripturesandalltheforesaidarticlesofourfaitharetrue,butalsotohaveasuretrustandconfidence in God’s merciful promises, to be saved from everlastingdamnation by Christ; whereof doth follow a loving heart to obey His

commandments.”Andagain:“Andthis[aquickorlivingfaith]isnotonlythecommonbeliefofthearticlesofourfaith,butisalsoatruetrustandconfidence of the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and asteadfast hope of all things to be received at His hands.” While thesestatementsarequiteexplicit inrejectingtheideathatsavingfaithisthemerebeliefofthetruth,theydonotdefinitelydecideinfavourofanyoneprecise view of the nature, object, and grounds of the fiducia, or trust,which they describe.When thesematters came to bemore exactly andelaborately discussed in the seventeenth century, distinctions wereintroduced and applied, which tended to throw much light upon thesubject,andwhichnowrequire tobeknownandkept inview, inorderthatwemay forma rightestimateof the true importevenof thevagueandindefinitestatementsofformerwriters.Itmaybepropertoillustratethispointbyaspecimenortwo,asitadmitsofextensiveapplication.LeBlanc,ProfessorofTheologyatSedantotheFrenchProtestantChurch,ofwhomwe shall have afterwards occasion to speakmore fully, gives thefollowingstatementsofthedifferenceswhichhavebeenexhibitedamongProtestantdivinesuponthissubject:-

“Hie observandum est, fiduciam apud doctores Reformatos pluribusmodis sumi, adeoque plures eorum qui hac in parts diverse loquuntur,idemreapse intersesentire;aliosveroquividentureodemmodoloqui,reveratamenquoadsensumintersediscrepare.”

If this be so, it would require a great dealmore of careful and patientresearch than SirWilliam ever gave to this or to any other theologicalsubject, to enable him to thread hisway through its intricacies, and toentitlehimtospeakwithconfidenceofhissuccessindoingso.Again,LeBlancsays,moreparticularly:-

“PrsecipuiveroscholseReformatse theologide fiduciavarie loquuntur,dumquidamdicunt fiduciamessepartem fideiprimariam,etpropriumilliusactum,aliivero istudnegantetdocent fiduciamessequidemfideiprolem atque effectum, sed non tamen actum ejus proprie dictum; acprsetereafiducisenomine,aliiquidemistud,aliiveroaliud,intelligunt.”

He then mentions four different senses in which this fiducia, trust orconfidence, has been understood by Protestant divines, the first two of

whicharethusdescribed:-

“Primumergo, fiducisenomine intelligituractus illeperqueminDeumrecumbimus, illi innitimur, et ei adhaeremus, tanquam fonti et authorisalutis, ut vitam et salutem ab eo consequamur. Secundo, fiducia apudmultosdesignatfirmampersuasionemdegratiaetveniaaDeoimpetrataetdenostracumeoreconciliatione.”

Turretine explains the distinctions applicable to this matter with hisusualmasterlyability,inthisway:-

“Diversitas quae inter orthodoxos occurrit oritur ex diversa acceptionefiducise, quae trifariam potest sumi. 1. Pro fiduciali assensu seupersuasione quae oritur ex judicio practice intellectus de veritate etbonitate promissionum evangelicarum, et de potentia, voluntate, acfidelitateDeipromittentis.2.ProacturefugiietreceptionisChristi,quofidelis,cognitaveritateetbonitatepromissionum,adChristumconfugit,ilium recipit et amplectitur et in illiusmeritum unice recumbit. 3. Proconfidentia seu acquiescentia et tranquilli-tate animi quae oritur exrefugio animae ad Christum et ejus receptione. Primo et secundosignificatu fiducia est de essentia fidei et bene a theologis dicitur ejusforma;sedtertio,recteabaliisnonformasedeffectusfideidici-tur,quianasciturexea,nonveroearnconstituit.”Wehavemadethesequotationschiefly for the purpose of illustrating the position, that as thesedistinctionswerenotpresenttothemindsoftheReformers,butwerethegrowthof laterspeculation,we shouldnotattribute to themanyoneofthese distinct and definite opinions, without specific evidence bearingupontheprecisepointtobeproved,andshouldnotallowourselvestobecarried away by the mere words, trust and confidence, certainty andassurance, without a full and deliberate consideration of the wholeevidence bearing upon themeaning of the statements. The statementsmaybesodefiniteastoindicatewhatoftheviewsthatweresubsequentlydevelopedwereheldbythepartiesunderconsideration,ortheymaynot.The statements of the Catechisms of Geneva and Heidelberg are soexpressed, as to convey the doctrine that personal assurance is of theessenceofsavingfaith;theconfessionsoftheReformedchurchesdonotingeneralteachthisdoctrine;andtheHomiliesoftheChurchofEnglandresemblemore the confessions than the catechisms. Even if they were

symbolical and authoritative, they would not make “assurance,” in theprecise and definite sense in which SirWilliam here uses the word, “anecessarytenetofecclesiasticalbelief.”

SirWilliam’ssecondproofofhispositionisthe“sixthLambethArticle.”The history of the Lambeth Articles affords an irrefragable proof thatCalvinism was the generally received doctrine of the great body of thehighestauthoritiesinthechurchanduniversitiesofEngland,andofthemassoftheEnglishclergy,inthelatterpartofthereignofElizabethandof the sixteenth century: while nothing is more certain and notoriousthan that they never received the sanction of the church in its publicofficialcharacter;thattheyneverwereimposedbyanyauthority,civilorecclesiastical;andthatthereisnotashadowofgroundforalleging,thatany Anglican clergyman is, or ever was, under any appearance ofobligation to believe or teach anything contained in them, the sixthArticleoranyoftheothereight.

ButeveniftheLambethArticlesweresymbolicalandauthoritative,theywouldnotimposeanobligationtoteachthepreciseanddefinitedoctrinewhich is the subject of SirWilliam’s allegation. The sixth Article is inthese words: - u Homo vere fidelis, id est, fide justificante praeditus,certusestplerophoriafidei,deremissionepeccatorumsuorumetsalutesempiterna sua per Christum.” It would manifestly require somethingmuchmoredefinitethanthis,totiedownmentothemaintenanceoftheposition, that personal assurance is necessarily included in saving faithandbelongstoitsessence.Itsimplysays,“Atruebelieveriscertainwiththe assurance of faith.” It does not say that every believer is so, at alltimes; it defines nothing about the nature of the process by which thecertaintyisproduced,orthegroundonwhichitrests;itspecifiesnothingof the relation subsisting between faith and assurance: and on thesegroundsitistotallyunfitforthepurposeforwhichSirWilliamreferredtoit.Thetruthis,thatamanmighthonestlysubscribethisLambethArticle,withoutbeingtherebycommittedtomorethanthepositionwhich,aswehave explained, formed, the real subject of controversy between theReformersandtheRomanists,viz.thatthebelievermayand.should,beassuredofhisforgivenessandsalvation.

Sir William, however, not only asserts that assurance, in the sense in

which it has been so often explained, “still stands a necessary tenet ofecclesiastical belief” in the English Establishment, but he further says,that it does so “more articulately” in the Irish. He gives no otherreferences than those we have examined, to the Homilies and theLambethArticles, and of course none bearing upon the alleged greater“articulateness” of the Irish Church in this matter. The truth probablywasthis:SirWilliammusthaveknownthattheLambethArticlesarenot,andneverwere,ofanyauthorityintheChurchofEngland;andheWouldscarcelyhaveventuredtorefertothemasestablishinganythingabouttheobligations of the clergy of that church. But he had probably readsomewhere that the Lambeth Articles, though never imposed upon theChurch of England, were, through Archbishop Usher’s influence,sanctionedandadoptedintheChurchofIreland,-astatementwhichistrue insubstance, thoughnotstrictlycorrect;andthiswasprobablythewhole of the knowledge on the ground of which he thought himselfentitled to assert the greater articulateness of the Irish Church, and torefer to the sixth Lambeth Article. In “the Articles of Religion agreedupon by the archbishops and bishops, and the rest of the clergy ofIreland,intheConvocationholdenatDublinintheyearofourLordGod1615,”thewholeoftheLambethArticlesareembodied,thoughwithsomeadditionsandverbalalterations.ThesubjectofassuranceisthusstatedinNo.37,underthehead“JustificationandFaith:”-

“By justifying faith, we understand not only the common belief of thearticlesofChristianreligion,andapersuasionofthetruthofGod’swordin general, but also aparticular applicationof the graciouspromises ofthegospeltothecomfortofourownsouls;wherebywelayholdonChristwithallHisbenefits,havinganearnesttrustandconfidenceinGod,thatHewillbemercifultousforHisonlySon’ssake.Sothatatruebelievermaybecertainbytheassuranceoffaithoftheforgivenessofhissins,andofhiseverlastingsalvationbyChrist.”

Itissomewhatdifficulttosaywhetherthiscould,withtruth,besaidtobemore “articulate” than the statements quoted from the “Homilies.” Thefirstsentencedoesseemtoembodyrathermoreofthetoneandspiritofthe Catechisms of Geneva and Heidelberg, though it is very far frombeingexplicitindeclaringtheirpeculiarviewsuponthispoint.Butthen,

in the second sentence,which is in substance a translation of the sixthLambeth Article, there is an alteration which rather tells on the otherside,-“maybecertain,”insteadof“certusestachangewhichconfirmstheviewabovegivenoftherealmeaningoftheArticle,andbringsitnearertothe great fundamental Protestant position, vere fidelis potest et debetcertus esse. There is nothing, then, in these Irish Articles of 1615 tocommitany onewhomay receive and adopt them, to the doctrine thatassuranceisoftheessenceoffaith.SirWilliam,however,probablymeantthe greater articulateness, which he predicated of the Irish Church, torefertothemoreformalecclesiasticalsanctiongiventothesestatementsintheIrishthanintheEnglishEstablishment;andouranswertothisis,thatfortwocenturiespastneithertheIrishChurchnoranyofitsbishopsorclergymen,havefurnishedanygroundwhateverfortheallegation,thattheywereunderanyobligationtoteachthedoctrineofassurance,beyondwhat is implied in subscription to the English Articles. There was aperiod, indeed, when the Irish Articles, and, of course, the LambethArticles, were invested with some authority in Ireland, but that periodwasbrief, andhas long sincegoneby.An investigation into thehistoryand standing of the Irish Articles can now possess a merely historicalvalue, and determines no question of present duty. It is curious andinteresting, however; and we would refer those who desire fullinformation upon this subject toHardwick’s “History of the Articles ofReligion,” - a book which, notwithstanding its strong anti-Calvinisticprejudices,wecannotbutcommendmosthighlyforabilityandlearningand general fairness.Wemust again request our readers to notice andremember what is suggested by the fact, that Sir William made thisassertionabouttheChurchesofEnglandandIreland.

ButperhapsSirWilliam’sgrandestdisplay is tobe found in thesecondparagraphofthepassageonwhichwearecommenting,wherehebringsoutthe“seriesofthemostcuriouscontrasts”which“thisdogma,withitsfortunes,pastandpresent,affords.”

He swells the number of these curious contrasts, by repeating what isreallyoneandthesameidea,intwoorthreedifferentforms.Hegivesfive“curiouscontrasts,”butthefirst threeturnuponasinglepoint,andthesubstanceofthemmaybeembodiedinoneposition,which,indeed,isthe

sumandsubstanceofwhatSirWilliamismostanxioustoestablish,viz.that thewhole of theReformed churches have not only abandoned thedoctrineofassurance,thefundamentaldoctrineoftheReformation,buthavealladopted theoppositePopishdoctrine,whichwas taughtby theCouncilofTrentwhenitcondemnedthedoctrineoftheReformers.

Beforeadvertingto this leadingposition,wemustnoticehis fourthandfifthspecimensof“curiouscontrasts.”Hestatesthemthus:-

“Again,itiscurious,thatthis,themostimportantvariationinthefaithofProtestants, - as, in fact, a gravitation of Protestantism back toCatholicity, - should have been overlooked, as, indeed, in his daysundeveloped,bythekeen-eyedauthorof4TheHistoryof theVariationsoftheProtestantChurches.’Finally, it iscurious, that, thoughnowfullydeveloped, this central approximation of Protestantism to Catholicityshould not, as far as I know, have been signalized by any theologian,ProtestantorCatholic.”

If thisvariationwas“undevelopedn inBossuet’s time, itdoesnotseem“curious”thatitshouldhavebeenoverlookedbyhim,eventhoughhewas“keen-eyed;99whileweadmitthatitis“curious,”iftrue,that“itshouldnothavebeensignalizedbyanytheologian,ProtestantorCatholic,”untilSirWilliamHamilton discovered and promulgated it. But the truth is,that this variation - for therewasadoctrinal variationupon thispoint,thoughcertainlyitwasnotofsuchmagnitudeasSirWilliamalleges-wasdeveloped in Bossuet’s time, and was not overlooked by him, but wasdistinctlysetforth,thoughnotmuchenlargedupon,inhis“HistoryoftheVariations.” Indeed, all Sir William’s assertions upon these points arewholly untrue. That this variation was not overlooked by Bossuet, isprovedbythefollowingextractfromhis“HistoryoftheVariations”

“Lesministresquiontecritdanslesdernierstems,etentr’autres,M.deBeaulieu(LeBlanc),quenousavousvuaSedan,undesplussavansetdespluspacifiquedetouslesministres,adoucissentleplusqu’ilspeuventledogme de rinamissibilite de la justice etmeme celui de la certitude desalut: et deux raisons lesy portent: la premiere est I’eloignement qu’enonteulesLutheriens,aquiilsveulents’uniraquelqueprixquecesoit:lasecondeest1’absurditeetl’impietequ’ondecouvredanscesdogmes,pour

peu qu’ils soient penetres. .... Toutes les fois que nos Reformesdesavouent ces dogmes impies, louons-en Dieu, et, sans disputer davantage,prionslesseulementdeconsidererqueleSaintEspritnepouvaitpasetreenceuxquilesontenseignes,etquiontfaitconsisterunegrandepartiedelaReformedansdesiindignesideesdelajusticeChretienne.”

So far from this variationnot having been signalized before, it actuallyformedoneleadingsubjectofacontroversythatwascarriedonbetweentheologians of distinguished eminence, both Protestant and Romanist,beforethepublicationofBossuet’s“HistoryoftheVariations;”andasthistopicnotonlyconclusivelydisprovesSirWilliam’sassertions,butisfittedtothrowlightuponthegeneralsubjectunderconsideration,wewillgiveabriefnoticeofthecontroversyreferredto.

In 1665, Louis le Blanc, Lord of Beaulieu, Professor of Theology in theCollegeoftheFrenchProtestantChurchatSedan,amanofgreatabilityand learning, published “Theses Theologicse de Certitudine quam quishaberepossitetdebeatdesuacoramDeojustificatione.”IntheseTheses,he described it as a misrepresentation of Papists, to allege thatProtestants held, among other things, that personal assurance wasnecessarilycomprehendedinjustifyingfaithandbelongedtoitsessence;and explained what he held to be the doctrine generally taught byProtestants upon this subject. He represented their doctrine as beingsubstantiallythis,thatbelieverscanandshouldbeassuredoftheirbeingforgivenandbeinginastateofgrace,andthatthewantofthisassurancewas faultyandsinful; but that this assurancewasnot theproper act ofjustifyingandsavingfaith,anddidnotbelongto itsessence,sincefaithmightexist fora timewithout it; that itwasa resultor consequenceoffaith,posterior to it in theorderofnature, and frequentlyalsoof time;that though this assurancemight be called an act of faith, itwas but asecondaryandreflex,notaprimaryanddirectactoffaith;andthatwhilethe certainty attaching to this personal assurance might be called acertaintyoffaith,itwassonamedinanimpropersense,sinceitdidnotrest immediately and exclusively upon what was actually contained inGod’sword,butpartlyalsouponareflexactconcerningourselves.Theseareinsubstancetheviewsinregardtofaithandassurancewhicharesetforth intheWestminsterConfession,preparedtwentyyearsbefore;and

LeBlanc,withoutanyparadeofproofsorauthorities,declaredthemtobethen generally prevalent among Protestants. The prevalence of theseviewsofcourseimplied,andwasseenandadmittedtoimply,avariation,oradeparturefromthoseheldbythegeneralityoftheReformers.

Aboutsevenyearsafter, in1672, thefamousAntonyArnauld,DoctoroftheSorbonne,thefriendandassociateofPascalandNicole,publishedhiswork entitled, “Le Renversement de laMorale de Jesus Christ, par lesErreursdesCalvinistestouchantlaJustificationandashemeanttomakethe doctrine of assurance play an important part in proving that theCalvinistsoverturnthemoralityofJesusChrist,headducedatlengththeevidence that Calvinists teach that “every believer is assured with thecertaintyofdivinefaithofhisownjustificationandsalvationandhegives“a refutationof aprofessorofSedan,whohadabandoned the commonsentimentsofhissect,concerningthecertaintyofdivinefaith,whichtheythinkthateverybelieverhasofhisjustificationandsalvation.”Arnauld’sevidence in support of the ascription of this opinion to Protestants isderivedchieflyfromthewritersofthesixteenthcentury,andterminateswiththeSynodofDortin1618,which,healleges,sanctionedit:andasLeBlancinhisTheseshadnotproducedanyauthority,Arnauld,inrefutinghim, just referred to the evidence he had already adduced. In 1674, LeBlanc published “Theses Theologicas de fidei justificantis natura etessentia, in quibus valise Protestantium sententise referuntur etexpenduntur,etbreviterrefellunturquassuperearequidamliberrecensScrip-toriharumThesiumimputat.”TheseTheses,aswellastheformerones, were afterwards embodied in his great work commonly called“ThesesSedanenses,”ofwhichthethirdeditionwaspublishedatLondonin1683.IntheseThesesconcerningthenatureandessenceofjustifyingfaith,hegoesveryfully intothewholesubject,examinestheauthoritiesbearinguponit,anddefendshimselffromthechargeswhichArnauld,inhis “Renversement,” had brought against him, of abandoning thecommon views of Protestants, and of concealing and misrepresentingtheirtruedoctrines.LeBlanc,ofcourse,didnotdenythattherehadbeenmanyeminentProtestantdivineswhotaughtthatpersonalassurancewasnecessarily included in saving faith.Buthe contendedandproved, thatfrom the time of the Reformation downwards, there had always beensome eminent Protestant writers who had taken a broader and more

correctviewof thenatureof saving faithandof the relationbetween itandassurance,-thatinrecenttimesthenumberofdivineswhoheldthisviewhad•beenprogressivelyincreasing,-thatnearlythirtyyearsbeforethis ithadobtainedagreat triumph,bybeingdistinctly set forth in theWestminster Confession, whose sentiments upon this point had beengenerally approved of by Protestant writers; and that, on all thesegrounds,ArnauldandthePapistswereactingunwarrantablyinassertingthattheoppositeviewwasthatwhichhadalwaysbeenandstillwasheldby Protestants. He claims in support of his views the concurrence ofZanchius, Peter Martyr, Musculus, Perkins, Bishop Davenant, and theotherEnglishdivineswhoattendedtheSynodofDort,Ames,DuMoulin,Walseus,Wittichius,Mestrezat,etc.HeexpresseshisconcurrenceinthestatementsoftheWestminsterConfessionofFaith,andrepeatedlyrefersto it indisproof of the allegationof theRomanists, that opposite viewshad up till that time been generallymaintained among Protestants. LeBlanc admitted that, in the earlier period, views different fromhis andfrom those of the Westminster Confession, were more generallyprevalent; but he contended that, in later times,matters had changed,andthebalancehadturnedtotheotherside.He,ofcourse,didnotdenythattherehadbeenavariationhereinthehistoryofProtestantdoctrine,thoughhedidnot think thechangewhichhadbeenbroughtaboutwasone of great intrinsic importance, and maintained that, from thebeginning, there had been some Protestants who held the viewswhichhadultimatelygainedtheascendency.

This elaborate dissertation of Le Blanc was not only approved of ingeneral by Protestant divines, but it convinced an eminent Romishtheologianofthatperiod,LeFevre,adoctoroftheologyoftheFacultyofParis,thatArnauldhadmisrepresentedProtestants,inascribingtothemgenerallythedoctrineofassurance.HeexpressedthisopinioninaworkwrittenagainstProtestantism;andthisagaincalledforththeredoubtableJansenist,whopublished,in1682,“LeCalvinismeConvaincudenouveandeDogmes Impies contre ce qu’enon ecrit,M.LeFevre, etc., etM.LeBlanc,” etc. In thiswork Arnauldwrent over the ground againwithoutthrowingmuchadditionallightuponit,orshakinganyofLeBlanc’smainpositions.

In themeantime a new combatant had entered the field. This was thefamous Peter Jurieu, a man of singular talents and activity, who hadformerly been professor at Sedan. In 1675 he published his “Apologiepour laMorale des Reformes, ou Defense de leur doctrine touchant laJustification,laperseverancedesvraissaints,etlacertitudequechaquefidele peut et doit avoir de son salut,” in reply to Arnauld’s“Renversement.” Thiswork Claude, themost distinguished defender ofProtestantisminFrance,pronouncedtobe“oneofthefinestbooksthathad appeared since theReformation.”The first twobooks of it treat ofjustification and perseverance, and the third and last of certitude orassurance.HetakesverymuchthesamegroundasLeBlanc,denyingthatArnauldwasentitledtochargeuponProtestants ingeneral thedoctrinethat assurance is of the essence of faith, though admitting ' that thisdoctrinewasextensivelytaughtamongtheminthesixteenthcentury.Headducesaportionof theevidenceof this,referringtoLeBlanc’sThesesfor additional testimonies, and shows very ably and ingeniously, thatneithertheearliernorthelaterdoctrinewaschargeablewiththeodiousconsequenceswhichArnauldhadlabouredtofastenuponthem.Hetakessome pains to bring out the difference between the beliefmen have inarticlesoffaith,andtheassurancetheyhaveoftheirownforgiveness,andtoshowthatmenmightdoubtabouttheirsalvationwithoutceasingtobetrue believers.He exposes very ably and conclusively the futility of theattempt of Arnauld to draw an argument in favour of Popery from theconcessions made by Le Blanc and others, as to the variations in thedoctrineofProtestants,andevenanapproximationagaininsomeminordoctrinal matters to the Church of Rome; and points out the folly ofmakingsomuchadoaboutdifferencesofsolittleintrinsicimportanceasthosewhichhadbeenexhibited,ormightstillsubsist,amongProtestantsonthesubjectofassurance.

LeBlancandJurieuwerebothmenofveryfinetalentsandofextensivelearning. Both have rendered important services to the cause of truth,andbothhave also done it some injury. LeBlanchad a great desire toreconcilethedifferencesofcontendingsectsandparties,andlabouredtoshow that the points of difference among them, when calmly anddeliberatelyexamined,werenotofgreatimportance,andresolvedmanyofthemintomerelogomachies.Heappliedthisprincipletosomeofthe

topics controvertedbetweenProtestantsandPapists, andnotmerely totopics so unimportant, comparatively, as assurance, but even to somebranchesofthegreatdoctrineofjustification,-acircumstanceofwhichNicole has skillfully availed himself in his work entitled, “PrejugesLegitimes contre les Calvinistes.” As Le Blanc brought extensivetheologicallearning,andasingularlyingeniousanddiscriminatingmind,tobearuponthissubject,his“ThesesSedanenses”mustberegardedasadangerous book for the young student of theology, who might be indangerofbeingmisledbyitintoanunder-estimateoftheimportanceofhaving clear view7s and definite convictions uponmany topics usuallydiscussed in polemic divinity; while it is certainly a work of the veryhighestvaluetothemorematuretheologian.

Jurieuisprobablyverymuchunder-estimatedbythosewhoseknowledgeof himhas beenderived, not from theperusal of his ownwritings, butfromothersources.HisreputationhassufferedgreatlyinconsequenceofhishavingquarrelledwithBayle,who,afterhavingformerlypraisedhimandhiswritingsinthehighestterms,pilloriedhimthroughthewholeofhisDictionary,makingfrequentoccasionsforassaultinghim.Jurieuhadsomequalitieswhich laidhimopen to such assaults.With great abilityandpenetration,andgreatmentalenergyandactivity,hehadarashnessandrecklessnessabouthimthatoftenledhimintoscrapes,andaffordedmany a handle to his enemies, - to personal enemies, as Bayle, - or toopponents in controversy, as Bossuet. He threw himself with sucheagernessintoeveryoneofthemanycontroversiesinwhichheengaged,that he seemed for the time to see everything through that medium,appearedtocontendforvictoryquiteasmuchasfortruth,andwaseveranxious to turn everything to the account of the present controversialoccasion.All thisproducedsometimesacarelessnessandrashnessbothinthestatementoffactsandintheemploymentofarguments,whichhisfriendscouldnotdefend,andwhichhisenemiesskillfullyimproved.

This was just the kind ofman whom Bayle was peculiarly qualified toexpose; and he has done his best to turn his opportunities to goodaccount.But allwho are acquaintedwith Jurieu sworks, know thathewas a man of very fine powers, that he has rendered very valuableservicestotruthinthediscussionofsomeimportantquestions,andhas

inflicted some deadly wounds even upon such opponents as Bossuet,Arnauld,andNicole.ThoughhisreputationhasbeendamagedbyBayle’sDictionary,yetthemischiefhasbeeninsomemeasurerepairedbyaveryfull, elaborate, and interesting life, in which justice is done him, inChauffepie’sSupplementtoBayle.

Arnauld, Le Blanc, and Jurieu, are all first-class names in theologicalliterature. Their labours ought to have been known to a man of SirWilliam’spretensions;andyetwehaveseenthathehasasserted, thatatopic which formed a subject of formal and lengthened controversybetween them,wasunnoticedandunknownuntil itwas “signalized”byhimself.Wecouldeasilyprovethatthisvariationhasbeen“signalized”bymanytheologians.Butitisunnecessarytodwelluponthispoint.Weshallquoteonespecimen,asitembodiesatthesametimeagoodsummaryofthe chief reasons that tended toproduce the change. It is taken fromacommonwork of an eminent divine, published in the latter part of theseventeenthcentury,“MarckiiCompendiumTheologias.”

“Non diffitendum interim, de hac ipsa fiduciali applicatione diversumsen-tire quoque nostros. Dum antiquiores juxta catachesim nostramfaciunt hunc Actum fidei essentialem, ad justificationem et salutemnecessarium, sed non absque antecedenti amplexu et connexaresipiscentia concipiendum; Recentiores vero plures volunt potius esseearnfideiipsiusetjustificationisconsequens,quodabessepossit,fideetsalutemanente, 1. Turn obmultorum vere Christum apprehendentiumperpetuas dubitationes; 2. Turn ad yitandas magis Pontificiorum,Arminianorum, et schismaticorum strophas, qui vel homines adsecuritatem hoc fidei actu duci, vel obligari ad falsum credendum cumremissio fidem sequatur, vel pro omnibus juxta hoc officium credenchmortuum esse Christum, clamant; 3. Turn denique, quod hsec fiduciamagis Dei beneficium speciale paucioribus proprium, quam officiumcommunesit.”

Weshouldnowproceedtothemoreformalconsiderationoftheleadingpositionwhich,aswehaveseen,formsthesubstanceofSirWilliam’sfirstthree“curiouscontrasts,”-viz.thatthewholeoftheReformedchurcheshave not only abandoned the doctrine of assurance, the fundamentaldoctrine of the Reformation, but have all adopted the Popish doctrine

which was taught by the Council of Trent, when it condemned thedoctrineoftheReformers.Butwearepreventedfromgoingsofullyintothediscussionofthispositionaswewouldhavelikedtohavedone,andhadcollectedmaterialsfordoing.Wehavenowonlyspaceforafewhints.

SirWilliamcallsthedoctrineofassurance-thatis,ofcourse,thedoctrinethatassuranceofpersonalsalvationisnecessarilyincludedinsavingfaith-the“fundamentalprincipleofallthechurchesoftheReformation,”“thecommon and differential,” “the primary and peculiar,” doctrine of theReformation. Some of the Reformers made strong and exaggeratedstatements about the importance of their peculiar opinions upon thispoint; andNicole, andother oldPopish controversialists, indealing, aswithaknownandfamiliarthing,withthatvariation,whichwasunknowntoall theologiansuntilSirWilliam “signalized” it, have endeavoured toshow that a change upon a topic so important should have ledmen toreturn to the Church of Rome. Yet neither Reformers nor Romanists,even in the heat of controversy, have ever put forth such extravagantexaggerationsuponthispointasthosewehavequotedfromSirWilliam.Torepresentthedoctrineofassuranceas “the fundamentalprincipleofallthechurchesoftheReformation,”carriesabsurdityuponthefaceofit.Fromtheverynatureofthecase,nodoctrineuponsuchasubjectcouldbethefundamentalprincipleoftheReformedchurches.IftheReformershadbeencontented,astheyshouldhavebeen,withassertingthegeneralpositionthatbelieverscanandshouldbeassuredoftheirownsalvation,and if theRomanistshadventured tomeet thisgeneralpositionwithadirectandunqualifiednegative,eveninthatcasenosound-mindedman,whateverhemighthavebeentemptedtosayintheheatofcontroversy,could have deliberately regarded this difference as fundamental. Butwhilethiswasreallyandpracticallythecontroversybetweenthem,yet,aswe have explained, the formal or technical ground of contention wasreducedwithinstillnarrowerlimits,-thePapistsprofessingtodenythedoctrineoftheiropponentsonlywiththisexplanation,thatbyassurancetheymeanttheinfalliblecertaintyofdivinefaith,bywhichmenbelievedthegreatdoctrinesofreligion;andmanyoftheReformers,injudiciouslyand incautiously accepting this explanation, and bringing forward thenotionthatpersonalassuranceisnecessarilyincludedinsavingfaith,asanargumentinsupportofit.Thecontroversythusturnedinformupon

thekindormeasureofthecertaintyattachingtomen’sconvictionsonthesubjectof theirownstateandprospects, and thegroundsonwhich theactualcertaintycontendedformightbeestablished.Itisimpossiblethatany particular doctrine upon such points as these could “have beenconstituted into the fundamental principle of all the churches of theReformation;” and therefore SirWilliam’s positionmight be safely andreasonablyrejected,evenbythosewhohavenogreatknowledgeofthesematters.

SirWilliamplainlyasserts,thatapreciseanddefinitedoctrineuponthissubjectwas,inoppositiontotheReformers,laiddownbytheCouncilofTrent, and that this Popish doctrine has now been adopted by all theProtestant churches.But this notion, thoughnot altogetherdestitute ofanapparentplausibility,hasno real foundation in truth. It isnodoubttruethatinsofarastherehasbeenadeviationfromtheviewsgenerallyheld by the Reformers, it has proceeded in a direction which tends todiminishthedifferencesbetweenProtestantsandPapists.But,indeed,itcanscarcelybesaidwithtruth,thateithertheReformedchurchesortheChurch of Rome were formally arid officially committed to any verydefinite doctrine upon this subject. There is nothing, as we have seen,precise anddefiniteupon this topic in the confessionsof theReformedchurches.ThereisnothingsodefiniteinanyoftheCalvinisticconfessionsof the sixteenth century, in favour of assurance being of the essence ofsavingfaith,asthereisintheWestminsterConfessionontheotherside.WithrespecttothedeliverancesoftheCouncilofTrentuponthissubject,wehavetoremark,1st,Thattheycondemnedseveralpositionswhichhadnotbeen laiddownby theReformedchurches,butmerelyput forth byindividualReformers,andwhichProtestants,bothatthetimeandsince,havethoughtuntenableandexaggerated;2d,Thatadifferenceofopinionexistedinthecouncilitself,andthatthispreventedtheirgivinganyverydefinite, positive deliverance. Catharinus, one of the most eminentdivinesofthatperiod,maintainedinthecouncilviewsuponthesubjectofassurance substantially the same as those held by the generality of theReformers; he continued to hold these views; and after all thedeliverancesofthecouncilhadbeenpassed,hemaintainedthatnoneofhis positions had been condemned, and that he was still at liberty toprofessthem.Indeed,whilethewholetoneandspiritofthedeliverances

ofthecounciluponthissubjectisadversetotheviewsoftheReformers,its chief formal deliverance is just this, “Nullus scire valet certitudinefidei, cui non potest subesse falsum, se gratiamDei esse consecutum;”where the matter is thrown back very much upon the point, that thecertainty claimed is the certainty of faith, and where some additionalmaterialsformetaphysicalspeculationareprovided,bytheclasswehaveputinitalics.

Theviewwehavegivenofthesepoints,intheirbearinguponthestateofthequestion, is fully confirmedbywhatwe find inCardinalBellarminewhen treating of this topic. After admitting the existence of differentopinions on the subject in the Council of Trent and in the Church ofRome, he gives this as the doctrine held by the great body of Romishtheologians in opposition to the errors both of Protestants andRomanists,“Nonpossehominesinhacvitahaberecertitudinemfideidesua justitia, us exceptis quibus Deus speciali revelatione hoc in dicaredignatur;”andingivingmoreformallythestateofthequestion,heputsitin this way, “Utrum debeat aut possit aliquis sine speciali revelatione,certus esse certitudine fidei divinae, cui mdlo modo potest subessefalsum,sibiremissaessepeccata.”Hereweseethecontroversialiststandsintrenchedbehindthe“certitudofideidivinaecuinullomodo,”etc.,andcallsuponhisopponenttoprovethatthecertitudeorassurancetowhichhe lays claim, is possessed of such qualities, and is based upon suchgrounds,asthesephrasesareunderstoodtoindicate.ButwhilethegreatPopishcontroversialisttakescareatfirsttointrenchhimselfbehindthesesafeguards, he afterwards brings out somewhat more fully and freely,though still not without precaution, what he and Romish writers ingeneralhaveinculcateduponthispoint.{Helaysdownandundertakestoprovethefourfollowingpositions:-“1.Nonpossehabericertitudinemfidei de propria justitia,” - a denial of the Protestant “potest;” 3.“Neminem teneri ad illam habendam etiamsi forte posset haberi,” - adenialoftheProtestant“debet;”3.“Nonexpedireutordinariehabeatur;”4. “Reipsanonhaberinisiapaucis,quibusaDeospecialiter justificatiopropriareve-latur.”Thesepositions formedthen, and in substance theyformstill, therealpointsofdivergencebetweenProtestantsandPapistsupon the subject of assurance.The technicalities of the controversy aresomewhat altered, while its substance remains the same. The grand

question still is, as it has always been, Is it practicable, obligatory, andexpedient, that believers should be assured of their justification andsalvation? Upon this question the Reformed churches have alwaysmaintained,andstillmaintain,theaffirmative;whiletheRomanists,forobviousreasons,havealways taken theother side.ModernProtestants,as the result of a more careful, deliberate, and unembarrassedexamination of the subject than the Reformers were able to give to it,have become indifferent about the question, whether this assuranceshouldbecalledthecertaintyoffaith,orhaveplainlyadmittedthatthisdesignation was an improper one; and they have modified also anextremeviewaboutthepreciserelationsubsistingbetweenassuranceandsavingfaith,-aviewwhichseemstohavebeensuggestedbyadesiretoestablishthewarrantablenessof thisdesignation.This is really the sumandsubstanceofthevariation,-ofthechangewhichhastakenplace.

We are confident that no onewho is competently acquaintedwith thissubject,andwhosurveysthehistoryofthediscussionsregardingitwithcalmnessanddeliberation,canfailtoseethatthisisthetruestateofthecase.Andifthis,oranythinglikethis,beindeedthetruestateofthecase,what an extraordinarymisrepresentationmust be the viewgivenof thematter by Sir William Hamilton! His view is to be exposed andoverthrown by establishing these two positions: - 1st, That, from thenatureofthecase,nodoctrineuponthesubjectofassurancecouldhavebeen the fundamental principle of the Reformers; and 2d, That thedifference between the Reformers and the generality of modernProtestant divines is not one of fundamental importance, even whenregardedmerely in its relation to this non-fundamental subject, and ofcoursesinksintoinsignificancewhenviewedinitsrelationtothegeneralsystemofProtestantdoctrine.

SirWilliamseems tohavebeenhalf consciousof this;and thereforehemakesanattempt,inconclusion,toinvolvethegreatProtestantdoctrineofjustificationinonecommonruinwiththecomparativelysmalldoctrineofassurance.Herepresents itasaconsequenceof thechangewhichheallegeshastakenplaceintheviewsofProtestantsinregardtoassurance,that“theProtestantsymbol(‘Fidessolajustificat,-Faithalonejustifies’),thoughnowevisceratedof itsreal import,andnowonlymanifestingan

unimportant difference of expression, is still supposed to mark thediscrimination of the two religious denominations. For both agree thatthe three heavenly virtues must all concur to salvation, and they onlydiffer whether faith, as a word, does or does not involve hope andcharity.” This would be the most dangerous of all Sir William’smisrepresentations,wereitnotrenderedinnocuousby itsextravagance.EvenifthedeviationfromtheviewsoftheReformers,andthereturntoPopishnotions upon the subject of assurance, had been as great as SirWilliam represents it, this would not have affected the differencesbetweenProtestantsandRomanistsuponanythingreallyinvolvedinthedoctrineof justification.SirWilliam’sstatement, thoughappliedonlytothedoctrinethatfaithalonejustifies,seemsfittedandintendedtoconveythe impression, that the whole Protestant doctrine of justification hasbeenexplodedandabandoned;and, therefore, the firstremarkwehaveto make upon it is this, - that there are some important differencesbetweenProtestantsandRomanistsonthesubjectofjustification,whicharenotdirectlytouchedevenbytheposition,thatfaithalonejustifies.Werefer,ofcourse,tothevitallyimportantquestions,lst,astothemeaningand import; and 2d, as to the cause, or ground, or foundation, ofjustification. Even though the doctrine that faith alone justifies were“eviscerated,” Protestants might and should maintain their wholecontroversywithRomanistsuponthesefundamentalpoints.Weremark,inthesecondplace,thatallthatisimportantintheProtestantdoctrine,ascomprehendedundertheheadthatfaithalonejustifies, isuntouchedbyanychangethathastakenorcouldtakeplaceinregardtoassurance.The two main questions usually discussed between Protestants andRomanistsunderthisheadarethese:-lst,Isthereanythingelseinmenthemselves which stands in the same relation to justification as faithdoes?-Protestantsansweringthisquestioninthenegative,andPapistscontendingthattherearesixothervirtues,astheycallthem,including,ofcourse, hope and charity, which stand in the very same relation tojustification.Protestantsadmittedthatallthesevirtuesdoandmustexistinjustifiedmen,andmightthus,inasense,besaid,touseSirWilliam’sphrase, “to concur to salvation;” but theywholly denied that they haveanysuchbearingas faithhasupon the justificationofa sinner.2nd, Inwhatcapacityorrespectisitthatfaithjustifies?Isitasaninstrument,oras a condition, or as ameritorious cause? Surely it is quite plain, that,

even if aman had come to believe all that is taught by the Council ofTrent upon the subject of assurance, he might still, without anyinconsistency, maintain all the doctrines of the Reformers upon theseimportantpoints.

SirWilliamadverts to the fact, that thedeviation fromtheviewsof theReformers upon the subject of assurance, which he represents as anabandonment of “the fundamental principle of all the Reformedchurches,”isembodiedintheWestminsterConfession;andyettherecanbenodoubtthatthewholedoctrineoftheReformersuponthesubjectofjustificationissetforthwithmostadmirablefullnessandprecisionintheeleventh chapter of that document, while no ingenuity, however great,could devise even a plausible pretence for alleging that there is anyinconsistencyinthis.

We have some apprehension that the controversial spirit is rising andswelling in our breast, and therefore we abstain from making anyreflections upon the extraordinary inaccuracies which we haveconsidereditourdutytounfold.Butwewouldliketoattemptsomethingin the way of expounding and inculcating the great truth taught inScripture,andsetforthintheWestminsterConfession,uponthesubjectof assurance. That it is practicable, obligatory, and expedient, thatbelieversshouldbeassuredof their justificationandsalvation,was,notcertainly,“thefundamentalprincipleofall theReformedchurches,”butthe fundamentalprincipleof the teachingof theReformedchurchesonthe subject of assurance. It is fully and clearly declared in theWestminsterConfession.Ithasbeenheldprofessedlybythewholebodyof Calvinistic divines, both before and since the variation which SirWilliamhassignalized.Andyetwefearithasatalltimesbeentoomuchneglected,both theoreticallyandpractically, viewedboth as declaring atruth and enforcing a duty. We believe that the prevailing practicaldisregard of the privilege and the duty of having assurance, is, to noinconsiderableextent,atoncethecauseandtheeffectofthelowstateofvitalreligionamongstus-onemainreasonwhythere isso littleofrealcommunion with God as our reconciled Father, and so little of real,heartydevotedness toHiscauseandservice.Somesenseof thesinanddangerofneglectingthissubjectoccasionallyarisesinmen’sminds,and

is,fromtimetotime,presseduponthenoticeofthechurch;butinmanycasessuchattemptshaveonlyledtocontroversialdiscussions,andhavefailedinproducinganybeneficialpracticalresults.Itisnoteasytokeepthe exact high road of truth; andmen, filled with some one importantideaorobject,areveryapttorunintoexaggerationsandextremes.Uponno subject has this been more conspicuously the case than on that ofassurance; partly, perhaps, because of the influence of Luther, Calvin,and their associates. It has happened repeatedly in the history of thechurch, that pious and zealousmen, impressedwith the importance ofgettingalargershareofattentiontothesubjectofassurance,havebeenledintotheadoptionofuntenableanderroneouspositionsconcerningit.Then the champions of orthodoxy have buckled on their armour, andhave demonstrated by irrefragable logic, that these positions arecharacterizedby,itmaybe,confusion,inconsistency,anderror;andthenmen, satisfied upon this point, settle down again upon their lees, andthinknomoreoftheimportanceofcomingtoadecisiveadjustmentuponthe question as to what is their present relation to God, and what aretheirfutureprospects.Thisistheabuse,nottheuseofcontroversy.Theusesof theologicalcontroversyare, toexposeerror,and toproduceanddiffuse clear and correct opinions upon all points of doctrine. It is thechurch’s imperativedutytoaimattheseobjects,andcontroversyseemstobeas indispensablewithaviewto thesecondas to the firstof them.Butitisanevilandanabuse,whentheexposureoferrorismadetoserveasasubstitutefortherealizationandapplicationofwhat isadmittedtobetrue.Thishasrepeatedly, inthehistoryof thechurch,takenplace inregard to the subject of assurance; and this result, again, has, we arepersuaded,beenproductiveofinjuriousconsequencestotheinterestsoftruereligion,andtendedtokeepthechurchatalowpointinthescaleofdevotednessandefficiency.

MelancthonandtheTheologyoftheChurchofEngland

Thesearetwogreatworks,ofpermanentvalue,andmustberegardedasmostimportantaccessionstothetheologicalliteratureofthepresentage.Theyare,indeed,almostwhollyrepublicationsofbookswhichhavebeeninexistence fornearly threecenturies.Butmanyof thebooks ofwhichthey are composedwere so scarce as to be practically inaccessible, andthey are now brought within the reach of all, and provided fully withevery necessary literary apparatus. Bretschneider of Gotha started theidea of editing and publishing a complete Corpus Reformatorum, andbeganwithputtingforth,in1834,thefirstvolumeofthewholewritingsofMelancthon.Theworkproceededvery,slowly,onevolumeonlybeingusuallypublishedannually.Bretschneider died during its progress, andthe work has very recently been brought to a close 4 under thesuperintendenceofBindseil,whoisprofessorofphilosophyandlibrarianatHalle. The last volume, the twenty-eighth, was just ready in time toadmitofitsbeingdepositedinthefoundation-stoneofthepedestalofabrazenstatueofMelancthon,erectedatWittembergonthe19thofAprillast,thetricentenaryanniversaryofhisdeath.WedonotknowwhethertheworksofanymoreoftheReformersaretobebroughtoutinthesamestyle,andwithsimilarcompletenessandapparatus.ItwouldcertainlybeaninestimableservicetotheologicalliteraturetoproducesuchaneditionofthewholeworksoftheotherleadingReformers.ButthelengthoftimethathasbeenoccupiedwiththepublicationofMelancthonissomewhatdiscouraging.Itisagreatboon,however,tohavegivenussuchaneditionofthewholeworksofthe“PreceptorofGermany.”

The Parker Society was instituted in 1840, “for the publication of theworks of the fathers and earlywriters of theReformedEnglishChurchandinthecourseoffourteenyearsgavetotheworld,fifty-fivevolumesofmost interesting and valuable matter, including a most importantcollectionofLettersnotbeforepublished,whichhadbeenwrittenbytheEnglish Reformers to their continental correspondents, and have beenpreserved in different libraries, but especially in that of Zurich. The

ParkerSocietywasinstituted,anditsproceedingswereconducted,undertheinfluenceofdecidedlyanti-Tractarianviews.Itwasintendedtobringout the predominance of the doctrinal and evangelical element, asopposedtothesacramental,thehierarchic,andtheritualistic,amongthefounders of the Church of England, - the thoroughly anti-Popishcharacter of the whole position they assumed, - their full sympathy inspirit and feeling, and their substantial identity in opinion, with thecontinentalReformers; in short, tomake it palpable that theChurchofEngland, as settled in the time of Edward and Elizabeth, was verydifferent, in the most important respects, from what it was made byCharlesandLaud,andfromwhat theTractarianshaveagainattemptedtomakeit.TheworksoftheParkerSocietycontainagreatstorehouseofmatterofthehighestvalueandimportance,viewedbothhistoricallyandtheologically. As a whole, they thoroughly establish the true historicalpositionoftheChurchofEngland,assettledbyitsfathersandfounders;andatthesametimefurnishmaterialsamplysufficienttoprove,thatthegreat leading anti-Popish, anti-Tractarian, evangelical features of itsconstitution, in so far as they agreed with those of the continentalReformedchurches,aretrulyscripturalandprimitive.

Asimilarworkwasattempted,andtoaconsiderableextentexecuted,intheearlypartofthiscentury,bytheRev.LeghEichmond,whosepastorallabours and popular writings were so largely blessed. When it wasattempted to put down the piety and orthodoxy that grew up soremarkably in the Church of England in the end of the last and thebeginningof thepresentcentury,by theallegation, that thosewhoheldevangelical and Calvinistic views might indeed be Methodists andDissenters,butcouldnotberegardedastrueChurchmen,itwasthoughtproper to bring out the evidence, that the fathers and founders of theChurchofEngland,-thegreatbodyofthemostinfluentialdivinesofthatchurchduringthereignsofEdwardandElizabeth,-notonlyheldwhatare commonly reckoned evangelical views concerning the doctrines ofgrace, butwere chiefly decided, thoughmoderate, Calvinists.With thisviewMr. Richmond undertook, with the assistance of some friends, toedit a republication of “The Fathers of the English Church.” This workwaspublished inportions from1807 to 1812, itwas completed in eightvolumes, and exerted an extensive and wholesome influence. It is, of

course, greatly inferior in extent and completeness, and in its literaryapparatus, to theworksof theParkerSociety.But there isonepoint inwhichithastheadvantageofitssuccessor,viz.ingoingbacktothemenwho suffered for their Protestantism in the reign of Henry VIII. TheParkerSociety restricted itself,with the exception of Tyndale, toworkspublishedaftertheaccessionofEdward;whereasRichmond’s66Fathersof the English Church” gives us the works of Frith, Barnes, Lancelot,Ridley,andothers,whowereconfessorsormartyrsunderHenry,whoareoneveryaccountdeservingof thehighest respect andesteem,andwhohaveleftbehindthemunequivocalevidencethattheyhadembracedthewholesubstanceofthetheologicalviewsofAugustineandCalvin..

TheParkerSociety,byitsinvaluableseriesofpublications,maybesaidtohave finally established, beyond the possibility of answer, the truetheological views and position of the great body of the fathers andfounders of the Church of England; to have proved conclusively, thatnearlyalltheAnglicanProtestantdivineswhoflourishedduringthereignof Edward and Elizabeth were, like the Reformers of the continent,Calvinisticintheirdoctrinalviews,andthattheydidnotreckonofmuchimportance, or defend confidently and on high grounds, the points onwhich the Church of England differed, as to government and worship,from the continental churches. Men who have been trained up in thedenialofthesepositionsmaycontinuetoadheretotheiroldprejudices;butwescarcelythinkitpossiblethatanothergenerationcangrowupinthedisbelief of them,unless great care be taken to shut out everythinglikeintelligent,independent,andcandidinvestigation.

In the discussions which have taken place in regard to the theologicalviewsthatprevailedamongthefoundersof theChurchofEngland,andmight therefore be supposed to be embodied in her public symbols,Melancthonhasusuallyhadmuchprominenceassignedtohim,andhasbeen turned to great account, especially by those whowere anxious todisprovetheopinionuponthissubjectwhichwehaverepresentedasnowfully established. He has been employed, as a sort of medium ofprobation,forshowingthatthefoundersoftheChurchofEnglandwerenot Calvinists. It has been strenuously contended, that the men whoprepared and established the Anglican symbols had adopted the

theological views of Melancthon, and that his views were opposed tothose of Calvin and the other Reformers. It is in this way that therepublication of Melancthon’s works, and the series of works by theParker Society, are historically connected with each other; so that wemusttakethembothintoaccountinseekingtoformarightestimateofthe original theology of the Church of England, and especially of itsaccordance with that of the generality of the Reformers. Beforeattemptingsomeexplanationofthismatter,itmaybepropertopointoutsomewhatfullytheposition,influence,andtendenciesofMelancthon,inatheologicalpointofview.

FornearlythewholeofLuther’spubliclife,Melancthon,whowasoneofhiscolleaguesintheUniversityofWittemberg,wascloselyandintimatelyassociated with him in all his labours, and undoubtedly renderedimportant services to the cause of theReformation and the interests ofProtestanttruth.Itwouldbeeasyenoughtopointouthowmuchbenefitresulted to the church, from the influence upon each other, and upontheircommoncause,of these twomen,acting togetherwith theutmostharmonyduringa longperiod, though so strikinglydifferent fromeachother both in talents and character, both in gifts and graces. But wecannotdwelluponthis.Melancthon’sactionsandwritingsdonotaffordnearly suchabundantmaterialsasLuther’sdo, that furnishahandle tohis enemies to depreciate his character; though his friends, that is, thefriendsoftheReformation,havebeenperhapsmoreperplexedastothewayinwhichtheyoughttoestimateandrepresentit.InmanyrespectshewasaperfectcontrasttoLuther.HehadnoneofLuther’svehemenceandimpetuosity of temperament, none of his presumption and self-confidence.Hehadless,notonlythanLuther,butthanthegeneralityofmen, of irritability and pugnacity; and on all these accounts he bothincurredlesspersonalenmity,andhas leftscarcelyanymaterials intheway of violent invective, intemperate language, rash and exaggeratedstatements, tobecollectedbyhisenemies,andparadedto the injuryofhischaracter.Thereisscarcelyanythingthatgivessomuchadvantagetoaman’senemiesastheuseofintemperatelanguage,orthataffordsmorereadyandmoreplausiblematerialsforexcitingaprejudiceagainsthim.AndasMelancthondidnotindulgeinthispractice,hisreputationhasnotbeenexposedtothesamerudeassaultswhichhavebeensooftendirected

againstLuther’s.

ArecentPopishpublicationsaysthatalltheReformers,“withperhapstheexceptionofMelancthon,werecoarsehypocrites;"’whilethefactis,thatthere are much more plausible grounds for charging Melancthon withhypocrisy thananyoneof them, - ifby thatbemeantkeepingbackhisrealopinions,andactingasiftheyweredifferentfromwhattheywere.

The character ofMelancthon is one which it is indeed very difficult todescribewithfairnessandaccuracy;and,withthematerialswepossess,itwouldbe an easymatter for an ingeniousperson todraw twodifferentsketchesofhim,whichmightrepresenthiminverydifferentlights,andwhich yet might both possess not only plausibility, but a considerableportionoftruth.Bossuethasdevotedthefifthbookofhis“HistoryoftheVariations”toMelancthon,andhasexertedhisgreatskillandingenuityin exaggerating and aggravating all his weaknesses and infirmities, inputting the worst construction upon all his shortcomings in word anddeed, and thus producing the most unfavourable impression of hischaracterandmotives;andthevariousfeatureswhichhehasintroducedinto the picture, can be all supported by a certain amount of plausibleevidence.On theotherhand,Scott, inhis veryvaluable continuationof“Milner,”giveshisgeneralopinionofMelancthoninthefollowingwords:- “On the whole, after reading nearly two thousand of his letters andnumerousothersofhispapersandwritings, Iconfess thatIcannotbutregard him as one of the loveliest specimens of the grace of God everexhibitedinourfallennatureAndthoughthismaysurelyberegardedassomewhatofanexaggeratedstatement,yetwehavenodoubtthatScotthas given such explanations of what seems at first sight mostobjectionableinMelancthon’spublicconduct,especiallyinregardtotheInterim,andhas produced such abundant and satisfactorymaterials inproofofhispersonalexcellence,as toaffordconclusiveevidence toanyperson of candour and impartiality, that he was not only a man ofgenuinepietyanddecidedChristianprinciple,butthathewaseminentlydistinguishedbytheunusualdegreeinwhichhepossessedandexhibitedsome,thoughcertainlynotall,ofthegracesoftheChristiancharacter.

But our object is not to settle what Melancthon’s character was, or todescribeitandshowitforth.It israthertoindicatesomeofthe lessons

which a survey of his character andhistorymay be fitted to suggest tostudentsoftheologyandtoministersofthegospel.Andthis,wereittobedoneatlengthandindetail,wouldbeataskofconsiderabledifficulty.Itbringsusatonce into contactwithwhat is by far themost serious andimportant difficulty, in surveying the history of the church and oftheologicaldiscussions,viz.hitting the rightmedium in judgingofmenandactions,betweenbigotryon theonehandand latitudinarianismonthe other; between sanctioning, on the one side, a contentious andpugnaciousspirit,leadingmenunnecessarilytodisturbthepeaceof thechurchbyfightingforpointswhichareunimportantinthemselves,whichdivide the friends of Christ’s cause, and which there may be no veryobvious and urgent call to contend for in existing circumstances; andsanctioning,ontheother,theselfishandcowardlydisposition,combinedwithaninadequatesenseoftheclaimsoftruth,whichsooftenleadsmento decline contending when contending is a duty even at all hazards,under pretence that the matters in dispute are unimportant. Bothtendencieshavebeenveryfullyexhibitedinthehistoryofthechurch,andintheirpracticaloperationhavebeenfraughtwiththegreatestmischief.

The tendency to latitudinarian indifference is usually exhibited whenreligion is ina lowordecliningcondition.The tendencytounnecessarycontention about matters unimportant in themselves, or not cominghometoourcircumstances,andnotrequiringatthetimetobecontendedfor, is usually a symptom of a somewhat more healthy condition ofthings,-aconditioninwhichSatanscarcelyventurestoattempt, inthefirstinstance,toseducemenintolatitudinarianindifferencetotruth,butseeksrathertotakeadvantageoftheirzealfortruth,combined,ofcourse,asitisinallmen,withtheoperationofinferiormotives,toinvolvetheminunnecessarycontentionsaboutunimportantmatters, thatwastetheirstrength and energy, that lead the love ofmany to wax cold; and thustend to bring on that low and declining state of religion in which theoppositepolicyoftemptingmenintolatitudinarianindifferencetotruthmaybetriedwithsuccess,andtriedwiththemoresuccess,becauseofthenaturalreactionfromthelow-mindedandoffensivebigotrythatprecededit. On this general ground, we are persuaded that unnecessarycontentions aboutmatterswhich do not deserve, or do not at the timerequire,tobecontendedfor,isthetemptationwithwhichgoodandpious

men,occupyingpublic situations, aremost apt tobebeset, andagainstwhich, therefore, they ought most carefully to guard. Latitudinarianindifference to truthdoesnot very easily find itsway into theheartsofmen who have any real sense of divine things and of their ownresponsibilitytoGod,andwhoareraisedbyChristianprincipleabovetheinfluence of selfish and worldly motives in their grosser and morepalpable forms; whereas there are many worldly and selfish motives,neithersolowinthemselves,norsopalpableintheirordinaryoperation,as the love ofmoney,which are very apt tominglewithmen’s zeal fortruth,andtendtoinvolvethemintheguiltofbeingwantondisturbersofthepeace,orobstructorsof theunityandharmony,of the church. Andthe instanceshavealwaysbeen,andstillare,numerousanddeplorable,in which a few men, influenced probably in the main by pious andcreditable motives, but generally possessing somewhat less than theordinary share of good sense and sound judgment, andmore than theordinaryshareofvanityandself-conceit,bytakingupandfightingsomepoint, perhaps unimportant in itself, or not lying within the sphere oftheirresponsibility,havegainedforthemselvessomenotoriety,andhavesucceededindoingagooddealofmischief.

Thesereflectionsofcoursehavesuggestedthemselvesrather inthewayofcontrastwiththosewhichthecaseofMelancthonismoredirectlyandimmediatelyfittedtocallforth.Melancthonunquestionablyexhibitedtheopposite, or latitudinarian, extreme of compromising or sacrificing theclaims of truth; and it is as a warning against this danger, that hisexample ought to be chiefly and most directly applied. But we havethought it proper to make these observations, that it might not besupposed that the danger of imbibing his spirit, and of following hisexample,istheonlyoneagainstwhichmenarecalledupontoguard,orthatthereisnoriskofgoodmenbeingtemptedtoengageinunnecessarycontention, or inwanton disturbance of the peace and harmony of thechurch.ThegreaterrorandsinofMelancthonwas, that inordertoputanendtocontention,andtopromotepeaceandunion,hewastempted,uponavarietyofoccasions, todoor togivehisconsent towhatplainlyamounted to a compromise or sacrifice of scriptural doctrine, - to asinkingorabandoningofatestimonywhichhewascalledupon tobearforGod’struth.Thisappearedchiefly intheformofhisbeingwillingto

sluroverimportanttruthsinvagueandgeneralexpressions,whichmightbeadoptedbydifferentpartieswhowerenotreallyagreed;andthisnotforthepurposeofascertaininghowfarpartieswhoconfessedlydiffered,andwho stillmeant to keepup adistinct testimonyupon thepoints inwhich they differed, agreed with each other, - for this, in certaincircumstances,mightbebothlawfulandexpedient,nay,evenobligatory,-butwiththeexpressandavowedobjectof thepartiesunitingtogetheruponthefootingofabandoninganyotherpublictestimonyfortruththantheveryvagueandgeneraloneinwhichtheymighthavecometoagree.This of course was the object aimed at in all the conferences andnegotiationswhichhehadwiththeRomanists,andinallthediscussionswhichtookplacewithregardtotheInterim.Andthisisacoursethat isgenerally full of peril and beset with temptation - temptation to beunfaithful to the truth to whichmen have been enabled to attain, andwhichitisstillincumbentuponthemtoholdfastandtosetforth.

No one, indeed, would deny, as an abstract truth, that individuals andchurchesmayhave been led in providence to assert and to embody, intheirpublicprofession,truthswhich,thoughitwasatthetimeadutytocontendforthembecausetheywere"openlyimpugned,areyetnotofsomuchintrinsicimportanceastoauthorizetheirbeingmadepermanentlygrounds of division and separation; and that, therefore, it is an openquestion for individuals and churches to consider occasionally, as theymay seem called in providence, whether the maintenance of someparticulardoctrine,asapartof theirpublicprofession,shouldcontinuetopreventtheirunionwithotherswithwhom,onotherpoints,theyareagreed. But though it would be manifestly absurd to deny this as ageneralposition,itspracticalapplicationisattendedwithgreatdifficulty,andrequiresmuchcareandcaution,muchprudenceandcircumspection.The practical question in such cases will usually turnmainly upon thepoint, whether the dropping a truth from a public profession, orwrapping itup inmore vague and general terms, really amount, in thecircumstances,toavirtualdenialofit,orinvolveinanywayaderelictionofthedutywhichmenowetoit.Andwhenthequestionisbroughttothispoint, thereareusually strong temptations, coveredoverwithplausiblepretences,whicharelikelytoleadmentocompromisetruthswhichtheyoughttohavemaintained.

Melancthon, probably, would never have been prevailed upon torenounce or deny, in words, any of the doctrines of the AugsburgConfession;buthewastempted,againandagain, todowhat, inall fairandhonestconstruction,amountedtoavirtualrenunciationordenialofthem, though,nodoubt,hedidnot regard it in that light.And, indeed,thegreatlessonwhichhisconductisfittedtoimpressuponusisthis,thatincertaincombinationsofcircumstances,thereisgreatdangerthatevengood men may be tempted, from a desire of peace and unity, tocompromise the truth ofGodwhich had been committed to them, andthat against this danger, and everything that might lead to it, we arerequired most carefully to guard. There can be no doubt that anunscriptural longing for peace and unity - for there is such a thing,springingofcoursenotfrompureChristianlove,butfromtheinfusionofsome carnal andworldlymotives and influences, or frommere naturaltemperament - has, on a variety of occasions, led to corruption andcompromiseofGod’struth,onthepartbothofindividualsandchurches.Andwearethusremindedthat,insofarasconcernsthedischargeofthedutywhichweowetoGod’struth,wearesurroundedwithdangersuponthe right hand and the left, and that we have much need to examinecarefully themotives bywhichwemay be influenced in thesematters,andtoseekanddependupondivineguidanceanddirection-practising,indeed, because of the abounding difficulties of the subject, muchforbearanceinjudgingofothers,andexercisingmuchrigourinjudgingofourselves.

The grievous shortcomings of Melancthon in this matter, his being sooften led into what amounted to a virtual betrayal or compromise oftruth, have beenusually ascribed to the timidity of his disposition. Butthis is tobe takenwithsomeexplanation.There isnoreason tobelievethatMelancthondreadedanytemporalconsequencestohimself,orthathewasinfluencedbyaregardtoanyselfishorworldlyconsiderationsinthe gross and open form in which they usually present themselves tomen’sminds-inotherwords,byanythingreallyinconsistentwithmoralintegrity.Hewas afraidof the evils of contention, andhewasafraidofinjuringthecausewhichheloved;andthesemotives,goodinthemselves,but operating with unreasonable and undue force, and leading to aninadequatesenseof theclaimsofdivine truth, andof the responsibility

connectedwithitsfullandhonestmaintenance,andtendingtoexcludeaduemeasure of reliance uponGod’s providence and promises, led himinto those compromises by which he grievously injured truth anddamaged his own reputation. In this way he has become useful to thechurch, partly, at least, by exhibiting to future generations a strikingwarning,thatevengoodmen,whoareraisedabovetheinfluenceoffearand selfishness in their gross and palpable forms, may yet, throughcertainweaknessesandinfirmities,beledtodomuchinjurytothecausewhich theysincerelydesire,andwouldbewillingatallmerelypersonalsacrifices,topromote.

Luther has given a most interesting testimony to Melancthon’ssuperioritytofearandworldliness,inallmattersthatconcernedhimselfpersonally,whilehethoughthimunnecessarilyandweaklyanxiousaboutthepubliccause;andwehavealsoasimilartestimonyfromCalvin,inaletter addressed to Melancthon himself, while faithfully expostulatingwith him about his conduct in the adiaphoristic controversy - a letterwhichismosthonourabletoitsauthor,whileitdoesamplejusticetohimto whom it was addressed. “Though I am confidently persuaded youneverweredrivenby the fearofdeath to turnasideahairbreadth fromthelineofduty,yetitispossibleyourmindmaybeopentotheinfluenceoffearofadifferentdescription.Iknowhowyoushrinkfromthechargeofarepulsiverigidityandstiffness.But remember theservantofChristmustmakelightwhendutyrequiresitofhisreputation,aswellashislife.NotthatIamsolittleacquaintedwithyou,orsounjusttoyou,astothinkyou,likevaingloriousandambitiousmen,dependentuponthebreathofpopular applause. But I doubt not you are sometimes subject tocompunctions visitings of this kind: - ‘Is it the part of a wise andconsideratemantodividethechurchfortrifles?Isnotpeacesoprecious,that it deserves to be purchased at the price of some inconveniences?Whatmadnessisitsotenaciouslytoholdtoeverypunctilioastoriskthewhole substance of the gospel?’ I suspect that you were formerly toomuchaffectedbysuchsuggestionsurgeduponyoubyartfulpersons,andIcandidlystatemyapprehensionstopreventthedivinegreatnessofsoulwhich I knowbelongs to youbeingnow restrained from freely exertingitself. Iwould rather suffer alongwith youa thousanddeaths, than seeyousurviveasurrenderofthetruth.Perhapsmyfearsarevain,butyou

cannot too carefully guard against giving the wicked any occasion oftriumphthroughthefaultsofyourtemper.”

Melancthon’s weaknesses and infirmities originated partly in hisintellectual tendenciesandcapacities, thougheven these, it shouldeverbe remembered, are verymuchunder the control ofmoral causes, andare therefore comprehended within the sphere of moral responsibility.He seems to have had considerable difficulty in making up his ownopinion, clearly and decidedly, upon great questions, especially thosewhichwerefraughtwithimportantpracticalbearings;andthisappearedvery clearly in the history of his theological sentiments. Melancthonadopted,generallyspeaking,thetheologyofLuther;and,perhaps,itmaybesaidthatthechief,ifnottheonlyrealservicewhichherenderedtothecauseof soundChristian theologywas, that he explained anddefendedthe leading tenets of Luther with much dexterity, perspicuity, andelegance,abstainingcommonly fromthoseexaggeratedandparadoxicalstatements, by which Luther sometimes gave unnecessary offence andcalled forth needless prejudice, and that he thus contributed largely totheirreceptionamongtheeducatedandintelligentclasses.Thiswastheservice for which Melancthon was specially fitted; this was the workwhichheperformed;and,inperformingit,hebecametheinstrumentofconferringimportantbenefitsuponthechurch,andgreatlyadvancingthecauseofscripturaltruth.Thisstatement,however,mustberestricted inits application to the doctrines whichMelancthon continued decidedlyand permanently to hold, among those great truths which Luther waschieflyinstrumentalinrestoringtothechurch.Andtherearesomepointsin Luther’s system of theology, in regard to which it is not easy todetermine with certainty whetherMelancthon continued really to holdthemornot.There is, indeed,goodreason to fear thathisdubiousanduncertaincourse inregardtosomedoctrinalpoints, tended, in the longrun,tofavourtheintroductionintotheLutheranchurchofamuchmorelaxandunsoundsystemoftheology.Heseemstohaveattainedatlengthtosoundandscripturalviewsonthesacramentariancontroversy,andtohaveabandonedLuther’s doctrine of consubstantiation, or the corporalpresence of Christ in the Eucharist. But he never had the courage andmanliness, even after Luther’s death, to make a public and explicitdeclaration of his change of sentiment, though Calvin faithfully

expostulated with him on the impropriety of his conduct. Though,however, his opinions upon this point tended to a much closerapproximationtothestandardoftruth,thetendencyuponotherpointsofstill greater importance seems rather to have been in the oppositedirection.

Hisprincipalworks,ofamorestrictlytheologicalkind,arethe"ApologyfortheConfessionofAugsburg,”andthe“LociCommunes.”TheApologymaybejustlyregardedasaveryvaluableandsatisfactoryvindicationofthe leadingProtestantdoctrines, insofarastheyoccupiedaprominentplace in Luther’s teaching, and had been set forth in the AugsburgConfession, not directly including, however, what are usually reckonedthepeculiaritiesof the Calvinistic system; thoughLuther certainly heldthesepeculiardoctrines,andthereisnogoodreasontothinkthatheeverabandonedthem.Melancthon,sofaraswecanjudgefromhisApology,seems for the time to have been benefited rather than injured by theperilousnegotiationsinwhichhewasinvolvedatthedietofAugsburgin1530,andinwhichheshowedsuchdeplorableweakness;andthisworkcontains no evidence of what has sometimes been alleged, viz. thatLuther’scontroversywithErasmusledMelancthontomodifysomeoftheviews which he had formerly held, but which Luther continued tomaintain, as to the natural bondage or servitude of the human will inreferencetoeverythingspirituallygood.

The firsteditionofhisLociCommuneswaspublished in1521,whenhewas only twenty-four years of age. He published a second, greatlyenlarged and altered, in 1535; and again a third, with considerable,though less important, changes, in 1543; and it is the alterationsintroduced into these different editions, that have occasioned the chiefdifficultiesanddiscussionsastotherealsentimentsofMelancthonuponsomedoctrinalquestions.Inthefirsteditionhehadmaintainedtheveryhighestpredestinarian andnecessitarian tenets.He there asserted, that“since all things happened necessarily according to the divinepredestination, there is no such thing as liberty in our wills;” that theScriptures teach that all things happen necessarily;” “they take awayliberty from our wills by the necessity of predestination.” This was adoctrinewhichCalvinnevertaught,andwhichformsnonecessarypartof

the Calvinistic system, though it has been held by some Calvinistictheologians.Calvinheld,andtheWestminsterStandardsexpresslyteach,thatman,asoriginallycreated,hadalibertyofwill,whichfallenmanhasnot; andconsequently heheld, that anynecessity or bondagewhichheascribed to the human will as it is, was based, not upon man’s mererelationtoGodasadependentcreature,-notuponGod’spredestination,or His foreordaining whatsoever comes to pass, and His certainlyexecutingHisdecreesinprovidence,althoughHedoesso,-butupontheentiredepravitywhichhasbeensuperinduceduponhisnaturebythefall.ThehighdoctrinewhichMelancthonoriginallytaught,heseemstohavesoon abandoned, as it is wholly expunged from the two subsequenteditions of the Commonplaces. But there is good reason to doubt,whetherinabandoningthisdoctrine,whichCalvinneverheld,hedidnotcastoffalongwithitsomeprincipleswhichareplainlytaughtinthewordof God, and which have been generally held by Calvinistic divines.Melancthon, indeed, asserted in all the editions of his Commonplaces,andseems,uponthewhole,tohavemaintainedconsistentlythroughlife,thedoctrinewhichwasheldincommonbyLutherandCalvin,astotheentiredepravityofhumannatureandtheutter impotencyof thewillofman, as he is, to any spiritual good; although (for there is scarcelyanythingaboutMelancthoninwhichwearenotannoyedwithdeductionsand drawbacks) there are not wanting some expressions in the latereditions,which have afforded plausible grounds to' thosewho took theunscriptural side in what was called the Synergistic controversy thatdisturbedtheLutheranChurchchieflyafterhisdeath,forallegingthathewasnotwhollyopposedtosomesortofco-operationorsynergismofthehumanwillwiththegraciousagencyofGod,eveninthefirstmovementstowardsregeneration.Calvinpublished,in1543,contemporaneouslywiththe last edition ofMelancthon’s Commonplaces, his “Defensio sanse etorthodoxy doctrinse de Servitute et liberatione liumani arbitrii,” andprefixedtoitadedicationtoMelancthon,inwhichhespokeofhiminthemostfriendlyandeulogisticterms;andMelancthon,inacknowledgingit,saysthatheagreedwithCalvin’sviewsuponthesesubjects,butstillwithaqualification,which,withamanofhis temperament, sounwillingonsomeoccasions to speak out hismind fully and openly,might cover orconcealdifferencesnot immaterial. After giving a brief summary of hisopinions upon these subjects, he adds, “et quidem scio hsec cum tuis

congruere, sed sunt παχύτερα et ad usum accommodata.” We do notestimate theauthorityofMelancthonsohighlyas tobeveryanxious toget his testimony in favour of Calvin’s views; but it is only fair toMelancthon himself, to give due weight to a statement of agreementwhichiscreditabletohim,especiallyasnothinghasbeenproducedfromhisworks sufficiently explicit to prove, that he evermaterially deviatedfromscripturaltruthupontheseimportantpoints.

There is reason to fear that he abandoned, or, at least, thathebecameutterly afraid to state distinctly and explicitly, the doctrine ofpredestination, or unconditional personal election to eternal life, astaught in Scripture, and held and expounded byAugustine and Calvin.The section upon predestination in the later editions of hisCommonplaces, may be regarded, with some plausibility, either as aspecimenofgreatconfusion,orofstudiedandcarefulreticence;butinnoother light can it be justly represented. And in either case, consideringwhathehadtaughtuponthissubjectinthefirstedition,thereisreasontofearthathistimidity,histendencytoshrinkfromdecidedviewsupongreatanddifficultquestions involving importantpracticalbearings,hadledhim,inhisheart,toabandonanimportantscripturaltruth,thoughhehad not the courage openly and fully to admit and proclaim theconclusion towhich he had come, if, indeed, he had come to any verydefiniteconclusionregardingit.

With respect to the great doctrine of justification by faith through theimputed righteousness of Christ, - the establishment of which was thedistinguishingservicewhichLutherwashonouredtorendertothecauseof truth and religion, - it is but justice to Melancthon to say, that inwhatever vague, general, and ambiguous terms he might have beentempted to express it, in order to promote peace, and effect anadjustment with the Church of Home, his own actual sentimentsregardingitseemnevertohavevaried,ortohavebeenturnedasidefromscriptural truth. It was asserted, indeed, by a body of Lutherantheologiansin1569,afewyearsafterhisdeath,thatononeoccasionhehadusedthisexpression,“quodproecipuefidejustificamur,”whichwascertainly a deplorable and shameful compromise of the sola fides, forwhichLutherandhehadsolongandsostrenuouslycontended;butthen,

itisaddedinthewayofpalliation,thatthiswasdone“temporemagngeangustise etmetus,” and that he afterwards condemned it himself.Hisworks, however, steadily and consistently maintain the scripturaldoctrineof justification,andhehasrenderednounimportantservicetothecauseofChristiantruthbyhisdefenceofthisfundamentaldoctrineofthe Reformation. Bossuet, indeed, after having laboured to prove thatMelancthon’sopinionsuponmostpointswerelooseandfluctuating,heldwithnofirmnessandstability,iscandidenoughtoadmit,thattherewasone point on which he did not vary, and which formed an impassablebarrierbetweenhimandtheChurchofHome,-theonlything,indeed,asBossuet alleges,which fixedhim firmlyupon theProtestant side, - andthiswasthedoctrineofjustificationbyimputedrighteousness.

Whatever, then,mayhave beenMelancthon’s personal excellences as amanandaChristian,andwhateverhisservicestothecauseofProtestanttruth, we see about him very plain indications of tendencies, whichshouldimpressuswithasenseofthegreatdangerofimbibinghisspirit,andfollowinghisexample,inmattersconnectedwiththepublicinterestof God’s cause. He had about him weaknesses and infirmities whichtendedtoleadhim,first,toadopterroneousanddefectiveviewsofdivinetruth;andsecond,tofail indoingfull justice inthefaceofdangersanddifficulties,eventowhathestillbelievedtobetrue.Ourfirstduty,sofarasconcernsthepublicinterestofGod’scauseintheworld,istofindoutthetruthwhichissanctionedbyHisword,andthentoassert,maintain,and defend it so far as we have any call or opportunity to do so, -guardingwith special care against any course of actionwhichmight befairlyheldtoinvolve,directlyorbyimplication,arenunciationordenialof any part of it. And these are not duties in which the example ofMelancthon is fitted to affordusmuchdirect assistance, though itmayserveasabeacontowarnusagainstdangersandtemptationsthatmightlead to come short in the discharge of them. There is much aboutMelancthon, the influenceofwhich is fitted toaddgraceandbeauty toourChristianprofession,toleadustoadornthedoctrineofourGodandSaviour, and to commend it to the favourableacceptanceofothers;butthesethings,howevervaluable,areoflessintrinsicimportance,thanthegreatdutyofascertainingandholdingupthewholetruthofGod,andofcontendingearnestlyforthefaithoncedeliveredtothesaints.

The question as to the precise views of Melancthon upon some of thetheological topics towhichwehave now referred, has been pretty fullydiscussed in this country, in connectionwith the controversy as to thedoctrinalsenseoftheArticlesoftheChurchofEngland,andtheopinionsofthosewhoframedthem.Itisverycertainthat,duringthewholeofthelong reign of Elizabeth, - in many respects the most important andinteresting period in the history of the Church of England, - the greatbodyofherdivines,andofherecclesiasticalauthorities, includingeverynameofeminence tobe found inhercommunion,wereCalvinists. It isequallycertainthat,forthelasttwocenturies,adecidedmajorityofherclergy have been anti-Calvinists, while there has always been arespectableminoritywhoadhered to the theologyofAugustineand theReformers. As the Articles have continued unchanged for 300 years,while the theological views that prevailed in the church have varied somuch, this has led at different times to a great deal of discussion as towhattheArticlesreallymean,orw’ereintendedtomean,andastowhatsubscription to them may be fairly held to imply. Calvinists generallyhave contended that the natural, obvious sense of the Articles isCalvinism, - moderate Calvinism indeed, cautiously and temperatelyexpressed, - that the great body of those who prepared the Articles inEdward’stime,aswellasofthosewhoadoptedandestablishedtheminthebeginningofElizabeth’sreign,withverylittlechange,andexactlyasthey now stand, were Calvinists, - and that, on all these grounds,Calvinistsneedhavenohesitation insubscribing them.Themore timidand charitable Calvinists have been disposed to admit, that there is anopeningleftformensubscribingtheArticleswhohadnotembracedthepeculiaritiesofCalvinism;whilemany-professtheirinabilitytoconceivehowthiscanbedone,withoutputtingtheArticlestoadegreeofstrainingand torture that is unwarrantable and dangerous. The Arminians, ofcourse, labour to show, that there isnothing in theArticles toprecludethemfromsubscribingthem;andthemoreintelligent,conscientious,andmodestamongthem,scarcelyventuretotakehighergroundthanthis,-notpresumingtodenytheperfectwarrantablenessofCalvinistsenteringthe ministry of the Church of England, and undertaking all theobligationswhichthisimplies.Someofthemorerecklessamongthem,asfor instance Bishop Tomline, Archdeacon Daubeny, and ArchbishopLaurence, have ventured to assert that theArticles explicitly contradict

theCalvinisticdoctrine,andofcourseshouldshutoutallwhoadheretoit.ButthemoremoderateArminianshavegenerallyleanedrathertotheside of merely asking admission for themselves, without pretending toexclude their opponents. Bishop Burnet was preeminently qualified tojudge on such a question, both in its historical and theological aspects;andhe,thoughhimselfadecidedArminian,hascandidlyadmitted,that“the17thArticleseemstobeframedaccordingtoSt.Austin’sdoctrines,”that“itisveryprobablethatthosewhopenneditmeantthatthedecreewasabsolute;”andthat“theCalvinistshavelessoccasionforscruple(insubscribing it than the Arminians) since the Article does seem moreplainlytofavourthem.”

TheaspectsinwhichthissubjectobviouslypresentsitselfarenotsuchastoreflectmuchcreditupontheChurchofEngland.Itisaveryawkwardandpainfulthingtoseesomuchcontroversygoingonamongthemselves,astowhatthoseArticleswhichtheyhaveall subscribedreallymean,orwereintendedtomean.SomecontendthattheyteachCalvinism;others,that they teach Arminianism; others, that they teach both; and othersagain, that they teach neither, but some other scheme of doctrinedifferentfromboth.Sometimestheydenounceoneanotherasdishonestinsubscribing theArticles inasenseofwhich theydonot fairlyadmit;andsometimestheyuniteinlaudingthewisdomandmoderationoftheirchurch,inleavinganopendoorfortheadmissionofmenofdifferentandopposite opinions. It is quite possible that churches may carry to anunwise and unreasonable extent, the number and minuteness of thedoctrinaldefinitionswhichtheyembodyintheirsymbolicalbooks,andtowhichtheyrequireconformity.ButthereisnogroundwhatevertobelievethattheframersoftheEnglishArticleswereintheleastinfluencedbyanysuchwiseandmoderateviewsashavebeensometimesascribedtothem;the Articles were expressly and avowedly intended “for avoidingdiversitiesofopinions,andfortheestablishingofconsenttouchingtruereligion;” and a considerable number of them are occupiedwith topicswhicharecomparativelyunimportantinageneralsummaryofChristiandoctrine.

The way in which the controversy has been conducted upon the anti-Calvinistic side, has certainly not been creditable tomost of thosewho

havetakenpartinit.Ingeneral,thosewhohavedeniedtheCalvinismoftheEnglishArticleshavedisplayedalowstandard,bothofknowledgeofthe subject and of fair dealing. The study of systematic theology hasalwaysbeengreatlyneglectedintheChurchofEngland,partly,perhaps,becauseoftheequivocalcharacterofthetheologyofherArticles,andofthe earnest desire of many of her clergy to make her theology moreequivocalthanitis;andwithoutathoroughacquaintancewithsystematictheology,bothinitssubstanceanditshistory,menareveryincompetenttodiscussthequestions,whethertheArticlesareCalvinisticorArminian,or both, or neither. Such questions cannot of course be intelligently orsatisfactorily handled, except bymenwho thoroughly understandwhatCalvinism is, and what Arminianism is; and this cannot be attainedwithout a real familiarity with the works of the ablest men who havediscussed these subjects onboth sides, and at different periods.Amanmay be an Arminian though he is not aware of it, and even honestly,thoughignorantly,deniesit;andthisignoranceandconfusionastowhatCalvinismis,andastowhatArminianismisasopposedtoit,areplainlyexhibitedbythelateMr.StanleyFaber,andbyMrE.HaroldBrowne,thepresentNorrisian Professor ofDivinity at Cambridge. There is, indeed,goodreasontobelieve,thatthereprevailsamongtheclergyoftheChurchofEngland,agreatwantofintelligentacquaintanceevenwiththestatusquestionisinthecontroversybetweentheCalvinistsandtheArminians.Wewouldnothesitatetoundertaketoprove,thatthesamechargemightbeestablishedagainstalmostallwhohaveatanytimeprofessedtoshowthattheEnglishArticlesarenotCalvinistic.Wearenot,indeed,inclinedtospeakwithmuchseverityofthosewhomerely,plead, thatwhiletheycannot see satisfactory grounds for embracing thepeculiar doctrines ofCalvinism,they,atthesametime,donotseethatthesedoctrinesaresoplainlyandexplicitlysetforthintheArticles,astomakeitimpossibleforthem to subscribe them. This ground may be maintained withconsiderable plausibility, and when maintained without any palpableviolations of integrity and propriety, would not exclude its supportersfromafairclaimtorespect.ButwecannotmakethesameadmissioninregardtothosemenwhoboldlyaverthattheArticlesshutoutCalvinism,andthattheycannotbehonestlysubscribedbyCalvinists.

Before proceeding to make some observations upon the subject of the

theologyoftheChurchofEngland,itmaybepropertogivesomenoticesoftheliteratureofthequestion,oroftheleadingfeaturesinthehistoryoftheveryinterestingcontroversialdiscussionswhichhavebeencarriedonregardingit.

ThatduringthewholereignofElizabeth,andthegreaterpartof thatofJames,Calvinismprevailedalmostuniversallyamongthemenofabilityandlearning,ofstationandinfluence,intheChurchofEngland,andwasthengenerallyregardedasbeingmostfullyaccordantwithitsauthorizedsymbols,hasbeenincontrovertiblyestablished,byevidencemultifariousinkindandsuperabundantindegree.ThisisprovedbythewholehistoryoftheproceedingsconnectedwiththeLambethArticlesandthecasesofBaroandBarretin1595,theIrishArticlesin1615,andtheSynodofDortin1618-19.Thediscussionofthistopicasasubjectofpubliccontroversy,seems to have commenced with the proceedings in the case of Dr.Richard Montague, one of the leading agents of Archbishop Laud, inintroducingTractarianismandArminianism.Hisworkentitled“Appello-Caesarem” was published in 1625. It was intended to defend himselfagainst the charge, founded upon a previous work, of leaning towardsArminianism andPopery; and it attempted to show that the Arminianandsemi-Popishviewsobjectedto,werenotcontradictedbyanythingintheauthorizedformulariesofthechurch.TheHouseofCommons,whichatthattimewasverytheologicalandverysoundinitstheology,passedavote condemning his Appeal, as tending to bring in Popery andArminianism, inopposition to thereligionby lawestablished.Butwhatwasofmoreimportancesofarastheinterestsoftruthareconcerned,theworkwasformallyandelaboratelyansweredbyDr.GeorgeCarleton,thenBishopofChichester,whohadbeen a few years before the head of theEnglishdelegatessenttotheSynodofDort,andhadprovedhimselffullyworthyofsohonourableaposition.Dr.Carleton’sworkwaspublishedin1626,andisentitled“ExaminationofthosethingswhereintheauthorofthelateAppealtakeththedoctrinesofthePelagiansandArminianstobethedoctrinesoftheChurchofEngland.”Theworkisoneofmuchinterestand value, both from its author and the position it occupies in thecontroversy. It is remarkable, among other things, for the distinctassertion, that there had been, up till that time, no real difference indoctrinal matters between the Conformists and the Puritans. Carleton

died in1628,and throughLaud’s influenceMontaguewasappointed tosucceedhimintheseeofChichester.

Arminianism continued to advance, and, in 1630, Prynne, the famouslawyer,publishedhis“Anti-Arminianism,ortheChurchofEngland’soldantithesistonewArminianism.”Thisisavastcollectionofdocumentaryevidence toprove, that from the earliest times, and especially since thecommencement of the Reformation in the time of Henry VIII., theChurchofEnglandhadbeendecidedlyopposedtoArminianviews,andhadprofessedthegreatprinciplesofAugustinianorCalvinisticdoctrine.ThisworkgavemortaloffencetoLaudandhisfaction,whowerenowall-powerful,andwasunderstoodtobetheprincipalcauseofthebarbarouspunishmentwhichwassoonafterwardsinflicteduponPrynne,thoughhisHistriomastixwasmadethepretenceforit.Itisaremarkableinstanceofprovidential retribution, that Prynne became ultimately the chiefinstrumentofaccomplishing“Canterbury’sdoom,”ashecalledoneofhisbooksagainstLaud,andbringinghimtothescaffold.Prynnewasamanofgreatresearchandindustry,aswellasthoroughintegrity.Buthehadnot a well-balanced or discriminating mind. He had a much greaterpower of swallowing than of digesting. He was in the habit rather ofnumbering than weighing his proofs and testimonies. His “Anti-Arminianism,” therefore, like his other works, contains a prodigiousstorehouse ofmaterials in theway of quotations and references,muchmore than sufficient in the gross to establish his leading position, butrequiringsomecautionandsiftingintheparticularapplicationofthem.Hedeclares that up till the timewhenhewrote he couldmention onlyfivemenwhohadcomeforwardpubliclytodefendArminianism.ThesewereBarret andBaro, -whosecasesweremixedupwith thehistoryofthe Lambeth Articles, and the proceedings against whom sufficientlyproved that, in the last decade of the sixteenth century, the wholelearning and influence of the Church of England were Calvinistic, -Thompson, who, he says, “was a dissolute, ebrious, profane, luxuriousEnglish-Dutchman,” and who, in 1614, published a treatise against theperseverance of the saints, which was answered by Dr. Hobert Abbot,BishopofSalisbury,-Montague,alreadymentioned,successivelyBishopofChichesterandNorwich,-andDr.ThomasJackson,amanofamuchhigherclass thananyof them.Prynne’s testimoniescertainly require to

bewinnowed,butwehavenodoubtthathehasproducedandindicatedmaterials,which,takenincumulo,areamplysufficienttoprovetentimesover, thatduring thewholecentury interveningbetween the timewhenhewroteandthefirstdawningoftheReformationunderHenryVIII.,theprevailingcurrentofopinionwithallcompetentjudgesamongtheclergyoftheChurchofEnglandwasCalvinistic,asopposedtoArminian,-andthat the fundamental principles of Calvinism, though cautiously andtemperately expressed, were embodied, and were intended to beembodied,inthechurch’sauthorizedformularies.

Thenextworkintheorderoftimeisthegreatstorehouseofmaterialsonthe Arminian side. It is by Dr. Peter Heylin, a worshipper and tool ofLaud,whoselifehewrote,underthedesignationofCyprianusAnglicus.Heylin’sworkwaspublished in1659,and isentitled, “HistoriaQuinqu-Articularis, or aDeclarationof the Judgment of theWesternChurches,andmoreparticularlyoftheChurchofEngland,inthefivecontrovertedpoints reproached in these last times by the name of Arminianism.” Itcontains an elaborate discussion ofmost of thematerials bearinguponthe question, as to the original theology of the Protestant Church ofEngland. The materials are discussed and applied with a good deal ofingenuity andboldness, and thework is inmany respectswell fitted tomakeanimpression,becauseofitsauthor’sapparentlyfullknowledgeofthe subject, and the confidence with which he takes up his positions.Heylin had very much the same intellectual defects as Prynne, and inaddition, we fear, he laboured under more serious infirmities as athorough and unscrupulous partisan.He had read a great deal, but hewas very imperfectly acquainted with theology properly so called, andArchbishopUsher once said of him that he should be sent to learn hiscatechism.Hehasbeenconvictedofhavingexhibited in thisand inhisotherworksagreatdealofblunderingandmisrepresentation.Socertainandnotoriousisthis,thatArchdeaconBlackburne,inthe“Confessional,”didnothesitatetodescribehimas“aman lost toallsenseof truthandmodestywhenevertheinterestsorclaimso£thechurchcameinquestionandthatthelateDrM‘Crie,afterexposingastrangedisplayofignorancemade by Bishop Coplestone, adds, “A modern writer who could trustHeylinasanauthority,deservedtofallintosuchridiculousblunders.”

This work of Heylin was answered by Henry Hickman, a man of verysuperior learning and ability, and one of the ministers ejected by theBartholomewActof1662.Hisreplywaspublishedin1673,andentitled,“Historia Quinqu-Articularis Exar-ticulata, or Animadversiones on DrHeylin’s Quinquarticular History.” This work of Hickman’s is a verymasterly and effective exposure ofHeylin’s incompetency, especially inthemoretheologicaldepartmentsoftheargument,anditcontainswithinashortcompassa largeamountofaccurateandimportant information,embodiedinaveryterseandvigorous,thoughunpolished,style.ItoughttohavedeprivedHeylinofallrespectandinfluence,andmusthavedoneso if it had been read. But it does not seem to have ever attained anyconsiderable circulation, and, in consequence, the great body of theEnglishclergycontinued,likeCoplestone,tobelieveHeylin,andto“trustinhimasanauthority.”

ThenextoccasionOnwhichthequestionoftheCalvinismoftheEnglishArticleswasdiscussed,waswhenitwasbrought,somewhatincidentally,into the Arian controversy. In 1721 Dr Waterland published a workentitled, “TheCase ofArian Subscription considered,” in answer to theattemptwhichhadbeenmadebyDrSamuelClarke toshow, that thosewho, likehimself,denied the trueandproperdivinityof theSon,couldhonestlyassenttotheformulariesofthechurch.DrSykes,whowasoneofClarke’s leading supporters, andwho showedhimself ever readyandwillingtodefendanybadcausethatneededsupport,publishedareplytothis, called, “The Case of Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articlesconsidered.”Inthispamphlethelaiddowntheposition,thattheArticlesare,andwereintendedbytheircompilerstobe,Calvinistic;andthatDrClarkeandhis friendscouldasclearlyprove thatArianscouldhonestlysubscribe them, as Dr Waterland and his friends could prove thatArminians could do so. This was rather galling as an argumentum adhominem,andWaterlandpublisheda“SupplementtotheCaseofArianSubscription,” in which he attempted to answer this and the otherargumentsofSykes,whileSykesrejoinedinaReplytotheSupplement.Waterland certainly has not made much of the point raised by Sykesabout theCalvinismof theArticles;hehasdone littlemore thangiveabriefsummaryof thematerialscollectedbyHeylin;and thiswasratherlow work for a man of Waterland’s high and well-merited reputation.

Sykes,whowasnomoreaCalvinistthanaTrinitarian,hascertainlynotproved thatanAriansubscriber canmakeoutasplausiblea caseasanArminian one; but he has proved, and in this he has defeated hisantagonist,thatthefathersandfoundersoftheChurchofEnglandwereCalvinists, and intended the Articles to be taken in a Calvinistic sense.Waterland,indeed,indiscussingthispoint,givesplainindicationsofnotknowingwell what to say, orwhere to plant his foot.He sets outwithboldlyaverring-“Formyownpart,Ithinkithasbeenabundantlyprovedthat our Articles, Liturgy, etc., are not Calvinistical.” But after giving asummaryofthisabundantproof,andhavinghadtofacethe17thArticle,he winds up with this very lame and impotent conclusion - “thepresumptionratherliesagainstCalvinism;”“IamratherofopinionthattheArticleleanstotheanti-Calvinianpersuasion.”

This is not very encouraging, but most who have since discussed thissubject on the same sidehave referred to and commendedWaterland’spamphlet,apparentlyforthepurposeofgivingtheircausetheprestigeofhis well-earned reputation for great ability and learning, and forinvaluableservicestotruthindefendingtheproperandsupremedivinityofourSaviour.

About fifty years after this, a variety of causes led to the renewal ofdiscussions concerning themeaning and object of the English Articles,suchas, thepublicationof“Blackburne’sConfessional,” advocatingveryloose and unsound views on the general subject of creeds andconfessions, but at the same time maintaining that Sykes hadconclusivelyestablishedagainstWaterlandtheCalvinismoftheArticles,-theapplicationtoParliament in1772bymanyclergymentobereleasedfrom the obligations of subscription, - and the expulsion of the“Methodist”studentsfromOxford.SirRichardHill,brotherofRowland,defended the expelled students, by showing that their opinions ondoctrinalsubjectswerethesameasthoseofthefoundersoftheChurchofEngland, in a pamphlet entitled, “Pietas Oxoniensis;” and when DrNowell published a reply to this, it called forth, in 1769, fromToplady,then a young man, but of very fine talents and of great promise, acrushing answer, entitled, “TheChurch ofEngland vindicated from thecharge of Arminianism, and the case of Arminian subscription

particularly considered.” This he afterwards expanded into a regulartreatise,whichhepublished in1774, in twovolumes,entitled, “HistoricProofoftheDoctrinalCalvinismoftheChurchofEngland.”Thisworkishighly creditable to his talents and learning, and is perhaps, upon thewhole,themostcompleteandsatisfactorybookwehave,devotedtothissubject.He isperfectly conclusive indiscussingall themain topics thatbearupon thesettlementof thequestion,buthegets ratherbeyondhisdepth in dealing with what he calls the Arminianism of the Church ofRome,asubjectwithwhichhewasevidentlyacquaintedveryimperfectly.

Theonlyworkofthatperiod,ontheotherside,whichhasattainedtoanystanding,or isnowknown, isDrWinchester’s“Dissertationonthe17thArticle,” published in 1773, a temperate and sensible work, though notdisplayingmucheitherofstrengthoringenuityinmanagingthecause.Itwas republished in 1803, both separately and in the “Churchman’sRemembrancer.”

We have already had occasion to refer to the revival of the discussionaboutthehistoricCalvinismoftheChurchofEngland,intheendofthelastcenturyandthebeginningofthepresent,inconsequenceofthegreatadvancewhichthentookplaceinChristianpietyandorthodoxy.Inreplytothenumerousandvirulentattacksthenmadeontheevangelicalclergy,MrOvertonpublished,in1801,avolumeentitled,“TheTrueChurchmanascertained, or an Apology for those of the Regular Clergy of theEstablishmentwhoaresometimescalledEvangelicalMinisters.”This isanableandelaboratework,andcertainlyestablishessatisfactorily, thatthose of the evangelical clergy who were moderate Calvinists held thesame doctrinal views as the fathers and founders of the Church ofEngland.In1803,ArchdeaconDaubeny,someofwhosestatementsinhisprevious publications had been refuted by Overton, produced a bulkyreplytothe“TrueChurchman,”inanoctavovolumeofnearly500pages,towhichhegaveatitle,framedafteramodelwhichwascommonenoughamong the older controversialists, but which modern civilization hasexploded.Itwascalled,“VindiciaeEcclesiseAnglicanae,inwhichsomeofthe false reasonings, incorrect statements, and palpablemisrepresentations, in a publication entitled, etc., are pointed out.”Overton’s “True Churchman” is singularly free from “false reasonings,

incorrectstatements,andpalpablemisrepresentations;”whileDaubeny’sVindiciaesuperaboundsinthesebeauties,aswasconclusivelyprovedintwoworkspublished in 1805, theone entitled, “CandidExaminationofDaubeny’sVindiciae,”republishedfromtheChristianObserver,andtheotherbyMrOverton,entitled,“FourLetterstotheEditoroftheChristianObserver.”

In1802,apamphletwaspublished,chieflyoccasionedbyOverton’swork,entitled, “The Articles of the Church of England proved not to beCalvinistic,” by Dr Kipling, Dean of Peterborough, and Deputy RegiusProfessorofDivinityintheUniversityofCambridge.Thisproductionhasbeenveryhighlycommended,butitis,wethink,asingularlypooraffair.Itsleadingfeatureistheadductionofstatementsandquotationsasanti-Calvinistic,whichnointelligentCalvinistwouldhesitatetoadopt.Asthisisreallyaprominentcharacteristicofmostoftheworksonthesameside,itmaybepropertosignalizeit,byquotingOverton’sdescriptionofitasexhibited by Kipling, and in contrast with the applausewithwhich hisworkwasreceived.

“No reasoning can be more futile than that of Dr Kipling upon thissubject. It is capable of the fullest demonstration, that, by the sameprocess, the learned Deanmight prove the complete anti-Calvinism ofCalvin himself. It is a fact, which nothing but the most perfectdisingenuityorignoranceofthesubjectcancontrovert,thatnine-tenthsat least of the arguments extracted from our Articles and Liturgy, bywhichtheDeanendeavourstoprovetheutterrepugnancyoftheseformsto the theology of Calvin, may also be extracted from Calvin’s ownwritings. Yet this reasoning of Dr Kipling is continually represented as‘demonstrativeandincontrovertible;’aspossessing‘uncommonmerit;’as‘invincible’andnotlessclearthan‘mathematicaldemonstrationitself;’ashaving ‘proved to demonstration’ the point he had to establish; as‘decisive’ on the question, and such as ought to ‘set it at rest for ever.’These verdicts, too, the reader will perceive, are pronounced by theprofessed guardians of truth and religion, by writers who highly extoleachotheraslearneddivines!”

The“BamptonLecture”for1804waspreachedbyDrRichardLaurence,thenRegiusProfessorofHebrew inOxford,andafterwardsArchbishop

ofCashel,anditisentitled,“AnAttempttoillustratethoseArticlesoftheChurch of England which the Calvinists improperly consider asCalvinistic.”DrLaurencewasamanofsuperior learningandability;hehasmade some valuable contributions to our theological literature; his“Bampton Lecture” contains a great deal of interesting and valuablematter, it has been republished repeatedly - the fourth and last editionhavingcomeout in1853-andit isnowjustlyregardedasthestandardworkontheArminianside.Onthesegroundsitwillbeneedfulforustonoticeitmorefully.Atpresentwemerelymentionitinitschronologicalorder.

The controversy was renewed by the publication, in 1811, of BishopTomline’s well-known work, “The Refutation of Calvinism.” He hadgiven,inapreviouswork,“ElementsofChristianTheology,”thecommonArminianinterpretationoftheArticles;andinthe“Refutation”hegivesfully the argument against Calvinism, not only from Scripture and theFathers, but also from the history and formularies of the Church ofEngland.Thisworkwasatonetimeprodigiouslycommended.Indeed,wehavearecollectionofhavingoncelookedintoabookbyanEpiscopalianclergyman,inwhichitwasextolledasoneamongthefourorfivegreatestworks (“Butler’s Analogy” being mentioned as one) the Church ofEngland has produced. The book has long since found its level, and isnow regarded as a very mediocre production, displaying considerablediligenceinthecollectionofmaterials,butanutterwanteitherofabilityoroffairnessintheapplicationofthem.Scott’s“Remarks”uponitareafull and conclusive, though from the plan pursued of following hisopponentstepbystep,asomewhattediousexposureofthe“Refutation;”andtheyestablishthegreatsuperiority,inallrespects,oftherectoroverhisbishop,oftheinmateofthehumbleparsonageofAstonSandfordovertheoccupantofthevenerablepalaceofBuckden.

The “Inquiry into theDoctrines of the Reformation, and of theUnitedChurch of England and Ireland, respecting the ruin and recovery ofMankind,”published in1814,by theRev.W.B.MathiasofDublin, is avaluablecompilation,consistingalmostwhollyofextracts,andturningtogood,account,sofarasthe“UnitedChurch”isconcerned,thewritingsofits fathers and founders, which had been made accessible by Leigh

Richmond’sworkformerlyreferredto.

This bringsusdown to thepresentday,when thediscussion about thetheological views of the founders and the formularies of the Church ofEngland has been renewed, and in a somewhat different aspect, inconnectionwiththecontroversyaboutbaptismalregeneration.DrGoode,nowDeanofRipon,towhosegreatlearningandabilityasanopponentofTractarianism and a defender of evangelical truth, we have repeatedlyborne a cordial testimony, published, in 1849, a most valuable andimportantworkonthissubject,entitled,“TheDoctrineoftheChurchofEnglandas to theEffectsofBaptism in the caseof Infants,” - thegreatgeneral object of which was to show, that those who rejected theTractarian doctrine of baptismal regeneration might conscientiouslyundertakeall theobligationsconnectedwiththeministryof thechurch,including of course the use of the baptismal service. One leadingargumentwhichheemploys,inordertoestablishthisgeneralposition,isin substance this: No one who embraces the Calvinistic system oftheologycanconsistentlybelievetheHighChurchdoctrineofbaptismalregeneration;thegreatbodyofthefathersandfoundersoftheChurchofEngland,themenwhopreparedherformularies,herArticlesandLiturgy,in the reignofEdward,andestablished them,withscarcelyanychangeandalmostpreciselyaswenowhavethem,inthereignofElizabeth,wereCalvinists; and, consequently, there can be no inconsistency between areceptionoftheseformulariesandarejectionof theTractariandoctrineofbaptismalregeneration.

Thedifferentpositionswhichgotomakeupthisargument,DrGoodehasdiscussed with great talent and erudition. We are not called upon toexpress anopinionupon thequestion,whetherhehas fully establishedhisgeneralconclusion.Wehavenot,indeed,examinedthewholematterwithsufficientcare,toentitleustopronounceajudgmentuponthemainquestion involved. But we have no doubt that he has conclusivelyestablished the position, that the great body of the leading Englishdivines, both during the short reign of Edward and the long reign ofElizabeth,wereCalvinists,andofcoursewouldnotadmitanything intothe public formularies of the church which was inconsistent withCalvinism.Totheproofofthatpositionhehasdevotedthethirdchapter

of his work, consisting of above one hundred pages, “On the school oftheologytowhichourReformersandearlydivinesbelonged.”Hehasnotcontentedhimself, asmost controversialists on suchquestionsdo,withmerely borrowing the materials provided by his predecessors, but hassubjected the whole of the old materials to a fresh and independentexamination;andhasalso turnedtogoodaccountsomevery importantnewmaterials, furnishedby the “ZurichLetters,” now for the first timepublishedbytheParkerSociety.HehasnotspentmuchtimeinrefutingtheattemptsoftheArminianstoestablishtheirposition.Heisoccupiedmainlywithadducingthedirectpositiveevidenceontheotherside;andthatevidenceissuchastobeplainlyandpalpablyunanswerable.Withallcompetentandfair-mindedmen,itmustnowbeheldtobesettled,thattheReformersandtheearlydivinesoftheChurchofEnglandbelongedtotheCalvinistic schoolof theology. It follows from this that therecanbenothinginherformularieswhichdoesnotadmit,atleast,ofaCalvinisticinterpretation;while itmaystillbeaquestion,towhatextenttheyhaveintroduced their Calvinism into the formularies, and thus in a senseimposedituponthechurch.

ArchdeaconWilberforce,whohadnot then joined theChurchofRome,publishedananswertoDr.Goode’sbook,underthetitleof“TheDoctrineof Holy Baptism,” displaying, as all his works do, very considerablelearning and ingenuity. He does not give much prominence to theconsideration of the question, whether the founders of the Church ofEngland were Calvinists or not. He in a great measure evades thisquestion,andconsidersithisbestpolicytorestdirectlyandimmediatelyupon the position, that the formularies, as they stand, do clearly andcertainlyteachbaptismalregeneration-teachitsoclearlyandcertainly,thatnoindirectorcollateralevidencecanaffecttheproofofthisdoctrinebeing taught in them. He asserts, indeed, that the formularies of theChurchofEnglandwerenotdrawnupbyCalvinists;butfortheproofofthis, so far as the Articles are concerned, he just refers to Laurence’s“Bampton Lectures and in regard to the mass of conclusive evidenceadducedbyDr.Goodeontheotherside,hecanscarcelybesaideventolook at it. He protests “against the injustice with which Goode treatsArchbishop Laurence’ and opposes to his “hostile judgment” a higheulogium pronounced upon the “Bampton Lectures” by Mr. Stanley

Faber,inhisworkon“PrimitiveElection.”MrFaberhasnotshownsuchadiscriminatingjudgment,orsuchafullandcomprehensiveknowledgeofthebearingsandrelationsofthesubjectofwhichhetreats,astoentitlehisopinion,uponanytopicinvolvedinthediscussion,tomuchrespect.But still Laurencewas aman of very superior learning and ability.His“Bampton Lecture” is themost learned and elaborate attempt that haseverbeenmadetoshowthattheArticlesoftheChurchofEnglandarenotCalvinistic,anditseemstobenowgenerallyregardedbytheArminiansas their standard defence. In addition to the commendations of it byFaber andWilberforce, it is represented as satisfactory and conclusive,along withWinchester’s Dissertation on the 17th Article, by one quiteentitled to be ranked with thesemen, the late Archdeacon Hardwicke,whose striking and premature death, a year or two ago, among thePyrenees, was universally regarded as a great loss to our theologicalliterature.Ontheseaccounts itwillbeproper togivea somewhat fullernotice of Laurence’s work; and this will lead us into themerits of thesubject.

The injustice with which Wilberforce alleges that Goode treatedLaurence,isbroughtoutinthefollowingpassage:-

“Icannotbutentermyhumbleprotestagainsttheremarkablepartialityand superficial character of the work above referred to (ArchbishopLaurence’s ‘BamptonLectures’),andconsequently theerroneousnatureof theview itgivesof thesubjectofwhich it treats;andI trust that thefewfactsIamabouttomentionwillbesufficienttoputthereaderonhisguardagainstitsstatements.”

Wegiveonlyonespecimenof the factsbywhichGoodehasestablishedthetruthofthischarge:-

“And here, again, I must notice the remarkable partiality displayed byArchbishopLaurenceinhis‘BamptonLectures.’FromaperusaloftheseLectures, onemight suppose thatMelancthon was the only one of theforeignReformersinvitedtothiscountrybyCranmer,andtheinvitationsaddressedtohimareverycarefullyrecorded;whilethefactis,that,withthis single exception, almost all, if not all, who were invited to thiscountrybyCranmer, toaidhimin theworkofreformation,wereof the

Reformedchurches,andthereforeofZwinglianorCalvinisticviews.”

In addition to the facts adduced by Goode, we may mention somespecimens of Laurence’s mode of discussing this subject, which willconvincemostmen that, towhatever cause it is to be ascribed, hewasincapable of exercising discrimination, or of manifesting ordinaryfairness,whenhehadCalvinorCalvinismtodealwith.

HethusannounceshisgeneralopinionofCalvin,whichwillprobablybereceivedbymostpeopleasanovelty: - ‘Noman,perhaps,wasever lessscrupulous in theadoptionof general expressions,butperhapsnomaneveradoptedthemwithmorementalreservations,thanCalvin.”Themanwhocouldbelieveandassertthiswouldassuredlyscrupleatnothing.

“‘Horribilequidemdecretumfateor!’werethepreciseexpressionswhichhe used when shuddering at 'his own favourite idea of irrespectivereprobation.”ThequotingCalvin’swords, inorder toconvey toEnglishreaderstheideathatheconfessedthathisdoctrineconcerningthedivinedecreewashorrible,whenitisnotoriousandunquestionablethatheonlyintendedtorepresentitasawful,fittedtocallforthdeepemotionsofaweandsolemnity,asaninscrutableandalarmingmystery,justashespeaksof the “horribilisDeimajestas,”|| ismerelyan instanceof theuniversalunfairness exhibited by the Anglican Arminians. There is not a manamongthem,fromthehighesttothe lowest,whohasbeenabletodenyhimself the pleasure and the triumph of quoting Calvin’s allegedconfessionaboutthe“horribledecree.”ThusfarLaurencestandsonthesamelevelwithacrowdofassociates-defenditnumerus;butinthewayinwhichhehasbroughtoutthispointthereisaspecialunfairness,whichhas not often been equalled. “Irrespective reprobation” (an expressionwhichof itself conveys amisrepresentation) isnot the subject ofwhichCalvin is speaking.He is treating only of the implication of the humanrace in the penal consequences of Adam’s first sin, and of the purposeandagencyofGodinrelationtothefallanditsresults.It issurelytimethatanti-Calvinists,whoprofessanyregardfortruthordecency,shoulddropthistopicofthe“horribledecree,”afterhavingmadeitdodutyforacoupleofcenturies.

InhisdestitutionofsolidprooftoshowthatthecompilersoftheEnglish

ArticlesdidnotembracethetheologicalviewsofCalvin,hehasrecoursetothefollowingcuriouspieceofevidence:-“IfCalvin’ssystemhadbeenadoptedbyourReformers,neversurelywouldtheyhaveinsertedamongourArticlesthatofChrist’sdescent intohell,whichseemstohavebeendirectly levelled against oneofhispeculiaropinions, andonewhichhethoughtimportant.”WhatconnectiontherecanbebetweenthegroundsforbelievingeitherthattheEnglishReformershad,orthattheyhadnot,adoptedCalvin’s systemof theology, and themode inwhich they dealtwithatopicsoirrelevantandsounimportant,comparatively,asChrist’sallegeddescentintohell, itwouldpuzzlemostmenofcommonsensetodiscover.But,besides,thestatementofLaurenceaboutthedescentintohell, in its relation to Calvin’s opinions, is quite inconsistent with thenotorious facts of the case. The English Article (the 3d) is simply anadoptionof theArticle inwhat is commonly called theApostles’Creed,which is just the creedof theRomanChurch.This topic of thedescentintohelldidnotfinditswayintotheRomancreedtill thefifthcentury,and it certainly ought never to have been introduced into any creed orconfession.WhattemptedthecompilersoftheEnglishArticlestodevoteoneofthemtothistopicitisnoteasytounderstand,eventhoughtherewere some at the time who denied it. But Laurence’s notion, that it is“directly levelled against one of Calvin’s peculiar opinions,” is simplypreposterous.ItisperfectlynotoriousthatCalvinrejoicedandexultedinthe article in the creed about the descent into hell, as explicitlysanctioning“oneofhispeculiaropinionsandheevenseems tohave sofar yielded to a common infirmity of human nature, as to have beendisposed,becauseofitscontainingthisarticle,tothinkmorefavourablyof the claim put forth by the Church of Home, on its behalf, to anapostolicorigin.Laurence takesgreatpains tomakeout, asaffording apresumptionagainst theEnglishArticlesbeingCalvinistic, that in1553,whentheywerefirstestablished,CalvinwasnotmuchknowninEngland,-thathispeculiartheologicalsystemhadnotthenattractedmuchnotice,and was not generally received even in the continental Reformedchurches; and Faber has followed him in this course of argument. Thealleged factsaregreatlyOverstated;and though theywereall true, theywould not furnish even a presumption in favour of the conclusiondeduced fromthem.Calvinhad fully set forthhis systemoftheology inthefirsteditionofhis“Institutes”in1536;andfromthetimeofhisreturn

toGenevain1541,heoccupiedapositionofprominenceandinfluenceinthe Protestant world, certainly inferior to that of no other man,instructingthechurcheseverywherebyhiswritings,andguidingthembyhiscounsels.Cranmerhadrepeatedlysoughthisadvice,andurgedhimtocorrespond with King Edward. In the beginning of 1552, beforeproceeding to draw up Articles for the Church of England, Cranmer’smindwasmuchsetuponthepreparationofageneralconfessionoffaithfor the Protestant churches, and with this view he invited to EnglandCalvin, Bullinger, and 'Melancthon. Calvin’s great work, the ConsensusGenevensis,orTreatisedeEternaDeiPredestinatione,waspublishedin1551,orveryearlyin1552;andwehavedirectandexplicitevidencethatitdidexertaninfluenceonthedeliberationsandconsultationswhichweregoing on in England in the course of that year, in connectionwith thepreparation of theArticles. It is but fair tomention, that this evidencewasunknowntoLaurence,havingbeenpublishedforthefirsttimebytheParkerSociety in 1846, in the third seriesof the “ZurichLetters”but itaffords a good illustration of the truth, that a just cause is alwaysadvancedbytheprogressofresearchanddiscovery.ItisfoundinaletterofTraheron,DeanofChichesterandLibrariantoKingEdward,writtentoBullingerinSeptember1552,whiletheArticleswereunderconsideration,andundergoingtherevisionofvariousparties,civilandecclesiastical,butnotyetpublished:-

“Thegreaternumberamongus,ofwhomIownmyselftobeone,embracetheopinionofJohnCalvin,asbeingperspicuousandmostagreeabletoHolyScripture.AndwetrulythankGod,thatthatexcellenttreatiseoftheverylearnedandexcellentJohnCalvin,againstPighiusandoneGeorgiusSiculus,shouldhavecomeforthattheverytimewhenthequestionbegantobeagitatedamongus; forwe confess thathehas thrownmuch lightupon the subject, or rather so handled it, as thatwehavenever beforeseenanythingmorelearnedormoreplain.”

Wehave saidenough,we think, to show that,on thisquestion at least,Archbishop Laurence is entitled to no deference whatever; and that inpointofaccuracyofstatementandsolidityofargument,hehassunk tothe level of the generality of thosewho, fromHeylin downwards, haveundertakenthedefenceofthesamecause.

But it isquitepossible,notwithstandingallwehaveseen, that thebookmay contain sufficient materials to prove that the Articles are notCalvinistic. The leading feature of the book- - determining, however,rathertheformintowhichthematerialsarethrownthanthesubstanceofthe materials themselves - is, that it professes to bring out fully andprecisely the doctrines that generally prevailed in the Church ofHomebeforetheReformation;and,sincethedoctrinesoftheArticleswereverymuchdirectedagainsttheerrorsthatprevailed,toemployaknowledgeoftheerrors forascertaining theprecise importof thecorrectivesapplied.Thisprocessisinitsgeneralcharacterfairandreasonable,butitrequiresamore thorough knowledge of thewhole subject, and a larger amountbothofabilityandcandour,thanLaurencepossessed,toturnittogoodaccount, and to bring out of its application results that can be reliedupon.Thewayinwhichheapplieshisgeneralprincipleistothiseffect.HebringsoutfullythethoroughlyunsoundandPelagiancharacteroftheviewswhichgenerallyprevailedinthechurch,andespeciallyamongtheschoolmen,the leadingdivinesof theperiod,onthesubjectsoforiginalsin, freewill,merit, justification, andpredestination.He then assumes,thatfromtheextremeunsoundnessofthePopishdoctrine,noverylargeamountofsoundness,nothingofanAugustinianorCalvinisticcharacterin theProtestant correctionsof it,needbe supposed tobenecessaryoreven probable, - that there' might probably be a full and amplerepudiation of the Popish error without any leaning towards the otherextreme.Thepracticalapplicationhemakesofthisnotion,istoestablishit as a sortof general rule, that there is apresumption in favourof thelowest andmostmoderate interpretationof thedoctrinal statements oftheReformers,providedtheyarestillheldsosoundandevangelicalastoconvey a condemnation of the grossly Pelagian views which generallyprevailedbeforetheReformation.Butthereisreallynoweightinallthis.The general position, that a knowledge of the precise opinions whichprevailedbeforetheReformationmaybeusefullyappliedinascertainingtheexactimportandbearingofthestatementsadoptedbytheReformersuponthesamepoints, iscertainlywell founded.But there isnogroundfor the notionwhich constitutes Laurence’s peculiar principle, viz. thatthereisageneralpresumptioninfavouroftheProtestantdeviationfromante-ReformationPelagianismbeing the smallestwhich thewordsusedwilladmitof.Weknowofnogroundforanysuchpresumption,andwe

cannot admit it. Our conviction is, that the great glory of theReformation, in a doctrinal point of view, is that the Reformers, andespeciallyCalvin,sawandproclaimedthat itwasnecessary,as theonlythorough and permanent counteractive to the gross Pelagianism of theChurch of Home, and to all the practices based upon it, to go back,decidedly and avowedly, even above and beyond the Calvinism ofAugustinetotheCalvinismoftheNewTestament.Thiscertainlywastheground taken by the great body of the continental Reformers, thoughMelancthon, whose weaknesses and infirmities were so great andpalpable,partiallyabandonedit.AndifitisallegedthattheReformersofEngland took lower and narrower ground than this, and contentedthemselveswithmerelycondemningandloppingoffsomeofthegrosserand more offensive developments of the prevailing Pelagianism, thismust be established, not by vague and baseless presumptions, but bydirectandpositiveproof,byadeliberateanddetailedexaminationoftheactual doctrines they have propounded on every topic of importance.Laurencehasnodifficultyinshowing,thatthedoctrineswhichgenerallyprevailedbeforetheReformationonthesubjectsoforiginalsin,,freewill,justification,andmerit,wereofa thoroughlyPelagiancomplexion,and,of course, might have been contradicted and excluded by statements,uponthepartoftheReformers,whichdidnotgobeyondthestandardofwhatmight now be called Arminianism. But this is of no real value inproving that they stopped there, anddidnot goon tobringout, as theonlycompleteandeffectualantidotetothePelagianismoftheschoolmen,atleastthewholeCalvinismofAugustine.

It is chiefly, however, with Laurence’s discussion of the subject ofpredestination thatwehave todoatpresent.Andthisdiffers in severalrespectsfromtheothertopicsintroduced.Onthesubjectsoforiginalsin,freewill, grace, justification, andmerit,while there is but onedoctrinethatistrue,thereisroomforaconsiderablevarietyofopinions,moreorless plausible, andmore or less nearly approximating to the truth, thedifference being in degree rather than in kind. But in regard topredestination, there are really just two sides, clearly and distinctlydefined,andeverymanwhohasformedanintelligentjudgmentuponthemattermustbeeitheraCalvinistorananti-Calvinist, - that is,hemusteither assert or deny, that God has from eternity chosen some men,

certain persons of the human race individually, to salvation throughChrist, and has determined to effect and secure their salvation inaccordance with the provisions of the covenant of grace. Anotherdifferenceis,thatPelagianorArminianviewsinregardtopredestinationwerenotsogenerallyprevalentintheChurchofRomeasinregardtotheother topics. Some of the most eminent of the schoolmen, whilesupporting Pelagian views on depravity, justification, and grace,continued to hold, in substance, Augustinian views in regard topredestination. Their unsoundness in regard to the one class of topicswasowingtothewantofacarefulandhumblestudyoftheBible,andtothe low state of personal religion, and their comparative soundness ontheotherwastobeascribedtothestrengthandvigouroftheirintellects,and their fondness for prosecuting profound speculations; while theCalvinism of theReformers indicated at once, and in combination, thedeepest sense of divine and eternal things, in regard to those matterswhich bearmore immediately upon personal duty and experience, andthe most profound and elevated conceptions about the deep things ofGod.

Ignorance or disregard of these points of difference, and of the factsconnectedwiththem,hasledtoathoroughfailureinLaurence’sattemptto apply his general principle to the subject of predestination. HemisrepresentstheviewsthatgenerallyprevailedinthechurchbeforetheReformation, describing them asmore anti-Calvinistic than they were;and he utterly fails to bring out any substantial difference, though heprofessestohavedoneso,betweenthedoctrinewhichheascribestotheschoolmen,andthatwhichheascribestoMelancthonandtheLutherans,andwhich he represents as the doctrine of the English Reformers.MrMozley, a man of a far higher order of intellect, and much moreprofoundlyversantinthesubjectsofwhichhetreats,hasproved, inhiswork on Predestination, that Laurence has misunderstood andmisrepresented the views of Thomas Aquinas, the greatest and mostinfluentialofall theschoolmen,andhasshownthat theangelicDoctor,insteadofbeingalowArminian,asLaurencealleges,wasinsubstanceanAugustinian and a Calvinist.Mozley, likemostmen who have intellectenough and erudition enough to understand this matter, believes andmaintains, that there is “no substantial difference between the

Augustinian andThomist and theCalvinist doctrine of predestination.”Laurence evidently did not understand the status quaestionis in thecontroversy between Calvinists and Arminians. He had no clear anddefiniteconceptionofwhatCalvinismis,andofwhatArminianismis,asopposed to it. Laurence ascribes a certain doctrine on the subject ofpredestinationtotheschoolmenandtotheChurchofHome,andthenhealleges that the Lutherans, with whose theological views he identifiesthose of the Church of England, “differed from theChurch ofRome inseveral important particulars nay, that “they were entirely at variancewithherupontheveryfoundationofthesystem.”ThedoctrinewhichheascribestotheChurchofRomeissimplyArminianism,intheformofanallegedelectionofindividualstosalvation,foundedonaforesightoftheirfaith,holiness,andperseverance;andthedoctrineoftheLutheransandAnglicans, alleged to differ from this, “upon the very foundation of thesystem,”justconsistsoftheverysameArminianism,-thatis,ofthesamedenialofthefundamentalprincipleofCalvinism,putintheformorbaseduponthegroundofanassertion,thatelectionismerelyachoiceofmeninthemass,ortakencollectively,totheenjoymentofoutwardprivileges,whichtheymayimproveornotastheychoose.Laurence’sargument is,thatsincethereexistedthisfundamentaldifferencebetweentheChurchofRomeandtheLutheranandAnglicanReformers,itisprobablethatthelatter did not deviate further from the Romish doctrine than thisdifference indicates. There is a deplorable amount of ignorance andconfusion in all this; and though it has notmuch connection with theargumentupon the subject immediatelyunder consideration, itmaybeproper to give some explanations concerning it, especially as we findsome additional blundering on the same subject, and in a differentdirection,amongsomeofthosewhohavetakenpart inthiscontroversyonthesamesidewithLaurence.

Dr.Tucker,DeanofGloucester,inhisLetterstoDr.Kippis,publishedin1773, in adverting to the alleged Calvinism of the Church of England,ventured upon the assertion, that, “at the time just preceding theReformation, the Church of Rome, in respect to predestination, grace,freewill,andperseverance,wastrulyCalvinistical.”ThisideatickledtheAnglican Arminians greatly. They chuckled over it as a proof that theChurchofEnglandmustbeanti-Calvinistic;while,atthesametime,they

musthavefeltsomewhatdoubtfulabouttheaccuracyofthestatementasto the matter of fact. Dr. Winchester, whose Dissertation on the 17thArticlewaspublishedverysoonafter,adopteditastrue,andfoundedanargumentuponit;andhewasfollowedinthisbothbyBishopTomline,inhisElementsofChristianTheologyandbyArchdeaconDaubeny, inhisVindiciae.Laurenceknew toomuchof the subject to swallow this; and,besides,hisargument ledhimto take theopposite tack, to foundmuchupon the opposite position, that the Church of Home was thoroughlyArminian.TheargumentofTuckerandhisfollowerswasthis:theChurchofRomewasCalvinistic,andthereforetheChurchofEnglandisprobablyArminian. The argument of Laurence was: the Church of Rome wasgrossly Arminian, and therefore there is a strong probability that theChurchofEngland,inreformingherself,wouldnotgosofarawayastoembraceCalvinism, but would be contented with adopting a less grossand more refined Arminianism. The common conclusion is false, theargumentinbothcasesisweakanduntenable,andthemainfactassertedis, in both cases, altogether inaccurate. Before the Reformation, theChurchofRomecouldnotbesaidtobeeitherCalvinisticorArminian,-that is, she had not formally and officially committed herself to eithersideinthisgreatcontroversy.Shehadalwaysprofessedgreatrespectforthe opinions of Augustine, and for the decisions of the African Synodsand the Council of Orange in the Pelagian controversy; and she hadnever, as a church, formally and officially given any doctrinal decisioninconsistent with that profession. Thus far she might be said to beCalvinistic. But, on the other hand, it is certain that doctrines of aPelagianandsemi-Pelagiancasthadbeenlongsanctionedbyaverylargeportionofhermostinfluentialauthorities,andespeciallybymanyoftheschoolmen;sothatbeforetheReformation,Pelagianismmightbesaidtopervadenearlythewholeoftheordinaryteachingofthechurch,thoughithadneverbeenformallysanctionedasauthoritativeandbinding.InthesecircumstancestheChurchofHomecouldnotwithproprietybesaidtobeeither Augustinian or Pelagian, although, in somewhat different sensesandaspects,bothdesignationsmightbeapplied toher.TheReformers,bothinEnglandandonthecontinent,wereled,almosttoaman,bythestudy of the Bible and of the works of Augustine, and, as we believe,undertheguidanceoftheSpiritofGod,torepudiatethePelagianismorArminianismwhichprevailedallaroundthemintheordinaryteachingof

the church, and to fall back upon theCalvinism of theNewTestamentandof theBishopofHippo.But as the church officiallywas not at thetimecommittedtoopposeAugustinianortosupportPelagianviews,thetopics involved in that controversydidnot formanyproperpart of thedispute between the Reformers and the Church of Home; and, inconsequence,theywerenotsubjectedtoafull,searching,andexhaustivediscussion, until they came to form the subject of disputes amongProtestantsthemselves,incontendingfirstwiththeLutherans,whentheyhad thrown off the Calvinism of theirmaster, and afterwards with theArminians.

Itwasonthisgroundthatthedoctrineofpredestinationwasnotformallydiscussed and decided on in the Council of Trent. It was, however,incidentallybroughtundertheconsiderationofthecouncilinconnectionwith the subject of free will and justification; and the account whichFatherPaulhasgivenof thedebate that tookplace, decidedly confirmsthe impression,which thewholehistoryof all thediscussions that everhavetakenplaceuponthesemattersisfittedtoproduce,viz.thatthereisa clear line of demarcation between the fundamental principle of theAugustinian or Calvinistic, and the Pelagian or Arminian, systems oftheology, - that the true status quaestionis in the controversy betweenthesepartiescanbeeasilyandexactlyascertained,-thatitcan,withoutdifficulty,bebroughttoapointwheremenmayandshouldsayeitherAyorNo,andaccordingastheysaytheoneortheother,maybeheldtobe,andmaybewarrantablycalled,CalvinistsorArminians.Butthoughthedoctrine of predestination was discussed in the Council of Trent, anddiscussedonthesamegroundsonwhichitalwayshasbeenandmustbediscussed,betweenCalvinistsandArminianswhounderstandwhattheyare about, no decision was pronounced upon the subject in any of theleadingaspectsofthequestion;andthemembersofthechurchwereleftquitefree,astheJansenistsalwayscontended,tomaintain,iftheychose,the whole theological system of Augustine. The Church of Home hassince, indeed, become more deeply tainted with Pelagianism by thedoctrinal decisions pronounced in the cases of Baius, Jansenius, andQuesnel.Butwearenotawarethatthereisevennowanydecisionofthatchurch,whichstands inthewayofhermembersmaintainingthewholesubstanceoftheCalvinisticdoctrineofpredestination.

While it is certain that the great body of the Reformers adopted insubstancethetheologicalsystemofAugustine,andwhileitiscertainthatthe systemofAugustinewas, in its fundamental characteristic features,justthesystemofCalvin,-thedifferencebetweentheviewsofAugustineand Calvin being greatly less in point of intrinsic importance than thedifferences between Augustine’s views and any form whatever of anti-Calvinism, - it is not disputed that there were considerable differencesamongindividualsandsectionsoftheReformers,inthewayandmannerin which their theological views were developed and applied.Constitutionalcapacitiesandtendencies,intellectualandmoral,peculiarhabitsofthoughtandfeeling,specialitiesoccurringinthecourseoftheirstudies and occupations - all these, variously modified, no doubt,operated indifferentways, and to a considerable extent, in influencingtheir mode of conceiving, representing, and applying doctrines whichwere in substance the same. And these causes of diversity amid unityoughttobetakenintoaccount,andfairlyestimatedandallowedfor,notinjudgingoftruth,butinjudgingofthemen,andinexhibitingtowardsthemdueforbearanceandfairness.

ThemenamongtheReformerswhoexhibitedthehighestmentalpowers,and exerted the largest amount of influence as individuals in theirdifferent spheres, viz. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Knox, were allunequivocal,decided,outspokenCalvinists,anddidnothesitatetobringout, defend, and apply their principles. Melancthon went from oneextreme to another, and the cause of his deviations both from sounddoctrineandsoundpracticeonpublicquestions,isplainlytobetracedtoweaknessesandinfirmities,palpablydiscernibleboth inhismentalandmoralconstitution.There isnoevidence thatLuthereverabandonedorretractedhisCalvinism;butthereareindicationsthat,inthelatterpartofhis life, he became, probably through Melancthon’s influence, lessanxious to give it prominence, and more concerned about guardingagainsttheabuseofit.NootherleadingmanamongtheReformerswentso far astray in doctrinal matters as Melancthon. Bullinger was aCalvinist,thoughaverycautiousandmoderateone,shrinkingfromsomeof the more precise and stringent statements of Calvin on particularpoints. He became more decided and outspoken in maintainingCalvinistic principles as he advanced in life, and as some indications

appeared of differences among Protestants themselves, of deviationstending in an anti-Calvinistic direction. We believe that Bullinger hadmore influence with the English Reformers, and upon the reformationthey effected, than eitherMelancthon on the one side or Calvin on theother;andwhetheritwasbecauseofinfluenceexertedbyhimornot,theactual theological views adopted by Cranmer and embodied in theArticles,morenearlyresembled,inpointoffact,theopinionsofBullingerthanthoseofanyothereminentmanoftheperiod.

ItisquitetruethatCranmerandhisassociates,whomainlydeterminedthe character of the English Reformation, were a good dealMelancthonian in their general character, tendencies, and sympathies.CranmerresembledMelancthonboth inhisexcellencesandhisdefects,and would, we fear, in similar circumstances, have gone as far insacrificing principle and in compromising truth, as Melancthon wasreadytohavedoneattheDietofAugsburgin1530.Indeeditis,andwillalwaysremain,somethingofamystery,howCranmercontrivedtothreadhis way through the rocks and quicksands of Henry’s reign, withoutsacrificing his integrity. The English Reformers were, upon the whole,cautious and timid men, who leaned decidedly to the side of peace,quietness, compromise, andwhowere trained by their peculiar, and inmanyrespectsunfavourable, circumstances, to thehabitofavoiding, asfaraspossible,togiveoffence.Therewasadecidedwantofmenamongthemwhowerepossessedofahighandcommandingorderofintellect,orof the capacity of bold, vigorous, and independent thinking. Therewasnotonemanamongthemqualified,byacombinationofintellectualandmoral qualities, to stamp his image, as an individual, upon his age orcountry.Thereisnotoneofthemwhohastakenahighplaceorexertedalasting influence as a theologian, in the exposition and discussion ofimportant doctrinal questions. There was no native Englishman of theperiodequalinpointofabilityandlearning,asatheologian,toeitherofthetwomen,MartinBucerandPeterMartyr,whomCranmersucceededin getting over from the continent, - whom he placed in the mostinfluentialsituations,thedivinitychairsofCambridgeandOxford,-withwhom, during almost the whole reign of Edward, he was intimatelyassociated,-whomusthaveexertedagreatinfluenceoverhismind,-andwho were decided Calvinists. There is not one of those who acquired

distinction in the church before the accession of Elizabeth who can beregarded as a first-class theologian. Bishop Jewel is the first Anglicanchurchmantowhomhewouldbedisposedtoconcedethattitle,andhe,aswassaidbyFroude,oneofthefoundersofPuseyism,wrote“verymuchlike an irreverent dissenter.” Latimer and Hooper were excellent andmostvaluablemen,greatpreachers,andeminentlypracticalanduseful,but they had neither capacity nor taste for the higher departments oftheologicalspeculation.BishopRidleyhadprobablymoreinfluencewithCranmer,andwasperhapsanablermanthaneitherofthem,buthewasnotamanofahighorderofintellect;anditwasprobablytothisandtothe want of any great familiarity with theological discussions, and notmerely to a feeling of reverentialmodesty, thatwe owehiswell-knownstatementaboutpredestinationandcognatetopics:-“InthesemattersIamso fearful thatIdarenotspeak further,yea,almostnoneotherwise,than the very text doth, as it were, leadme by the hand.” There is anelementof truthandbeauty inthissentiment.But it is thoroughlyone-sided;itiswhollyunsuitabletowhathaslongbeentheactualconditionofthe church; and in its practical application, it is chiefly to favour thesupporters of error, those who find their advantage in confusion andobscurity.Ridley’snotionsoundswell,andisapttomakeanimpressionat first upon theminds ofmenwho have not examined the subject orstudieditshistory.Itmighthavebeenpracticableandsafetoactuponit,iferrorsandheresieshadneverarisentodisturbthepeaceandpurityofthe church. The great controversies of the fourth and fifth centuriesagainsttheAriansandPelagiansputanendtotheconditionofthingsinwhich it might have been possible to act upon Ridley’s notion. Thiscondition of things can never return, and it is now the church’simperative duty to seek, by turning Scripture to the fullest possibleaccount,bybringingoutandcombiningallthatitteaches,explicitlyorbygood and necessary consequence, to unfold plainly and distinctly thewhole scheme of divine truth, and to refute and expose the errors andheresieswhichmaystillbestrivingtogainanascendency.

The character and tendencies of Cranmer and Ridley, determined to alarge extent the general type of the EnglishReformation. It was in themaincautious,timid,compromising.Thisappliestosomeextenteventoits theology, but not to such an extent as to have made the theology

Arminian,or evenneutral,butonly so faras tohavemade itmoderateCalvinism.TheproofthatthegreatbodyofthosewhowereconcernedinpreparingtheEnglishArticlesinthereignofEdward,andinestablishingthem again in the reign of Elizabeth, were in their own personalconvictionsCalvinistsindoctrine,thoughaversetoallextremeviews,andtoallstrongandincautiousstatements,andanxioustoguardagainstthepractical abuse of their doctrines, is, we are persuaded, perfectlyconclusiveandunanswerable.Asawhole, itcannotbetouched;andtheevidenceinsupportofthispositionisgaininginstrength,andhasgainedinourownday,bytheprogressofresearchandinvestigation.Wecannot,ofcourse,pretendeither toadducetheevidence,or toanswerwhathasbeen brought forward on the other side. Those who wish to see thisevidencefullyadducedandclearedfromobjection,willfindallthisinthebooks already mentioned by Prynne, Hickman, Toplady, Overton, andGoode;andiftheyarecapableofestimatingevidence,andpossessedofareasonablemeasureofimpartialityandcandour,theywillnotbemovedby anything that has been produced upon the other side by Heylin,Winchester,Daubeny,Tomline,andLaurence.

The Calvinism, however, of the fathers and founders of the Church ofEngland, does not at once and ipso facto settle the Calvinism of theArticles and the Liturgy. It proves, indeed, that there is nothing anti-Calvinistic in the formularies of the church, and that noCalvinist needhaveanyhesitationaboutapprovingofthem,unlesstheycouldbeshownto be palpably self-contradictory. But still it is possible, that, thoughCalviniststhemselves, theymayhaveabstainedfrommakinganexplicitprofessionofCalvinismatermofcommunion.Theymayhave intendedto leave anopendoorboth forCalvinists andArminians, andwith thisview may have prepared their public symbols in such indefinite andambiguous terms as would exclude neither, because they might beassented to by both. This is about as much as the more respectableArminiansventuretoassert,anditisalltowhichtheycanmanagetogiveanythinglikeplausibility.WearenotconcernedtoprovethatArminianscannothonestlysubscribetheArticles.Thisisaquestionnotsomuchforstrangers, as for themselves and for their fellow-churchmen. But thegroundtakenbysuchmenasDaubeny,Tomline,andLaurence,thattheArticles are inconsistent with Calvinism, and must exclude all honest

Calvinists, we cannot but protest against as an outrage upon historictruth.WehaveneverbeenabletounderstandhowanyonebutaCalvinistcould comfortably subscribe the 17th Article. But we have no wish topressthis.Weadmitthatitisverycautiouslyandtemperatelyexpressed,andthatitwouldhavebeeneasy,ifitscompilershadsointended,tohavemadeitmorestringently,explicitly,andundeniablyCalvinistic.Whatwemaintain is, that itsmost natural and obviousmeaning is Calvinistic, -that there isnoevidence, internalorexternal, fittedto leadus todoubtthat it teaches, andwas intended to teach,Calvinism, -and thatall theattempts which have been made to show that it is positively anti-Calvinistic,havebeenmereexhibitionsofincompetencyorofsomethingworse.

We can onlymake a few observations upon the 17th Article. ThemostimportantpartsoftheArticle,thebeginningandtheend,areasfollow:-

“PredestinationtolifeistheeverlastingpurposeofGod,whereby,beforethefoundationsoftheworldwerelaid,HehathconstantlydecreedbyHiscounsel, secret tous, todeliver fromcurseanddamnation thosewhomHehathchoseninChristoutofmankind,andtobringthembyChristtoeverlastingsalvation,asvesselsmadetohonour.Wherefore, theywhichbeenduedwithsoexcellentabenefitofGod,becalledaccordingtoGod’spurpose .byHisSpiritworking indueseason: they throughgraceobeythe calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God byadoption: they bemade like the image ofHis only-begotten Son JesusChrist: they walk religiously in good works; and at length, by God’smercy,theyattaintoeverlastingfelicity.

“Furthermore,wemust receiveGod’spromises in suchwise, as theybegenerallysetforthtousinholyScripture,andinourdoingsthatwillofGod is to be followedwhichwe have expressly declared unto us in thewordofGod.”

Now, the first reflection thatoccurson reading this is, that there isnotoneword or phrase in it towhich any Calvinist can object or ever hasobjected.EveryCalvinist sees in it aplain and explicit statement of hisfundamentalprinciple,thatGodhathfrometernitychosensomemeninChrist,andresolvedtodeliverandsavethem,andthat,inconsequenceof

thiselection, thesemen,sochosen,areenabledtobelieve inChrist,arejustified and regenerated, are enabled to lead holy lives, and arepreserveduntosalvation.ThisisplainlywhattheArticlestates,andthisis just a simple unequivocal declaration of the fundamental, the onlyfundamental, principle of Calvinism. Calvinists could easily introducecertain expressions, suggested by later controversies and the sophismsandevasionstowhichtheygaverise,whichwouldmaketheArticlemoreundeniably and exclusively Calvinistic; but no one has ever felt theslightestdifficultyaboutthestatements,asplainlyandobviously,withoutcommentorexplanation,teachingtheCalvinisticdoctrineofelection.

It has been strongly alleged by Arminians, that the caution or caveatcontained in the last sentence is inconsistentwithCalvinistic opinions,andwasintendedtoexcludethem.Butthisisasheermisrepresentation.NoCalvinisthaseverhadtheslightestdifficultyaboutapprovingof thiscaveat, because it is quite notorious, that this mode of speaking isuniversalamongCalvinisticdivinesinunfoldingthepracticalapplicationof theirdoctrine, - that the secondpartof the statement isgiven in theverywordsofCalvinhimself,-andthatthefirstpartofit,too,isfoundinsubstance, though not verbatim, in his writings. No Calvinist can haveanydifficulty in showing the perfect consistency of this caveatwith hisdoctrine concerning predestination. But no Arminian can give anyintelligiblereasonwhysuchacaveatshouldhavebeenintroduced,exceptinconnectionwithapreviousstatementofCalvinisticpredestination.Itis only the Calvinistic, and not the Arminian, doctrine that suggests orrequiressuchguardsorcaveats;and it isplainly impossible thatsuchastatement could ever have occurred to the compilers of the Articles asproper and necessary, unless they had been distinctly aware, that theyhad just laid down a statement which at least included the Calvinisticdoctrine.Calvinistshavealways regarded it as a strong confirmationoftheirdoctrine,thattheApostlePaulsoplainlyintimates,thatheexpectedthatalmostasamatterofcourse,menwouldadduceagainsthisdoctrinethe same objections which have, in every age, been adduced againstCalvinism, but which nobody would ever think of adducing againstArminianism. Upon the same principle, the caveat introduced into theendofthe17thArticleisaplainproofthattheCalvinisticdoctrinewasatleast included in theprecedingstatements.Thecommonallegation that

thiscaveatexcludesCalvinismispurelyridiculous.

While Calvinists find nothing in the 17th Article but what is in fullaccordance with their ordinary train of thinking, and with the usuallanguageoftheirmosteminentwriters,Arminiansareobligedtodistortand pervert it. Bishop Tomline, in his Elements of Christian Theology,doesitinthisway:

“ThosewhomHehathchoseninChristoutofmankind,arethatpartofmankindtowhomGoddecreedtomakeknownthegospel;anditistobeobserved that this expressiondoesnotdistinguishone setofChristiansfromanother, butChristians in general from the rest ofmankind; and,consequently,‘tobringthembyChristtoeverlastingsalvation,’doesnotmean actually saving them, but granting them the means of salvationthroughChrist.”

This surely ought to repel and disgust honest men, and yet it is insubstancetheinterpretationwhichmustbeputupontheArticle,aswellas upon the statements of Scripture, by the Arminians. Sometimes theideaisputinamoregrossandoffensiveform,aswhenDeanKipling,indiscussingthissubject,laysitdownasthedoctrineofthefoundersoftheChurch of England, that “every person is an elect, whom some dulyauthorizedminister of the gospel has baptized in the Christian faith;”fand sometimes it is glossedoverwithmore skill andplausibility, as byArchbishopLaurenceinhis“BamptonLectures.”Butthe leadingidea isthesame:“choseninChrist”means,chosenasChristians, i.e.chosentoenjoy the outward privileges of the church; and as to God’s havingdecreedtodeliverthemfromcurseanddamnation,andtobringthembyChrist to eternal salvation, this justmeans that God decreed to give tothemtheenjoymentoftheoutwardmeansofgrace,thefinalresultbeingleftentirelydependentuponthemselves,upontheirimprovementoftheirprivileges.

Laurence dwells at considerable length upon the expression “chosen inChrist,” and labours to show that this was intended to supportArminianismandtoexcludeCalvinism,allegingthattheexpressionwasselected for thepurposeof intimatingthat“GodpredestinatedHiselectinChrist,ortheChristianchurch,tosalvation,”-thattheonlyelectionis,

“the election of a collectivemass on account of Christ,” - and that He“predestinates to the adoption of children, those who duly receive andapplythemeansofsalvationwhichHehasthusgratuitouslyprovidedforthem.” The argument founded upon the expression “chosen in Christ,”the only thing in the leading section of the Article alleged to have theappearanceofbeinganti-Calvinistic,canbeeasilydisposedof.

lsi, In theclause“whomHehathchosen inChristoutofmankind,” thewords“inChrist,”allegedtoteachtheArminiannotionoftheelectionofthe visible church to the outward means of grace as being the onlyelection,wereaddedontherevisionoftheArticlesinElizabeth’sreign,in1562,havingformednopartoftheArticleasitwaspreparedinEdward’sreign.But the insertionof thesewordscouldnothavebeen intendedtoserveanArminianpurpose,foritisnotorious,andisgenerallyconcededby our opponents, thatmost of thosewho had themanagement of theecclesiastical affairs in Elizabeth’s reign were decided Calvinists, evenwhenthisisnotconcededinregardtoCranmerandhisassociates.Thisconcessionindeedcouldnotdecentlyberefused,whenitisnotoriousthatin1562,immediatelyaftertheArticlesastheynowstandhadbeenpassedinConvocation,Bishop Jewelwrote to PeterMartyr, then at Zurich, inthe following terms: - “As to matters of doctrine, we have paredeverythingawaytotheveryquick,anddonotdifferfromyourdoctrinebyanail’sbreadth”!

2d,Thephrase “chosen inChrist” is a scriptural expression;andas theCalvinistsofcourse thinkthat theycan interpret it inentireaccordancewith their theological views, it is just as unwarrantable to inferArminianism,asitwouldbetoinferCalvinism,fromthemereadoptionofit.

3d,Theexpression isused in thewhole seriesofundeniably Calvinisticconfessions, both in those prepared before and after the Arminiancontroversy - in the Scottish Confession of 1560, as well as in theWestminsterone,intheFrench,Belgic,andHelvetic,andinthecanonsoftheSynodofDort.

All these things are quite notorious, and they are perfectly conclusiveagainstLaurence’sargument;buttheAnglicanantiCalvinistsseemtobe

ignorant enough of theology, to look upon him as an oracle, and tobelieve such statements as these because hemakes them. The truth is,thatthefirstattempttoemploythisexpressioninacontroversialwayforArminianpurposes,wasmadebytheLutherans,when,inthelatterpartofthesixteenthcentury,theywereshufflingoutoftheCalvinismoftheirmaster. They wished still to maintain, if they could, that election wasgratuitous,-apositionwhichevenMelancthonheldtothelast,-andthatitwasnottobetracedtoanythinginmenthemselves.ThesepositionsofcoursecannotbeheldintelligentlyandconsistentlybyanybutCalvinists.But first the Lutherans, and afterwardsArminius, attempted to involvethiswholematter inobscurity and confusion,by representingChrist asthe cause and foundation of election, and by trying to show that thisimplied,thatmenwereelectedasChristians,orbecauseoftheirrelationto Christ. Calvinists had no difficulty in showing the sophistical andevasivecharacterofthisattempt,andprovingthatunderaprofessionofhonouringChrist, itassigned toHimaplace in theschemeof salvationwhich Scripture does not sanction; and that in so far as men areconcerned, it plainly implied, when stripped of the vagueness andconfusion thrownaround it, either, that election is only to theoutwardprivilegesofthechurch,orthat,ifitbesupposedtorefertoeternallife,itisbaseduponaforesightofmen’sfaith,-thatis,thatitisnotgratuitous,butreally foundeduponsomethinginmenthemselves.TheexposureofthisLutheranandArminiansophistryproducedsomeinteresting,thoughoccasionally rather intricate, discussion, on topics which seem to beutterlyunknownamongtheAnglicanArminians,butwhicharenowquiteindispensabletoathoroughacquaintancewiththesubject,andofwhichamasterlysummaryisgiveninTurretine’sTheolog.Elenct.

There is nothing, then, in the 17th Article, but what in its natural andobviousmeaning ismost fully accordant with Calvinism, and seems tohavebeenintendedtoteachthefundamentalprincipleofthatsystemoftheology,whiletheattemptswhichhavebeenmadetodisprovethis,andtobring inanArminian interpretationof it, canbe shown tobeutterlyunsuccessful.

ThisisquitesufficienttoestablishtheCalvinismoftheArticle,especiallywhenviewed inconnectionwith theknownsentimentsof itscompilers.

Buttheevidenceisfurtherstrengthenedbycomparingitwiththesectiononpredestinationinthelatereditionsof“Melancthon’sCommonplaces.”Allwho deny theCalvinism of the Articlemaintain that it was derivedfrom Melancthon’s writings, and was intended to embody the viewswhichhecameultimatelytoadopt.Butwethinkitscarcelypossible forany one at all versant in these matters, to compare the Article withMelancthon’s section on predestination, without seeing a markedcontrastbetweenthem.Wecannotgivequotations,orgointoanydetailupon this point; butwe think itmanifest that the 17th Article ismuchmoreclearlyandexplicitlyCalvinistic,or rather ismuchmore like,andcomes much more near to, Calvinism, than anything to be found inMelancthon’s later writings. If the compilers of the Articles had reallymeant to leave the only question of fundamental importance on thesubjectofpredestinationundecided,-andthis,aswehavesaid,isaboutas much as the more respectable defenders of Arminianism usuallyventuretoallege,-theyhadbeforethem,inthesectionuponthissubjectinthelatereditionsof“Melancthon’sCommonplaces,”averyfairattemptat saying nothing - that is, at professing to explain thematter withoutdecidedly and explicitly taking either side. But they did not take thiscourse;forthe17thArticleis,tosaytheveryleast,notnearlysoobscureand ambiguous as the exposition of Melancthon; from which theinference is plain, that though on some points theymay have followedMelancthon, they here put themselves under the surer and steadierguidanceofCalvin,oratleastofBullinger.

Arminians,indiscussingthissubject,usuallytrytotakeadvantageoftheconcession,whichwe cannotwithhold from them, that the founders oftheChurchofEnglandweremoderate,asdistinguishedfromextremeorultra Calvinists, and that the doctrine of the Article is moderateCalvinism.TheyaredisposedtoscouttheideaofmoderateCalvinismasan inconsistency and absurdity, - to insinuate that men should not beheldtobeCalvinistsatallunlesstheyhaveembracedallthepointsofthesysteminitsmostdetailedanddevelopedform,-andtoallegethatsincethisisnottrueoftheAnglicanReformers,theyshouldnotberegardedasCalvinists.Thiswholenotion is plainly exaggerated anduntenable, andconfoundsthingsthatdiffer.Itisquitewarrantableandfairtopressmenwiththeconsequencesorresultsoftheprinciplestheyprofess,inorderto

show them that, in right reason, they ought either to abandon theirprinciples,orelseembracetheulteriorviewstowhichtheycanbeshownlegitimatelytolead.Butitisunwarrantabletodrawinferencesastowhat,inpointoffact,men’sprinciplesare,fromourviewsofwhatconsistencywouldseemtorequireofthem.Menarenottobedisbelievedwhen.theytellus,asamatteroffact,thatintheirconvictionstheyhavecomethusfar, but that they stop here, merely because we think that either theyshould not have come so far, or that, if they did, they should haveadvancedfarther.Thesubjectweareatpresentconsideringisessentiallyamatterof fact, -aquestionas towhatviewscertainmendidembraceand profess, - and it should be determined by the ordinary evidenceapplicabletosuchamatterof fact,viz. thestatementsandprocedureofthepartiesthemselves,andnotbyanyinferencesanddeductionsofours,in the soundness of which they do not acquiesce. These AnglicanArminians,mostofwhomhavegivenabundantevidencethattheydonotunderstandwhatCalvinismis,presumetosetupanarbitrarystandardofCalvinism; and ifmendonot comeup to this standard, they infer, notmerely that theyarenotCalvinists,but that theydonot inpointof facthold, whatever they may profess, any of the leading doctrines usuallyregardedasCalvinistic.Allthisisutterlyunwarrantableandextravagant,and it is themore sowhenwehave todeal, as in this case,notmerelywith the personal convictions of individuals, but with the publicformularieswhichtheypreparedforthechurch.Thesamequalitiesandinfluences which made Cranmer and his associates only moderateCalvinists, in theirownpersonalconvictions,were likely tooperatestillmore powerfully when they were preparing public documents for thechurch,towhichothermenweretoberequiredtoassent.Hereitisquitenaturaltoexpect,thattheywouldbestillmoremoderateCalviniststhantheywereintheirownindividualconvictions.Allthisisquitenaturalandintelligible, and it affords no reasonable ground for doubting, that asindividualstheyhonestlyandsincerelyheldall theCalvinismwhich,bytheir statements and actions, they have professed, or that they reallymeanttoembodyintheformulariesofthechurchalltheCalvinismwhichisthereindicated.ModerateCalvinism,asdistinguishedfromCalvinismof a more definite and detailed description, may be an indication ofsomethingdefectiveinmen’smentalandmoralcapacitiesortendencies,oritmaybetraceabletosomequalitiesandfeelings,goodandcreditable

in themain, but carried out to an unwarrantable excess. But this is noreasonwhymenshouldhaveascribedtotheminferencesanddeductionsfromtheirprincipleswhichtheydonotthemselvesperceiveoradmit,orshould have any doubt thrown upon the trustworthiness of theirprofessionsastowhattheydohold.

For ourselves, we do not affect the designation ofmoderate Calvinists.WebelievethewholeCalvinismofthecanonsoftheSynodofDort,andofthe Confession of the Westminster Assembly, and we are willing toattempttoexpoundanddefend,whencalledupon,thewholedoctrineofthesesymbols,toshowthatitisalltaughtorindicatedinScripture.WehavebeenonlyconfirmedinourCalvinismbyallthestudywehavegiventothissubject.Butwhileourownpersonalconvictionsof thetruthofafully; developedCalvinismhave become confirmed by continued study,wehaveatthesametime,andbythesameprocess,beentaughtalargermeasureofforbearancetowardsthosewhodifferfromusonsomeofthequestionsconnectedwiththeseprofoundandmysterioussubjects,-andespeciallytowardsthosewhodonotseetheirwaytogosofaraswethinkwarrantable, inexplaininganddefining somepoints, andwho,while, itmay be, not explicitly denying what we believe to be true, yet rathershrinkfromthemoredetailedanddefiniteexplanationswhichweregardas true andwarrantable. Themorewe have studied these subjects, themorehavewebecomeconvinced, that theonefundamentalprincipleofCalvinism,-thattheadmissionordenialofwhichconstitutesthereallineofdemarcationbetweenCalvinistsandanti-Calvinists, is thedoctrineofpredestination in themore limited sense of theword, or of election, asdescriptiveof the substance of the teaching of Scripturewith regard towhatGoddecreedorpurposedfrometernitytodo,anddoesoreffectsintime,forthesalvationofthosewhoaresaved;andthateverymanoughttobeheldbyothers,andoughttoacknowledgehimself,tobeaCalvinist,whobelievesthatGodfrometernitychosesomemen,certainpersonsofthe human race, absolutely and unconditionally, to salvation throughChrist,andthatHeaccomplishesthispurpose,orexecutesthisdecreeintime,byeffectingandsecuringthesalvationofthese,meninaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthecovenantofgrace.Ofallthedoctrinesusuallydiscussed between Calvinists and Arminians, and commonly held byCalviniststobetaughtinScripture,thisdoctrineofelectionisatoncethe

mostimportantinitself,andthemostclearlyrevealedinGod’sword.InregardtotheotherdoctrinesoftheCalvinisticsystemoftheology,assetforthbytheSynodofDortandtheWestminsterAssembly,webelieve,lst,That they can be all sufficiently and satisfactorily established byscriptural evidence bearingdirectly upon eachparticular topic; and2d,Thattheymaybealllegitimatelyandconclusivelydeducedinthewayofconsequenceorinferencefromthegreatdoctrineofelection.It ismen’sduty to ascertainwhatGod has revealed upon all thesematters inHisword,andtoexercisetheirrationalfacultiesinestimatinganddevelopingthe logical relations of these doctrines with each other. And, forourselves,wehavenodoubtthatthefulllegitimateuseandimprovementofthewordofGodandofourrationalfaculties,oughttoleadmentothefirmbeliefandtheopenmaintenanceof thedoctrinesgenerallyheldbyCalvinists,with regard towhat is commonly, though improperly, calledreprobation, the nature and extent of the atonement, the certain andinsuperableefficacyofgrace,andthe finalperseveranceofallbelievers.Webelievethatwhenmendeny,orevendeclineorrefusetoprofess,thedoctrinesgenerallyheldbyCalvinistsuponthesesubjects,theyareinsofar to be held as coming short in the discharge of their duty and theimprovementoftheirprivilegesinregardtothetruthofGod,Butwearedisposed to practise more of indulgence and forbearance towardsperplexitiesandconfusions,orevenpositiveerrors,on thesequestions,thanonthegreatfundamentalprincipleofelection,partlybecauseofthedifference among them in respect of intrinsic importance, and partlybecause of the difference in the clearness and fullness of the Scriptureevidencesbywhichtheyaresupported.

Atpresent, however,wehave todo,notwith abstract speculations,butwiththeconstructionofevidencebearinguponamatteroffact,viz.whatopinionswereactuallyheldbycertainparties.Thegeneralallegationhereis, that the foundersof theChurchofEnglandwerenotCalvinists; andone reason adduced in support of it is, that while there may be someground for holding that they believed in the Calvinistic doctrine ofelection,theydidnotbelieveincertainotherdoctrineswhichhavebeenusuallyregardedasnecessarypartsoftheCalvinisticsystemoftheology.Andourgeneralanswer,baseduponthegroundsalreadyreferredto, is,thatitisunwarrantabletodrawinferencesastowhatmen’sopinionsin

point of fact are, from what consistency on their part seems to us torequire;andthatwenotonlyacknowledge,butmustclaim,everymanasa Calvinist who believes in the Calvinistic doctrine of election, eventhough,fromdisadvantagesanddrawbacksinsomeofthefeaturesofhismental andmoral constitution, or of his position andopportunities, hemay be involved in perplexity and confusion, or even positive error, inregardtosomeoftheotherdoctrinesusuallyheldbyCalvinists.Thisisasufficientanswertotheargument ingeneral;andwhenweexaminethespecialgroundsbywhichthegeneralpositioniscommonlysupported,wefindthattheycanbeshowntobeirrelevant,inaccurate,andinconclusive.Wecanonlyrefertothem,andthatonlyintheirpurelyhistoricalaspects,asbearinguponthematteroffactwhichwehavebeeninvestigating.Theyarechieflythese:-

I. The 17thArticle, it is said, cannot be Calvinistic, because it containsnothingwhateveraboutreprobation,which is alleged tobeanessentialpartoftheCalvinisticsystem.ReprobationproperlymeansastatementofthedoctrineofScriptureastowhatGodpurposedfrometernity,anddoesin time, in regard to those men who ultimately perish. Now, everyCalvinistadmits, thatthere iscomparatively little indicated inScriptureconcerning this awful and mysterious subject, and that what can beknown about it must be partly learned in the way of inference anddeduction, from the much clearer and fuller information given inScripture concerning God’s purposes and procedure in regard to thosewho are saved. This consideration shows the unworthy anddishonourable character of the efforts usually made by Arminians tothrust in the discussion of reprobation before that of election,notwithstandingthatthelatterisbothmuchmoreimportantinitself,andmuch more fully revealed in Scripture, than the former. But thisconsideration also shows how probable it is, that men of a timid andcautious temperament, though firmly believing in the doctrine ofelection,might not hold themselves called upon to say anything aboutreprobation,especiallywhenpreparingpublicformularies.ThisideawasacteduponatthatperiodbymenwhowereundoubtedlyCalvinists.Thereisnostatementof reprobation in theScottishConfessionof 1560,or inthe Second Helvetic of 1566, which was approved of by almost all theReformedchurches,thoughtheauthorsofthesedocumentsweredecided

Calvinists, and the documents themselves are undoubtedly Calvinistic.This topic is stated very briefly and compendiously even in the Frenchand Belgic Confessions; and it was only the perverse, offensive, anddiscreditableconductoftheArminiansattheSynodofDort,inthrustingthistopicintoprominenceandpriority,thatrendereditnecessaryforthechurch to put forth a somewhat fuller statement of its nature andposition.Itisindeedtheproceedingsofhereticsthathaveallalong,andin every age,.produced and necessitated the more full and detailedexplanationsanddefinitionswhichthechurchhasbeenledtoput forth.And one reason why heretics have such a bitter hatred of theseexplanations and definitions is, because they feel that in thisway theirerrorsareexposed,andgravesuspicionsaresometimesexcitedastotheirintegrity.

But we have saidmore than enough to show that the omission of anymentionofreprobationaffordsnopresumptionagainsttheCalvinismofthe17thArticle.

II.AnotherfavouriteallegationoftheArminiansuponthissubjectis,thatthe Articles and Liturgy cannot be Calvinistic, because they teach thedoctrineofuniversalredemption,and thisentirelyprecludesCalvinism.This topic is thusputbyWaterland, in a passagewhichhasbeenoftenquoted or referred to since by controversialists on the same side, andwhich is a fair enough specimen of the accuracy of the facts and theconclusivenessof thereasoningsprevalent in that classofwriters: - “Intheyear1618,ourdivinesattheSynodofDorthadcommissiontoinsistuponthedoctrineofuniversalredemptionasthedoctrineoftheChurchof England, which one doctrine, pursued in its just consequences, issufficienttooverthrowthewholeCalviniansystemofthefivepoints.”

Now, the assertion that the English divines at the Synod of Dort hadcommission to insist upon the doctrine of universal redemption is nottrue, though it is not wholly destitute of a colourable pretext. No suchcommissionor instructionwasgiventothem,orwasactedonby them,though someof themwere favourable to thatdoctrine.AndWaterland,webelieve, couldhaveproduced, if calledupon,nodirect authority forthestatement,exceptanunsupportedassertionofHeylin’s.Thefutilityofthe argument drawn from this doctrine against the Calvinism of the

ChurchofEngland,willappearfromthefollowingconsiderations:-

1. This doctrine of universal redemption is of such a nature that, asexperience proves, it is easy to produce abundance of quotations thatseemtoassertit,andthatdoassertsomethinglikeit,fromauthorswhodidnotbelieveit,andneverintendedtoteachit.

2.Agreatvarietyofdoctrinespasscurrentlyunderthegeneralnameofuniversal redemption, graduating from the grosser form, which wouldexcludenotonlyallCalvinisticprinciples,but all right conceptionsof avicariousatonement,evenasheldprofessedlybyArminiansthemselves,to the comparatively harmless form, in which it seems to be little elsethananunwarrantedandexaggeratedmodeofembodyingthetruth,thattheoffersandinvitationsofthegospelaretobeaddressedtoallmen,tomenindiscriminatelywithoutdistinctionorexception.

3. It isperfectlycertain thataconsiderablenumberof eminentdivines,whoundoubtedlybelievedthewholeofwhatisusuallyheldbyCalvinists,both in regard to election and reprobation, have professed tomaintainthedoctrineofuniversalredemption.Thisdoesnotaffordapresumptionthat thedoctrine is true,but it furnishesaproof that the fact thatmenholditisnoevidencethattheyarenotCalvinists.ThisstatementappliestoCameronandAmyraut,toDailleeandClaude,toDavenantandBaxter;and to come down to our own times, to Thomas Scott and RalphWardlaw.We have never been at all impressed with the reasonings ofthesemeninfavourofuniversalredemption;butwecannot,becauseofwhat we reckon their error upon the subject, consent to their beinghandedovertotheArminians.

Waterland’sstatement ispeculiarly inexcusable,becausethementionofthe Synod ofDort ought to have suggested to him the name of BishopDavenant,andheoughttohaveknownthatwehaveaworkofDavenant’sentitled, “Dissertationes Duse prima de Morte Christi, altera dePrsedestinatione et Reprobatione and that, while the first of these is averyabledefenceofthedoctrineofuniversalredemption,asithasbeenusuallyheldbymenwhoprofessedCalvinisticviewsuponotherpoints,thesecondisamostthoroughandmasterlyexpositionanddefenceoftheviewsordinarilyheldbyCalvinistsinregardtoelectionandreprobation.

Indeed,wedonotbelieve that thereexistsabetterormoresatisfactoryvindication of the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, in both itsbranches of election and reprobation, than the second of these twoDissertations.

III.Thethirdandlastofthepositionssometimestakenupbythosewhodeny the Calvinism of the English Articles and Liturgy is, that theseformulariesareopposedtothedoctrineofthecertainperseveranceofallbelieversorsaints,andthatthisdoctrineisanecessarypartofCalvinism.ItiscertainlyanecessarypartofCalvinism,thatallthosewhomGodhasabsolutelychosentosalvationshallbesaved;andnomaneverheldtheCalvinisticdoctrineofelectionwithoutbelievingthis.Butthis isnotthequestion that is discussed in connectionwith the views of some of theearlyEnglishdivinesaboutperseveranceorapostasy.Theyalladmittedthatall theelectwouldcertainlypersevere,andcouldnot fallaway;butsomeof them seem to haveheld that somemen, thoughnot elected tosalvation, might attain to faith and conversion, and yet, because notelected,mightfallawayandfinallyperish.

It has been alleged that the 16th Article of the Church of Englandsanctions this view, and we admit that there is a good deal tocountenanceitinAugustine.Thereisnorealdifficultyinthe16thArticle,whichCalvinistshavealwayssubscribedwithouthesitation,asbeingtrueso far as it goes, and as not contradicting any of their principles.Augustine’serrorandconfusionuponthissubjectseemstobetraceableinsomemeasuretohishavingembraced,moreorlessfullyandexplicitly,the mischievous heresy of baptismal regeneration; and it is probablyowing to the same cause that therehave always been, from the time ofBishopOveralldowntothepresentday,somehighlyrespectedAnglicandivineswhopreferredtheopinionofAugustinetothatofCalvininregardto the possible apostasy of some who had been brought to faith andrepentance, while agreeing with them both in maintaining the greatprinciple, that God from eternity chose somemen, certain persons, tosalvation, and that in carrying out this electing purposeHe effects andsecuresthesalvationofeveryoneofthosewhomHehaschoseninChrist.It is quite unwarrantable to represent this as a difference of vitalimportance between Augustine and Calvin, in relation to the great

distinctivefeaturesofthetheologicalsystemwhichtheyheldincommon,andwhichtheyhavedonemorethananyuninspiredmentocommendtotheacceptanceofthepeopleofGod.Anditisdeservingofspecialnotice,that on this particular point Cranmer followed Calvin, and notAugustine;f so that we have the fullest and most direct authority formaintaining, that nothing of an anti-Calvinistic complexion upon thesubject of perseverance or apostasy is, in so far as the intention of thecompilersisconcerned,tobefoundintheAnglicanformularies.

Wehavespokenstronglyastothefutilityoftheargumentsderivedfromthesesubjectsofreprobation,universalredemption,andperseverance,insupportoftheallegedmatteroffactoftheanti-CalvinismoftheAnglicanformularies; for it is, we think, very clear and certain, that noconsiderations deduced from these topics can be of any avail inweakeningtheevidencefor,orinstrengtheningtheevidenceagainst,theposition, that these symbols teach, and were intended to teach, thefundamentalprinciplesoftheCalvinisticsystemoftheology.Butwhilewecannot allow that there is any difficulty whatever in disposing of theattempts to refute thehistorical proof of the doctrinal Calvinism of theChurch of England, by inferences derived from these doctrines, wewillinglyadmitthatthesedoctrinesinthemselves,viewedintheirnatureandmeaning, in theirevidenceandapplication,and in their relation toeach other, and to the scheme of divine truth as a whole, involveprofound and inscrutable mysteries. They lead at once into the mostarduous and difficult questionswithwhich themind ofman has everygrappled. The investigation of the doctrines of reprobation, universalredemption, and perseverance, requires us to grapple with the mostarduousanddifficultofalltopicsinthefieldsbothofscripturalexegesisand theological speculation; and no one has ever prosecuted thisinvestigation in a right and becoming spirit without having beenimpressedwith a sense of the profound difficulties attaching to it, andwithout being led in consequence to regard differences of opinion onsomepointswithforbearanceandkindlyconsideration,howeverdecidedmayhavebeentheconclusionstowhichhehimselfhascome.

Still men should ascertain and profess the whole of what is taught orindicatedonthesesubjectsinScripture,andtheyshouldnotallowmere

cautionortimidity,oranyotherfeelingormotive,eventhoughitshouldassumetheformofreverenceormodesty,tointerferewiththedischargeof this duty. While reticence, perplexity, confusion, and even positiveerroruponsomeof the featuresof theseprofoundand solemn subjectsmay be treated with forbearance, all due allowances being made forpeculiaritiesinmen’sconstitutionandcircumstances,theyshouldneverbe approved of or encouraged. Men should be warned of theseshortcomings and infirmities, and exhorted to guard against them.WearepersuadedthattherearemanyoftheevangelicalclergyintheChurchofEngland,whocome far shortofdoing justice toGod’s truth in thesematters,nay,comefarshortevenofwhattheirownconvictions,defectiveandconfusedastheyoftenare,should leadthemtodo.Therearenotafew of the evangelical clergy, men of genuine and elevated piety, andfaithful and devoted ministers, who, while really believing in theCalvinistic doctrine of election, seem to shrink frommaking an explicitpublic profession of their judgment, or from giving it anything likeprominence.We suspect that in some instances they are half afraid tothink,orread,orspeakaboutthesubjectofelection,lesttheyshouldbeledtoform,orshouldbesuspectedofhavingformed,definiteordecidedopinions on what are reckoned the higher or more mysteriousdepartments of the subject connected with reprobation, the extent ofredemption, and the certainty of perseverance. Whatever may be theprecise cause of thismode of acting, andwhatever the precise forms itmayassumeindifferentindividuals,itisagreatweaknessandinfirmity,anditinvolvesorproducesaneglectordisregardofthedutytheyowetoGod’s truth,and toGod’scauseonearthasvirtually identifiedwith theproclamationordiffusionofHis truth.Fromthenumberandvarietyofthegroundsonwhichmenofthisclass,whoaresubstantiallyCalvinistsatheartandintheirownconvictions, labourtoexcusethemselvesfromopenlyandexplicitlyadmittingandproclaimingthis,-rangingfromtheelevatedsophistryofmenofhighintellectandlearninglikeMr.Mozley,downtothemawkishsentimentalityof theweakestof thebrethren, - itwouldalmostseemasifanopenprofessionofCalvinismstill led,intheChurchofEngland, tosomething likemartyrdom.Wefear thatsomeoftheevangelicalclergy,whoarereallyCalvinistsinsubstanceandatheart,are deficient in the manly, outspoken independence and courageousintegrity of theNewtons and Scotts of a former generation.We believe

thatitwouldadvancethepeaceofmindofmanyoftheseexcellentmen,and increase their efficiency and usefulness as preachers of the gospeland defenders of God’s truth, if they would bring out their theologicalconvictionsmore definitely and prominently, - if, by a deeper study ofthese subjects, they were led to form, and if, by a deeper sense of theresponsibility connected with this department of the duty of Christianministers, theywere led to professmore detailed and definite views ofdoctrine, and thus to identify themselvesmore cordially and avowedlywith the leading principles of that system of theology which has beenembracedinsubstancebyalargeproportionoftheablestandbestmenthathaveeveradornedtheChurchofChrist,-whichwasadoptedbythewholebodyoftheReformerswithscarcelyasingleexception,andevenbythosetimidandcautiousmenwhopresidedoverthereformationof theChurchofEngland,andpreparedherauthorizedformularies.

We believe that one reasonwhy somany of the evangelical clergy restcontentedwithveryobscureandindefiniteviewsuponmanytheologicalsubjects is, that, from a variety of causes, they are led to shrink frominvestigatingthem;andthattheirCalvinism,suchasitis,istobetraced,not to a careful study of the subject, or the exercise of their mentalpowers, but rather to their own personal experience. There is not aconverted and believingman on earth, inwhose conscience there doesnot exist at least the germ, or embryo, of a testimony in favour of thesubstanceof theCalvinisticdoctrineof election.This testimonymaybemisunderstood, or perverted, or suppressed; but it exists in theineradicable sensewhichevery convertedmanhas, that ifGodhadnotchosen him, he neverwould have chosenGod, and that if God, byHisSpirit, had not exerted a decisive and determining influence in thematter, he never would have been turned from darkness to light, andbeen led to embrace Christ as his Saviour. This is really the sum andsubstanceofCalvinism.It is just the intelligentandheartyascriptionoftheentire,undividedgloryoftheirsalvation,byallwhoaresaved,tothesovereignpurpose, the infinitemerit,andthealmightyagencyofGod,-theFather, the Son, and theHolyGhost.And all thatCalvinists ask is,thatmenwhohavebeenconstrainedtobelieve,andfeelthistobetrueinsurveying the way by which God has led them, would embody theirconvictions indistinct anddefinite propositions; and that finding these

propositionsfullysupportedbythesacredScriptures,theywouldprofessandproclaimthemasaportionofGod’srevealedtruth.

Thereis,indeed,avastamountofevidencethatcanbeadducedinfavourof the Calvinistic doctrine of election, when this doctrine is looked atnakedlyandbyitself,-evidencefromScripture,reason,andexperience,-evidencewhich is fitted to impress, andhas impressed, equallymenofthe highest and most soaring intellect, and of the most devoted andchildlike piety. But at present we have to do not with arguments andproofs,butonlywithauthoritiesandtestimonies;andonthissubjectthegeneralpositionweareanxious to impress is this, that in favourof theCalvinistic. doctrineof election, as descriptive of the substance ofwhatScripture teacheswith respect to the divine purposes and procedure inregard to the salvation of those who are saved, there is a mass oftestimoniesintheexperiences,convictions,andimpressionsofreligiousmen,greatlysuperiorbothinamountandvaluetowhatmayappearupona superficial view of the matter. These testimonies, indeed, are oftenclouded and obscured, brought out in a very vague and imperfectway,and enveloped in much darkness and confusion. But still, viewedcollectivelyandinthemass,andestimatedfairlyinasurveyofthehistoryof the church and of the experience of God’s people, they do furnish apowerful confirmation to the proper proofs from Scripture and reason,fortheCalvinisticrepresentationofwhatGodpurposesanddoesforthesalvationofHischosen.

AndwithrespecttothatdepartmentofthegeneralsubjectonwhichnotCalvinistsbutArminiansaresofondofenlarging,viz. thepurposesandprocedure ofGod in regard to those of the human racewho ultimatelyperish,Calvinistsundertaketoshow-1st,Thattheyonlyfollow,humblyandreverentially,theimperfectindicationsgivenusinScriptureonthisprofoundlymysterious subject; 2d, Thatwhile desirous to dwell chieflyuponthesubjectofelection,asbeingbothmoreimportantinitself,andmore fully and clearly set before us in Scripture, they have beencompelled,bytheperverseandvexatiousimportunityoftheiropponents,to give more prominence to the subject of reprobation than they hadthemselvesanydesire togive it; and3d,That the inscrutablemysteriesattaching to this subject, apply in reality not to the Calvinistic

representationofit,buttotheactualrealitiesofthecase,-tofactswhichallpartiesadmit,andwhichallareequallyboundandequallyunabletoexplain, - the facts,namely,of the fallof thewholehumanrace intoanestateofsinandmisery,andofthisfearfulstatebecomingpermanentinregardtoaportionof therace; inotherwords, theonegreat factof theexistence and the permanence of moral evil among God’s rational andresponsiblecreatures.

TheBibleassumesorasserts,whileitscarcelyprofessestoexplain,thesetwogreatfactsofthefallofthewholehumanraceintoastateofsinandmisery,andoftheresultthataportionoftheraceistobeleftforeverinthat condition. But its leading primary object is to unfold the greatschemeofmercybywhichGodhaseffectuallyprovidedforthesalvationfromthisstateofsinandmiseryofaninnumerablemultitude,which,foranythingthathasbeenmadeknowntous,may,intheultimateresultofthings, comprehend a greatmajority of the descendants of Adam. Godhasdevisedsuchaschemeasthis,tothepraiseofthegloryofHisgrace.Hehasmadeitknowntous,thatwemayshareinitsblessings,thatwemayattaintosalvationourselves,-mayassist,astheinstruments,inHishand, in promoting the salvation of our fellow-men, - and may bepreparedforascribing,withallourhearts,intimeandthrougheternity,gloryandhonourandblessingtoHimthatlovedus,andwashedusfromoursinsinHisownblood,andmadeuskingsandpriestsuntoGodandHisFather.

ZwingliandtheDoctrineoftheSacraments

ItisaverycommonpracticeofPopishwriterstorepresentProtestantismand the Reformation as thoroughly identified with Luther, with hischaracter,opinions,labours,andachievements.Protestantism,accordingto a mode of representation in which they are fond of indulging, andwhich is not destitute of a certain measure of plausibility, is a newreligion, never heard of till itwas invented byLuther, and traceable tohim alone as its source and origin. Having thus identified theReformationandProtestantismwithLuther, theycommonlyproceed togiveanaccountofhimwhomthey representas theauthorofour faith,bringingout,withgreatdistortionandexaggeration,everythingabouthischaracterandhistory,abouthissayingsanddoings,whichmaybefittedtoexciteaprejudiceagainsthim,especiallyascontemplatedinthelightinwhichthey,notwe,representhim,viz.astheauthorandfounderofanew religious system. Independently of the utterly unfounded anderroneousassumptionsinpointofprincipleandargumentonwhichthiswholerepresentationisbased,itisaltogetheruntrueasamerehistoricalfact, thatLuther occupied any such place in regard to theReformationand Protestantism, as Papists - for controversial purposes - areaccustomedtoassigntohim.Hewasnottheonlypersonwhowasraisedupat thatperiodtooppose theChurchofRome,and tobringout fromthewordofGodotherrepresentationsofapostolicChristianitythanthosewhich the Papacy inculcated and embodied. It is quite certain that, indifferentpartsofEurope,aconsiderablenumberofpersons,asearlyasLutherandaltogetherindependentlyofhim,hadbeenledtodeducefromthe sacred Scriptures doctrines substantially the same as his, even thedoctrineswhichmaybesaidtoconstitutethefundamentalprinciplesofProtestantism.InFrance,LefevreandFarel,ofwhomsoveryinterestingan account is given by Dr’Merle D’Aubigne in the twelfth book of his“HistoryoftheReformation,”hadbeenledtoadopt,andtopromulgate,to a certain extent, the leading doctrines of the Reformation beforeLutherappearedpubliclyasaReformer;andtheycertainlystandmuch

moreintherelationofsomethinglikepaternitytoCalvin,andtoallthathe was honoured to achieve, than Luther does. And if an open breachwith theChurch ofRome, and the organization of aProtestant church,previouslytoandindependentlyofLuther,areinsisteduponasnecessarytothecharacterandpositionofaReformer,wecanpointtoZwingliandhisassociates,theReformersofGermanSwitzerland.

Zwingli,indeed,washonouredtoperformawork,bothasareformerandas a theologian, which entitles him to special notice; andwe intend atpresentgivingabriefaccountofthedoctrineswhichhetaught,theplacewhich, he occupied, and the influence which he exerted, in regard totheologicalsubjects.

The important movement of which Zwingli might be said to be theoriginatorandtheheadwaswhollyindependentofLuther;thatistosay,Lutherwas in nowaywhatever, directly or indirectly, the cause or theoccasion of Zwingli being led to embrace the views which hepromulgated,ortoadoptthecoursewhichhepursued.Zwinglihadbeenled toembrace the leadingprinciplesofProtestant truth,and topreachthemin1516,theyearbeforethepublicationofLuther’sTheses;anditisquitecertainthatallalonghecontinuedtothinkandactforhimself,onhis own judgment and responsibility, deriving his views from his ownpersonalandindependentstudyofthewordofGod.Thisfactshowshowinaccurate it is to identify the Reformation with Luther, as if all theReformers derived their opinions from him, and merely followed hisexample in abandoning the Church of Home, and organizing churchesapart from her communion. Many at this time, in different parts ofEurope,wereledtostudythesacredScriptures,andwere ledfurthertoderive fromthis studyviewsofdivine truthsubstantially thesame,anddecidedlyopposedtothosegenerally inculcatedintheChurchofRome.AndmoreparticularlyitiscertainthatLutherandZwingli-thetwomenwho, in different countries, may be said to have originated the publicrevoltagainstRomeandtheorganizationofProtestant churches -werewholly independent of, and unconnected with, each other, in theformationoftheiropinionsandtheirplans,andbothderivedthemfromtheirownseparateandindependentstudyofGod’sword.

We need not dwell upon Zwingli’s general character as distinguished

fromhistheologicalopinions;for,indeed,ithasneverbeensubjectedtoanyveryseriousor formidableassaults.Hewas inagreatmeasure freefromthoseweaknessesandinfirmitieswhichhaveaffordedmaterialsforcharges,insomedegreetrue,andtoamuchgreaterextentonlyplausible,against both Luther andMelancthon.He usually spoke and acted withcalmness, prudence, and discretion, and at the same time with thegreatest vigour, intrepidity, and consistency. He gave the mostsatisfactoryevidenceofbeingthoroughlydevotedtoGod’sservice,andofacting under the influence of genuine Christian principle; and hischaracter was peculiarly fitted in many respects to call forth at onceesteemandaffection.

He has been sometimes charged, even by those who had no prejudiceagainst his cause or his principles, with interfering too much in thepolitical affairs of his country, and connecting religion too closely withpoliticalmovements.And, indeed,hisdeathat thebattleofCappellhasbeenheldupasaninstanceofrighteousretribution,-asanillustrationofthescripturalprinciple,that“hethattakeththeswordshallperishbythesword.”Thoughthisviewhasbeencountenancedbysomeveryeminentandinfluentialnamesinthepresentday,wearebynomeanssurethatithas any solid foundation to rest upon.We do not know any scripturalground which entitles us to lay it down as an absolute rule, that thecharacterofthecitizenandthepatriotmustbeentirelysunkinthatoftheChristian minister, - anything which precludes ministers from takingpart,inanycircumstances,inpromotingthepoliticalwell-beingoftheircountry,orinseeking,intheuseoflawfulmeans,tohavetheregulationofnationalaffairsdirectedtotheadvancementofthecauseandkingdomofChrist.Ministerscertainlyshowaspiritunworthyof theiroffice,andindicatethelowstateoftheirpersonalreligion,whentheyordinarilygivemuchtimeorattentiontoanythingbutthedirectandproperbusinessoftheir office, and when they act as if they believed that the success ofChrist’scausewasreallydependentuponpoliticalchanges,uponresultsto be accomplished by human policy and human laws; and scarcelyanythingshortofdownrightimmoralitytendsmorepowerfullytoinjuretheir usefulness, than engaging keenly in the ordinary contentions ofpolitical partisanshipwhichmaybe agitating the community.But sincetheyarenot required toabandonwholly thedischargeof theduties,or

the exercise of the rights, which devolve upon them as citizens, or tobecomeindifferenttothetemporalwelfareorprosperityoftheircountry;and since it can scarcely be disputed that, in point -of fact, theway inwhichnationalaffairshavebeenregulatedandnationallawsframedhasoften materially contributed to the obstruction or the advancement ofChrist’scause,-itseemsscarcelyfairatoncetocondemntheconductofthosewhomayhave done somethingdirected to the object of securingthe right regulation of national affairs, by means of vague allegationsabout the spirit ofChristianity and theuseof carnalweapons, etc. etc.,without a careful examination of the particular things done, viewed inconnectionwiththewholecircumstancesinwhichtheytookplace.Manycountries were so situated at the time of the Reformation, that it wasscarcelypossibletokeeppoliticalandreligiousmattersentirelydistinct,and scarcely practicable formenwhowere interested in thewelfare oftrue religion to abstain from taking part in the regulation of nationalaffairs; and the narrower the sphere of action, the more difficult, orrather impracticable,did such separationandabstinenceoftenbecome.What John Knox did, was compelled to do, and did with so muchadvantagetohiscountry,inScotland,itwasatleastequallywarrantableandnecessaryforZwinglitodointhesmallcantonofZurich,andintheHelveticConfederation.Andwhilethismaybesaidgenerallyofhistakingsomepartintheregulationofthepublicaffairsofhiscountry,wearenotawarethatanyevidencehasbeenproduced,thatheeitherrecommendedor approved of any of the public proceedings of Zurich and herconfederate cantons, which were clearly objectionable on grounds ofreligion,equity,orpolicy.It iswellknownthathedisapproved,anddidwhathecouldtoprevent,thestepsthatledtothewarinwhichhelosthislife;anditwasinobediencetotheexpressordersofthecivilauthorities,and in the discharge of his duties as a pastor, that, not without somemelancholy forebodings, he accompanied his countrymen to the fatalfieldofCappell.Wecannotdwelluponthissubject,butwehavethoughtitpropertoexpressourdoubtswhetherthedisapprobationwhichsomeeminentmen in the present day have indicated of Zwingli’s conduct inthis respect is altogether well founded. We confess we are inclined toregard this disapprobation as originating rather in a narrow andsentimental, than in an enlargedandmanly, viewof thewhole subject;and to suspect that it may have been encouraged by an unconscious

infusion of the erroneous and dangerous principle of judging of thecharacter of zwingli’s conduct by the event, - of regarding his violentdeathuponthefieldofbattleasasortofproofofhisMaster’sdispleasurewiththecoursehehadpursued.Butwecannotdwelluponhistoricalandbiographicalmatters,andmustproceedtonoticeZwingli’stheology.

Thoughhepreachedthegospel,andinculcatedtheleadingprinciplesofProtestantism,in1516,itwasnottill1519thathewascalledtocomeforthpubliclyinoppositiontotheChurchofHome,anditwasin1522thathisfirstworkswerepublished;sothat,ashisdeathtookplacein1531,whenhewas only forty-seven years of age, his public labours as a Reformerextendedonlyoveraperiodoftwelve,andasanauthoroveraperiodofnine,years.Andwhenweattendtothemultiplicityandabundanceofhispublic labours,and thecharacterof the four foliovolumesofhisworksproduced in this brief space, we are constrained to form the highestestimate both of his ability and his industry. His works are chieflyoccupied with the exposition of Scripture, and with unfolding anddefendingthedoctrineswhichhehaddeducedfromthewordofGod,inopposition to the errors of the Papists and the Anabaptists, - or, as hecommonly called them, the Anabaptists, - and in opposition to Lutherand his followers, on the subject of the presence of Christ’s flesh andblood in the Eucharist. It is deplorable, indeed, to find, that throughLuther’s error and obstinacy, so large a portion of the brief but mostvaluable life of Zwingli was of necessity occupied in exposing theunintelligibleabsurdityofconsubstantiation.

Zwingliwasnotendowedwiththefireandenergy,withthevigorousandlively imagination, or with the graphic power of Luther; but hisunderstanding, upon the whole, was sounder, and his mental facultieswerebetterregulatedandmorecorrectlybalanced.Hehadnotbeenledeitherbythecourseofhisstudiesorbyhisspiritualexperience,-thatis,God’sdealingswithhissoulinleadinghimtotheknowledgeandbeliefofthe truth, - to give such prominence as Luther did to any particulardepartmentsoraspectsofdivinetruth.HerangedsomewhatmorefreelyoverthewholefieldofScripturefortruthstobringoutandenforce,andoverthewholefieldofPoperyforerrorstoexposeandassail;andthishasgiven a variety and extent tohis speculations,whichLuther’sworksdo

not perhaps exhibit in the same degree. And as he was eminentlydistinguished for perspicacity and soundness of judgment, he has verygenerally reacheda just conclusion, and established it by judicious andsatisfactoryargumentsfromScripture.ThereareerrorsandcruditiestobefoundinZwingli’sworks,buttheyarenotperhapssonumerousasinLuther’s; and several instances occur in which, on points unconnectedwith the sacramentarian controversy, and withoutmentioning Luther’sname,hehascorrectedsomeoftheextravagancesandoverstatementsinwhich the great Saxon Reformer not unfrequently indulged. Indeed,considering the whole circumstances in which Zwingli was placed, theopportunitiesheenjoyed,theoccupationsinwhichhewasinvolved,andthe extent to which he formed his views from his own personalindependentstudyofthesacredScriptures,hemaybefairlysaidtohaveprovedhimselfquiteequaltoanyoftheReformers,inthepossessionofthepowerofaccuratelydiscoveringdivinetruth,andestablishingituponsatisfactoryscripturalgrounds.

Histheologyuponalmostalltopicsofimportance,derivedfromhisownindependentstudyofthewordofGod,wasthesameasthatwhichLutherderivedfromthesamesacredandinfalliblesource,aswasfullyprovedbytheArticlesagreeduponattheconferenceatMarburg in theyear1529.Thisconferenceisoneofthemostinterestingandimportanteventsinthehistory of the church, both in itsmore personal and in itsmore publicaspects. It was a noble subject for the graphic pen of Dr. MerleD’Aubigne,whohascertainlydoneitamplejustice,andwhosenarrativeof it, in the thirteenth hook of the “History of the Reformation,” issingularly interesting, and admirably fitted to exert a useful andwholesomeinfluence.Wedonotknowthatever,onanyotheroccasioninthe history of the church, four such men as Luther and Melancthon,Zwingli and Oecolampadius met together in one room, and sat at thesametablediscussingthegreatdoctrinesoftheology.Luther’srefusaltoshake hands with Zwingli, which led that truly noble and thoroughlybrave man to burst into tears, was one of the most deplorable andhumiliating,butatthesametimesolemnandinstructive,exhibitionsofthe deceitfulness of sin and of the human heart the world has everwitnessed.

TheimportanceoftheMarburgconferenceinitsmorepublicaspectsliesinthis,thatitwasthefirstformaldevelopment,bothoftheunityandthedivergence of the two great sections of the first Reformers, who had,independentlyofeachother,derivedtheirviewsofdivinethingsfromthestudy of the word of God. At this conference, the leading doctrines ofChristianitywereembodied in fifteenArticles, andbothparties entirelyagreedwitheachotherinregardtofourteenandtwo-thirdsofthewhole-comprehendingalmosteverythingthatcouldberegardedasfundamentalinasummaryofChristiantruth.EveninregardtotheLord’sSuppertheyagreed upon most matters of importance, and differed only on thisquestion, “Whether the true body and blood of Christ be corporallypresent in the bread and wine?” And in regard to this question of thecorporalpresence, theypromised to cherishChristian love towardsoneanother“asfarastheconscienceofeachwillallow”-uquantumcujusqueconscientiaferet.”Luther’sconscienceunfortunatelywouldnotallowhimto go far, in the way of Christian love, towards those who denied theunintelligible dogma which he defended so strenuously; and themischiefsthatarosefromthiscontroversy,andfromtheWayinwhichitwas conducted, especially by Luther and his followers, including itsindirectandremoteconsequences,havebeenincalculableinamount,andare damaging the cause of Protestantism, and benefiting the cause ofPopery,downtothepresentday.Lutherandhisfollowersarethepartiesresponsible forthis controversy, and forall themischiefwhich,directlyand indirectly, immediately and remotely, it has occasioned, lst, andprincipally,becausetheywerepalpablyandwhollywrongonthemeritsofthequestion;and2d,becausetheyalsodisplayedafargreateramountof the injurious influences which controversy usually exerts upon thespirit and conduct of men, than their opponents did. Howmany havethere been in every age who, while destitute of all Luther’s redeemingqualities, have displayed largely the grievous infirmities which heexhibited in the sacramentarian controversy, and like himhave laid alltheresponsibilityofthisupontheirconscience,whichcompelledthemtostandfastforthetruth;andhowgreatthemischiefwhichpersonsofthisstamp have done to the church, by their number and audacity,notwithstandingtheirinsignificanceindividually!

ThesubjectsonwhichtheorthodoxyofZwinglihasbeenchieflyassailed

arethedoctrineoforiginalsinandthesalvationoftheheathen;and,onthe groundof statementswhichhemadeon these subjects, thePapistshave been accustomed to accuse him of Pelagianism andPaganism. Inregard to the first of these topics, viz. the doctrine of original sin, onwhich Bossuet and other Papists have adduced heavy charges againstZwingli’sorthodoxy,as ifhedenied it altogether, ithas,we think,beenprovedthatwhenafullandimpartialviewistakenofhiswholedoctrine,hedoesnotmateriallydeviatefromthestandardofscripturalorthodoxyonthesubjectofthenaturalanduniversaldepravityofman;andthatthepeculiarities of his statements, upon which the charge is commonlybased, really resolve into differences chiefly about the precisemeaningandtheproperapplicationofwords.Heseems tohavebeenanxious toconfinethepropermeaningof thewordpeccatumtoanactualpersonalviolation of God’s law, and to have been disposed to call the naturaldepravity of man, the source or cause of actual transgression, by thenameofadisease,morbus,ratherthanofasinorpeccatum.Butthoughhe attached unnecessary importance to this distinction, he has clearlydefinedhismeaning,explainedinwhatsensemen’snaturalpropensitytoviolate God’s law is or is not peccatum; he has fully expressed hisaccordance in thegreat scripturaldoctrine, that allmendo, inpointoffact, bring into the world with them a depravity of nature, a diseasedmoralconstitution,whichcertainly,andineveryinstance,leadsthemtoincur theguiltofactual transgressionsofGod’s law,andwhich,but forthe interposition of divine grace, would certainly involve them ineverlastingmisery.TheMarburgArticleswerepreparedbyLuther,whohadbeen led to entertain suspicions of Zwingli’s orthodoxyuponotherpointsthantherealorcorporalpresence,andamongothersonoriginalsin,andwerenodoubtintendedbyhimtotestZwingli’ssoundnessinthefaith.YetZwinglihadnohesitationinsubscribingthepropositionwhichLuther prepared upon this point, viz. “Credimus peccatum originis, abAdamoinnoscarnaligenerationepropagatum,talepeccatumesse,quodomneshominescondemnet,etnisiChristusopemnobissu&morteetvitatulisset,seternamortenobisineomoriendumfuisset,nequeunquaminregnumdeietbeatitudinemseternampervenirepotuissimus.”Thisinallfairness must be held to establish Zwingli’s substantial orthodoxy inregard to the universality and the fatal consequences of man’s naturaldepravity; and the suspicion afterwards expressed by Luther as to

Zwingli’s soundness upon this subject, without any new cause havingbeenaffordedforthesuspicion,shouldberegardedmerelyasaspecimenof theunjust andungenerous treatmentwhichhe toooftengave to thesacramentarians and others who opposed him. It is proper tomentionthat Milner has given a very defective and unfair representation ofZwingli’s views upon this subject, as if he were anxious to establish acharge of error against him; and that the unfairness of Milner’sstatements has been pointed out, and Zwingli satisfactorily vindicatedfromtheimputation,byScott,inhisexcellentContinuationofMilner.

Zwingli’s adoption of this Article upon original sin also proves, that hedidnotdeviatequite so far fromsounddoctrine inhis views about thesalvationoftheheathen,asmightatfirstsightappearfromsomeofhisstatementsuponthispoint.Hehas indeedplainlyenoughintimated,assomeofthefathershavedone,hisbeliefthatsomeofthemorewiseandvirtuousheathenwere savedandadmitted toheaven; and in specifyingbynamesomeoftheindividualsamongthemwhomwemightexpecttomeetthere,suchasHerculesandTheseus,hehascertainlynotshownhisusual good sense.Buthenevermeant to teach (andhis subscription tothe above-quoted Article, as well as the whole tenor of his writings,provesit)thatmenmaybesaved“byframingtheirlivesaccordingtothelightofnature,andthelawofthereligiontheyprofess.”Onthecontrary,he constantly taught that men, if saved at all, were saved only on thegroundofChrist’satonement,andbytheoperationofGod’sgrace.Buthethought, without any sufficient scriptural warrant, that the benefits ofChrist’sdeathmightbeimpartedtomen,andthattheirnaturesmightberenewedbyGod’sagency,eventhoughtheywerenotacquaintedwithanyexternal supernatural revelation, and that some of the heathen didmanifest such moral excellence as to indicate the presence of God’sspecialgraciousagency.Thiswascertainlyseekingtobewiseabovewhatiswritten.Wearenotcalledupontobemakinganypositiveaffirmationsas to what God can do or may do, in extending mercy to individualsamongmen.Buttheprinciple isclearlyrevealedtous inScripture, thatthe general provisionwhichGod hasmade for savingmen individuallyfrom their natural guilt and depravity, is by communicating to them,throughthemediumofanexternalrevelation,andimpressingupontheirheartsbyHisSpirit,someknowledgeoftheonlywayofsalvationthrough

aRedeemerandasacrifice;andthistruth,solemnandawfulasitis,weare bound to receive as the ordinary rule of our opinions and practice,abstainingfromallunwarrantedspeculations,andrestingsatisfiedintheassurancethattheJudgeofalltheearthwilldoright.Stilltheremaybesaidtobelessoferrorandpresumptioninthenotionthataknowledgeofdivine truth has been communicated extraordinarily to somemenwhowerenotacquaintedwithanexternalsupernaturalrevelation,thaninthenotionthatmenmaybesavedmerelybyframingtheirlivesaccordingtothe lightofnature,andtheparticularreligion,whatever itmaybe,withwhich theymayhappen to have been acquainted; and to the benefit ofthis difference in degree, such as it is, Zwingli is entitled, though hismodeofdiscussingthesubjectcannotbevindicated.

There is nothing in the Articles of Marburg bearing very directly andexplicitly upon the doctrines which are usually regarded as thepeculiaritiesoftheCalvinisticsystem,thoughwearepersuadedthatnonebutCalvinistscanhold,with full intelligenceand thoroughconsistency,the great scriptural doctrines which are there set forth concerning thenaturalguiltanddepravityofman, thewayofsalvationthroughChrist,gratuitous justification,andtheproductionof faithandregenerationbyGod’s immediate agency. Still, as somemendonot perceive and admitthe necessary connection between these great doctrines and what theycall the peculiarities of Calvinism, the question may still be asked,whether Zwingli agreed with Calvin in those peculiar doctrines withwhichhisnameisusuallyassociated.Andinanswertothisquestion,wehave no hesitation in saying, - what is equally true of Luther, - thatthoughZwingliwasnotledtodwellupontheexposition,illustration,anddefence of these doctrines so fully as Calvin, and although he has notperhaps given any formal deliverance on the irresistibility of grace andtheperseveranceofthesaints,inthedistinctandspecificforminwhichthese topics came to be afterwards discussed, yet in regard to theuniversalforeordinationandefficaciousprovidenceofGod,andinregardtoelectionandreprobation,hewasasCalvinisticasCalvinhimself.

It is rather singular that both Mosheim and Milner have denied thisposition,thoughitcanbemostfullyestablished.Mosheimsays,that“thecelebrateddoctrineofanabsolutedecreerespectingthesalvationofmen,

whichwas unknown to Zwingli, was inculcated by Calvin,” andMilnersays, “On a careful perusal of Zwingli’s voluminous writings, I amconvinced that certain peculiar sentiments, afterwards maintained byCalvin, concerning the absolute decrees of God, made no part of thetheology of the Swiss Reformer.” This statement of Milner’s is verycautiouslyexpressed,andcontainsnospecificationof theprecisepointsuponwhichZwingliandCalvinare said tohavediffered.But it isquiteplain,fromthewholescopeofthepassagewherethisextractoccurs,thatMilner just means in substance to say, as Mosheim does, that whileLuther, as he admits, though Mosheim denies this too, was, on thesubjectofpredestinationandthedecreesofGod,aCalvinist,Zwingliwasnot.Scott,however,whoserepresentationsofthetheologicalsentimentsof theReformersarevery full andaccurate, andwhoseContinuationofMilner is, on this account, peculiarly valuable, and deserving of thehighest commendation, has fully proved that .the representations ofMosheimandMilneruponthispointareperfectlyerroneous.Itisindeedscarcely possible that they could ever have read Zwingli’s “Elenchus inStrophasCatabaptistarum,”orhistreatise,“DeProvidentiaDei.”Inthesetreatiseshehasclearlyandunequivocallyexpressedhissentimentsuponthis subject, in full conformity with those afterwards taught andexpoundedbyCalvin,whileitcannotheallegedthathehascontradictedtheminanypartofhiswritings.Itmaybeworthwhiletogiveoneortwobrief extracts from these works in confirmation of this position. In his“Elenchus,” he gives the following statement as a summary of Paul’sargument in the Epistle to the Romans: - “Fide servamur, non exoperibus.Fidesnonesthumanarumviriumseddei. Isergoearndatusquosvocavit, eos autemvocavitquosad salutemdes-tinavit, eosautemadhancdestinavitquoselegit,elegitautemquosvoluit,liberumenimesteihocatqueintegrum,perindeatquefigulo,vasadiversaexeademmassaeducere. Hoc breviter argumentum et summa est electionis a Paulotractatse.” And in his commentary upon this summary of Paul’sargument,hemakes it clear,beyondallpossibilityof reasonabledoubt,thathebelieved,uponPaul’sauthority,thatGod,byanabsolutedecree,chose some men to everlasting life, and made effectual provision thatthey should be saved, - a choice or election made without regard toanythingforeseeninthem,butsolelyaccordingtothecounselofHisownwill.Andinhistreatise,“DeProvidentiaDei,”hehasachapter,thesixth,

on “Election,” in which he fully explains his views in such a way as toleavenoroomfordoubtastotheirimport,andmakessomestatementsevenaboutreprobation,quiteasstrongasanythateverproceededfromCalvin. Indeedhehere expressly tellsus, that inhis early life,whenhewasengagedinthestudyoftheschoolmen,heheld,asmostofthemdid,whatweshouldnowcallthecommonArminiandoctrineofGod’selectingmentolifebecauseHeforesawthattheyweretorepentandbelievethegospel, and that they would persevere in faith and good works. “Quaemihi sententia, ut olim scholas colenti placuit, ita illas deserenti etdivinorumoraculorumpuritatiadhserenti,maximedisplicuit.”Andthenheproceedstoshow,withaclearnessandaforcenotunworthyofCalvinhimself, that this Arminian doctrine is utterly inconsistent with theperfections andmoral government ofGod, andnecessarilymakesmen,whatever its supporters may profess to maintain about the divinesovereignty, theabsolutearbitersof theirowneverlastingdestiny, - thetrueauthorsoftheirownsalvation.

Many other extracts of a similar kind will be found in Hottinger andScott.Theyareamplysufficienttoestablish,thatZwingliconcurredwithLuther in teaching those great doctrines which have brought so muchodiumonthenameofCalvin,beforethatgreatmanhadbeenledeventoformhis viewsof divine truth; forLuther’s treatise “DeServoArbitrio”was published when Calvin was seventeen, and Zwingli’s treatise “DeProvidentiaDei”whenCalvinwastwentyyearsofage.

Thesemis-statementsofMosheimandMilneraboutthetheologicalviewsof Zwingli, are rather remarkable specimens of the “humanum esterrare,” and are fitted to remindus of the little reliance that shouldbeplaceduponsecond-handauthorities.Mosheimfurtherlaysitdown,thatZwingli and Calvin differed from each other, not only in regard topredestination,butalsoinregardtothepowerofthecivilmagistrate inreligiousmatters,andthedoctrineofthesacraments.Onthefirstofthesepoints,Mosheimisright insayingofCalvin, “thathecircumscribed thepowerofthemagistrateinmattersofreligionwithinnarrowlimits,andmaintained that the church ought to be free and independent, and togovernitselfbymeansofbodiesofpresbyters,synods,orconventionsofpresbyters, in the manner of the ancient church, yet leaving to the

magistrate the protection of the church, and an external care over it.”TheseweretheviewsofCalvin;andtheyhavebeentheviewseversinceofthegreatbodyofthosewhohaveusuallybeenrankedunderhisname,asopposedtoErastianismontheonehand,andtoVoluntaryismontheother. But Mosheim falls into inaccuracy and exaggeration when, incontrastwiththeseviewsofCalvin,healleges, that“Zwingliassignedtocivil rulers full and absolute power in regard to religiousmatters, and,whatmanycensurehimfor,subjectedtheministersofreligionentirelytotheir authority.” There is no warrant for ascribing such extreme viewsuponthissubjecttoZwingli,who,thoughhedidnotrestrainthepowerofthecivilmagistratewithinsuchnarrowboundsasCalvinassignedit,wasnotnearlysoErastianasMosheimhimselfandthegeneralityofLutheranwriters. There is no ground, indeed, for believing that Zwingli everattained toadistinctconceptionof thegreat scripturalprinciple,whichhas been generally held by Calvinists, viz. that Christ has appointed inHis church a government in the hands of ecclesiastical office-bearers,distinctfrom,independentof,andnotsubordinateinitsownsphereto,the civil magistrate. But he certainly showed that he was decidedly inadvance of Luther and Melancthon on this question, and that he wasaltogether opposed to the leading principle which chiefly Erastuslaboured toestablish,byascribing fullyandunequivocally thepower ofexcommunication solely to the church itself, and not to the civilmagistrate.Andwithrespecttothewiderandmoregeneralsubjectoftheprovinceandfunctionofthecivilmagistrateinregardtoreligion,Zwinglimayperhapsbe regardedasholding themainsubstanceofwhat soundprincipledemands, inmaintaining,as itcanbeprovedthathedid, thatall the powers conceded to the civil authorities of Zurich in religiousmatterswereexercisedbythemasrepresentingthechurch,andonlywiththechurch’sownconsent.Wedonotbelievethatthechurchcanlawfullyconcede or delegate to the civil authorities anypowerwhichChrist hasconferreduponher.But still there is a fundamental difference betweenthisprincipleofZwingli’sandtheproperErastiantenet,whichascribestothecivilmagistrate jurisdictionorauthority,notmerelycircasacra,butinsacris,asinherentlyattachingtohisoffice.

Butperhapsthemost interestingtopicofdiscussionconnectedwiththeinvestigationoftheopinionsofZwingli,ishisdoctrineonthesubjectof

thesacraments.Averygeneralimpressionprevails,anditiscertainlynotaltogetherwithoutfoundation,thatZwingliheldlowanddefectiveviewsupon this subject. He is usually alleged to have taught, that thesacramentsarejustnakedandbaresignsorsymbols,emblematicallyandfiguratively representing or signifying scriptural truths and spiritualblessings; and that the reception of them is amere commemoration ofwhat Christ has done for. sinners, and a profession which men makebeforethechurchoroneanotheroftheviewswhichtheyhavebeenledtoentertain upon the great doctrines of Scripture concerning the way ofsalvation,aswellasapublicpledge to followoutconsistently theviewsthus professed; and there are undoubtedly statements in Zwingli’swritings which seem fairly enough to imply, that this was the wholedoctrinewhichhe taught concerning the sacraments.ThisdoctrinewasgenerallyregardedbyProtestants, especially afterCalvinhadpublishedhisviewsuponthesubject,asbeingdefective,andthoughtruesofarasitwent, yet coming far short of bringing out the whole truth taught inScriptureregardingit.AndasthePapistswereaccustomedtobringitasaseriouschargeagainsttheReformers,thattheyexplainedawaythewholemysteryandefficacyofthesacraments,theProtestantchurchesbecameanxious to disclaim the view which Zwingli had seemed to sanction.Accordingly,intheoriginalScottishConfession,preparedbyJohnKnox,andadoptedby thechurch in1560, it is said, “Weutterlycondemnthevanityofthosewhoaffirmsacramentstobenothingelsebutnakedandbare signs.” Similar disclaimers are to be found in many of the otherconfessions of the Reformed churches, and in the writings of thegeneralityof theProtestantdivinesof thatperiod;thoughthere issomegood reason to doubt, whether there be adequate grounds for allegingthatZwingliheld thesacraments tobenothingelsebutnakedandbaresigns,andthoughthereisconsiderabledifficultyinascertaininginsomecases what those meant to affirm who were anxious to repudiate thisposition. It is very manifest that Zwingli, disgusted with the mass ofheresy, mysticism, and absurdity which had prevailed so long and sowidelyinthechurchonthesubjectofthesacraments,leantverystronglytowhatmay be called the opposite extreme of excessive simplicityandplainness.Itisnotwonderfulthathedidnotsucceedperfectlyinhittingthegoldenmean,orthatthereactionagainstthemonstrousandruinoussystem which had been wrought out and established in the Church of

Rome, tempted him to try to simplify the subject of the sacramentsbeyondwhattheScripturerequiredorsanctioned.Webelievethathedidtosomeextentyieldtothistemptation;butwearepersuaded,atthesametime,thatherenderedservicesoftheveryhighestvaluetothechurch,bythelightwhichhethrewuponthisimportantandintricatesubject.

There is some difficulty in ascertaining precisely what Zwingli’s viewsupon the subject of the sacramentswere, and there is some ground tothink that, towards theendofhis life,heascribedahighervalueandagreaterefficacytotheseordinancesthanhehadoncedone. Inhisgreatwork,“DeVeraetFalsaReligione,”publishedin1525,headmitsthathehad spoken of the sacraments somewhat rashly and crudely, andindicated that his views were advancing in what Protestants generallywould reckon a sound direction. It is true, indeed, that in a laterworkpublishedin1530,his“RatioFidei,”hecontinuedtoassert,“Sacramentatamabesseutgratiamconferant,utneadferantquidemautdispensent.”But many Protestants, who were far enough from regarding thesacraments as naked and bare signs, have denied that the sacramentsconfergrace;andindeeditisonlyinaverylimitedandcarefullydefinedsensethatanypersonsintelligentlyopposedtothedoctrineoftheChurchof Rome admit this position. In awork published in the same year, indefence of his “Ratio Fidei,” he declared that he was quite willing toconcur in anything thatmightbe said in commending and exalting thesacraments,providedthatwhatwasspokensymbolicallywasunderstoodandappliedsymbolically,andthatthewholehonourofwhateverspiritualbenefit was derived was ascribed to God, and not either to the personadministeringthem,ortoanyefficacyoftheoutwardelementsoractions.And in the lastworkwhichhewrote, andwhichwas not published tillafterhisdeath, the “Expositio Fidei,” he gave some indications, thoughperhapsnotveryexplicit,of regarding thesacramentsnotonlyassignsbutasseals,-assignsaridsealsnotonlyonthepartofmen,butofGod,-as signifying and confirming something then done byGod through theSpirit,aswellassomethingdonebythereceiverthroughfaith.ThisisthegreatgeneralprinciplewhichhasbeenusuallyheldbyProtestantsuponthesubject,andiscommonlyregardedasconstitutingthe leadingpointofdifferencebetweenwhatisoftenrepresentedastheZwingliandoctrineof the sacraments being only naked and bare signs, and that generally

held by the Protestant churches. We cannot assert that Zwingli hasbrought out very distinctly and explicitly this important principle, thatthesacramentsaresignsandsealsonthepartofGodaswellasofmen;andthereforewecannotassertthathisdoctrine,thoughitistruesofarasitgoes,bringsoutthewholeofwhatScriptureteachesuponthissubject,ordenythatheleantundulyandexcessivelytothesideofplainnessandsimplicity in the exposition of this topic. Butwe are persuaded that hemanifested very great strength and vigour of mind in his speculationsupon this matter, and that he aided greatly the progress of scripturaltruthinregardtoit.

It was in the highest degree honourable to Zwingli that he so entirelythrew off the huge mass of extravagant absurdity and unintelligiblemysticism,whichfromaveryearlyperiodhadbeengatheringroundthesubject of the sacraments, andwhich had reached its full height in theauthorized doctrine of the Church of Rome. This was an achievementwhich Luther never fully reached, either in regard to baptism or theLord’s Supper. Zwingli’s rejection of the whole of the erroneous anddangerous doctrine in regard to the sacraments which had beeninculcated by the schoolmen, and sanctioned by the Church of Rome,was, in the circumstances in which he was placed, one of the mostarduous and honourable, and in its consequences one of the mostimportantandbeneficial, achievementswhich thehistoryof the churchrecords.ThegreatgeneralprinciplesbywhichZwingliwasguidedintheformation and promulgation of his views in regard to the sacramentswerethese:-1st,Thatgreatcareshouldbetakentoavoidanythingwhichmight appear to trench upon the free grace of God, the meritoriousefficacy of Christ’s work, and the almighty agency of His Spirit inbestowing upon men all spiritual blessings; and 2d, That whateverexternalmeansofgracemayhavebeenappointed,andinwhateverwaythesemeansmayordinarilyoperate,Godmustnotbeheldtobetiedorrestricted in the communication of spiritual benefits to the use ofanything of an external kind, though He has himself appointed andprescribedit;and3d,Thatthemostimportantmatterconnectedwiththesubjectofthesacramentsisthestateofmindandheartoftherecipient;and that,with reference to this, the essential thing is, that the state ofmindandheartoftherecipientshouldcorrespondwiththeoutwardact

which, in participating in the sacrament, he performed. Zwingli wasdeeplypersuadedthattherightmodeofinvestigatingthissubjectwasnotto follow the example of the Fathers, in straining the imagination todeviseunwarranted,extravagant,andunintelligiblenotionsofthenatureandeffectsofthesacraments,forthepurposeofmakingthemmoreawfulandmore influential,but to traceoutplainlyandsimplywhat is taughtandindicatedinScriptureregardingthem.Byfollowingoutthiscourse,conscientiouslyandjudiciously,hewasledinthefirstplacetorepudiatethewholehugemassofabsurdityandheresywhichtheFathersandtheschoolmenhadaccumulatedaroundthissubject;andinthesecondplace,tolaydownandtoapplythethreegreatgeneralprinciplesabovestated,whichwerefittednotonlytoexcludemuchgrievouserror,buttobringinmuchimportantandwholesometruth.Zwingli, in theseways, renderedvaluable service to the church, and has done much to put the generalsubjectofthesacramentsuponasoundandsafefooting.

Zwingli’s mental constitution gave him a very decided aversion to theunintelligibleandmystical,andmadehimleantowardswhatwasclear,definite,andpractical.Hehadastrongsenseofthegreatinjurythathadbeendonetoreligionbythenotionswhichhadlongprevailedinregardtothesacraments.Andundertheseinfluencesitisnotsurprisingthat,whilediscarding a great deal of dangerous error, he should have left inabeyancesomeportionofwholesometruth.Heleanedtothesideofwhatwasclear,palpable,andsafe;andinthecircumstances inwhichhewasplaced,thiswastherightsideto leanto.It isnotsurprisingthathedidnot stop precisely at the right point, and that he carried the work ofdemolition somewhat too far. And when we consider what a mass ofunintelligibleand incredible absurdities, to thedeepdegradationof thehuman intellect, - and what a mass of heresies, perverting the way ofsalvation and tending to ruinmen’s souls, - had been invented by theFathersand the schoolmen, and sanctionedby theChurchofHomeonthesubjectof the sacraments,we cannotbut sympathizewithZwingli’sgeneralspiritandtendencies inregardtothismatter,andrejoice inthelargemeasureofsuccesswhichattendedhisinvestigations.Itisindeedamatteroffundamentalimportance,andperhapsmoreindispensablethananything else towards preparing men for a rational, intelligent, andbeneficial reception of the sacraments, and guarding against self-deceit

and danger in the use of them, that they have distinct and accurateconceptions of what the outward elements and actions signify orrepresent,andofwhat isprofessedor implied inthereceptionof them;thatis,ofwhatisthestateofmindandheartonthepartoftherecipientwhich the reception of them indicates or proclaims. It is in a greatmeasure from inattention to this fundamental point, that so many inevery age have been led to participate in the sacraments, who weretherebymakingafalseprofession,andofcourseinjuringtheirownsouls;whiletheywereentertainingunfoundedexpectationsofgettingspiritualblessingswithouthavinganyanxietyorconcernaboutwhatisordinarilynecessarywithaviewto thatresult.Zwinglirenderedamost importantservice by bringing out this great principle, which had been almostentirelyburied,andpressingitupontheattentionofthechurch.Hecameshort indeedof thetruth inhisdoctrineastothenatureandefficacyofthesacraments,bynotbringingoutfullywhatGoddoes,orisreadyandwilling to do, through their instrumentality, in offering to men andconferringupon them, through the exercise of faith, spiritualblessings.But he laid a good foundation, on which the whole truth taught inScripturemight be built,whenhedirected special attention to the truesignificanceandimportoftheoutwardelementsandactions;andpresseduponmentheparamountnecessityofseeingtoit,thatthestateoftheirmindandheartcorrespondedwiththeoutwardsignswhich theyused-withtheoutwardactionswhichtheyperformed.

Toallthisamountofcommendationinconnectionwiththeexpositionofthe sacraments we believe Zwingli to be well entitled, while the trueamountofhis shortcomingordeficiency it isnot veryeasy to estimate.Indeed, in regard to this latterpoint, it shouldnotbe forgotten, thatofthe importantdocument commonly called the “Consensus Tigurinus,” -inwhichwasembodiedastatementofthefundamentalprinciplesaboutthesacraments,whichwereheld incommonbythechurchesofGenevaandZurich, as represented byCalvin and byBullinger the successor ofZwingli, - Calvin declared his conviction, that “if Zwingli andOecolampadius, thesemost excellent and illustrious servants of Christ,werenowalive,theywouldnotchangeawordinit.”

Wedonotconsideritnecessarytodwelllongerupontheexaminationof

the opinions of Zwingli in regard to the sacraments. Indeedwe do notintend to bring forward anything further that is connected with thepersonal history of the great Reformer of German Switzerland. Weproposenowtogivesomeexpositionofthegeneraldoctrineortheoryofthe sacraments, as it has been held by the Reformed churches, - andespecially as it has been set forth in the Confession of Faith andCatechisms which were prepared by the Assembly of Divines atWestminster,andwhicharestillreceivedassymbolicalbythegreatbodyofPresbyteriansovertheworld.

A grievous corruption of the scriptural doctrine of the sacramentsappearedveryearlyinthechurch:itspreadfarandwide,andexertedamost injurious influence upon the interests of true religion. Confusionand,exaggerationveryearlyappearedinspeakingoftheseordinances,orthe“tremendousmysteries,”assomeoftheFatherscalledthem;andthisconfusion and exaggeration soon led to a substitution of the mereobservanceofoutwardritesfortheweightiermattersofthelaw-fortheessentialfeaturesofChristiancharacterandconduct.Eveninthesecondcenturywe find plain indications of a tendency to speak of the nature,design,andeffectsofthesacraments,inaveryinflatedandexaggeratedstyle,-astyleverydifferentfromanythingwefindintheNewTestament.We have a striking instance of this in the famous passage on theEucharist, occurringnear theendof the firstApologyof JustinMartyr,the very earliest of the Fathers who was not contemporary with theapostles. Romanists contend that this passage teaches the doctrine oftransubstantiation; Lutherans, that it teaches consubstantiation; andmostothermen,thatitteachesneithertheonenortheother.Allmenofcandouradmitthatthepassageisobscureandambiguous;andallmenofsenseshouldhavelongagocometotheconclusion,thatitwasnotworthwhiletospendanytimeininvestigatingitsmeaning.Itholdstrueofthis,asofmanyotherpassagesinthewritingsoftheFatherswhichhavegivenrise tomuch learned discussion inmodern times, that it really has nodefinitemeaning;andthatifwecouldcallupitsauthor,andinterrogatehimonthesubject,hewouldbeutterlyunabletotelluswhathemeantwhen he wrote it. This tendency to exaggeration and extravagance, toconfusion and absurdity, upon the subject of the sacraments, increasedcontinually, in proportion as sound doctrine upon matters of greater

importancedisappeared and vital religiondecayed, until, in theMiddleAges, Christianity came to be looked upon by the great body of itsprofessors, as a system which consisted in, and the whole benefits ofwhich were connected with, a series of outward ceremonies and ritualobservances.Thenature,design,andeffectsofthesacramentsoccupiedalargeshareoftheattentionoftheschoolmen;andindeedtheexpositionand development of the Romish and Tractarian doctrine upon thissubject,maybejustlyregardedasoneoftheprincipalexhibitionsoftheanti-scriptural views and the perverted ingenuity of the scholasticdoctors.Anexaggeratedandunscripturalviewofthevalueandefficacyofthesacramentswastoodeeplyingrainedintothescholastictheology,andwas too much in accordance with the general policy of the Church ofHome,andthegeneralcharacterandtendencyofhersystem,toadmitoftheCouncilofTrentgivinganysanctiontothesounderviewswhichhadbeen introduced by the Protestants, especially by that section of themwho have been called the Reformed, to distinguish them from thefollowersofLuther.

ThedoctrineoftheChurchofRomeuponthissubjectissetforthinthefirst part of the decree of the seventh session of the Council of Trent,which treats de Sacramentis in genere, and in statements made intreating of some of the other sacraments individually. The leadingfeatures of their doctrine on the general subject of the sacraments arethese, that“throughthesacramentsof thechurchall truerighteousnesseitherbegins,orwhenbegunisincreased,orwhenlostisrepaired;”“thatmen do not obtain from God the grace of justification by faith alonewithout the sacraments, or at least without a desire or wish to receivethem;” “that the sacraments contain the grace which they signify orrepresent,andconferitalwaysuponallwhoreceivethem,unlesstheyputabarorobstacle intheway”(ponuntobicem),- that is (as theyusuallyexplain it), unless they have at the time of receiving the sacrament adeliberate intention of committing sin; and that they confer or bestowgracethusuniversallyexopereoperato,-thatis,bysomepowerorvirtuegiven to them and operating through them. The application of theseprinciples, which constitute the general doctrine or theory of thesacramentsintheRomishtheology,tothesacramentofbaptism,andtothe fundamental blessings of forgiveness and regeneration which it

signifiesorrepresents,plainlyimplies-whatindeedtheCouncilofTrentexpressly teaches - viz. that baptism is the instrumental cause ofjustification,which with Romanists comprehends both forgiveness andregeneration;thatalladultsreceivewhenbaptized,unlesstheyputabarin theway, thesegreatblessings; that all infants, beingunable toput abar in theway of the efficacious operation of the sacrament, receive inbaptismtheforgivenessoforiginalsinandtherenovationoftheirmoralnatures;andthatnosinofunbaptizedpersons,noteventheoriginalsinof those who die in infancy, is forgiven without baptism. This is insubstancethedoctrineinregardtothesacramentswhichistaughtbythemodernTractariansof theChurchofEngland, andwhich indeed, in itsmainfeatures,maybesaidtohavebeenalwaysheldbyHighChurchmen.Someofthemshrink,indeed,fromspeakingsoplainlyonsomepointsastheCouncilofTrenthasdone,especiallyontheopusoperatum;butthereis no difficulty in showing that -all High Churchmen must concur insubstancewith the general sacramental theory of the Church ofRome.TheessentialideaofthePopishandTractariandoctrineuponthissubjectis, that God has established an invariable connection between thesacramentsasoutwardordinances,andthecommunicationbyhimselfofspiritual blessings, of pardon and holiness; with this further notion,which naturally results from it, that He has endowed these outwardordinances with some sort of intrinsic power or inherent capacity ofconveying or conferring the spiritual blessings with which they arerespectivelyconnected.Thisiswhatis,andindeedmustbe,meantbythesacramentalprinciple,aboutwhichHighChurchmenin thepresentdaypratesomuch;andnotwithstandingtheirefforts towrap itupinvagueand indefinite phraseology, it is plainly in substance just the doctrinewhichwasestablishedbytheCouncilofTrent.Itisanecessaryresultofthisprinciple,thatthewantoftheoutwardordinance,-nottheneglectorcontempt of it, but themerewant of it, - fromwhatever cause arising,deprives men of the spiritual blessings which it is said to convey orconfer.Romanistshavefounditnecessaryorpolitic tomakesomelittleexceptionstothispracticalconclusion;butthisisthegreatgeneralresultto which their whole scheme of doctrine upon the subject leads, andwhichordinarilytheydonothesitatetoadoptandtoapply.

In opposition to all these views, Protestants have been accustomed to

maintainthegreatprinciple,thattheonlythingonwhichthepossessionbymenindividuallyofthefundamentalspiritualblessingsofjustificationand sanctification is, by God’s arrangements, made necessarily andinvariablydependent,isuniontoJesusChrist,andthattheonlythingonwhichunion toChristmaybe said tobedependent, is faith inHim; sothatitholdstrue,absolutelyanduniversally,thatwhereverthereisfaithin Christ, or union to Him by faith, there pardon and holiness - allnecessaryspiritualblessings-arecommunicatedbyGodandreceivedbymen,eventhoughtheyhaveneveractuallypartakeninanysacrament,orinanyoutwardordinancewhatever.Scripture,wethink,plainlyteachesthisgreattruth,thatassoonas,andineveryinstanceinwhich,menareunited to Christ by faith, they receive justification and regeneration;while without or apart from personal union to Christ by faith, theseindispensableblessingsareneverconferredorreceived.Everymanwhoisjustifiedandregeneratediscertainlyadmittedintoheaven,whetherhehave been baptized or not; and there is no ground in Scripture formaintaining either that every one who has been baptized has beenforgivenandregenerated,orthatthosewhohavenotbeenbaptizedhavenotreceivedthesegreatblessings.

IfthisgreatgeneralprinciplecanbeestablishedfromScripture, itmustmateriallyaffectsomeoftheviewswhichRomanistsandTractariansholdin regard to the sacraments, and especially in regard to their necessityand importance. Romanists, indeed, are in the habit of chargingProtestants with holding that the sacraments are unnecessary orsuperfluous.Butthis isamisrepresentation.Inperfectconsistencywiththisgreatdoctrine,whichrepresentsthepossessionofspiritualblessingsand the ultimate enjoyment of heaven, as dependent absolutely anduniversallyuponuniontoChristthroughfaithanduponnothingelse,wemaintain that the sacraments which Christ instituted are of imperativeobligation, and that it is a duty incumbent uponmen to observe themwhenthemeansandopportunityofdoingsoareaffordedthem;sothatitissinfultoneglectordisregardthem.Uponthesubjectofthenecessityofthe sacraments, Protestant divines have been accustomed to employ adistinction,which,likemanyotherscholasticdistinctions,bringsoutveryclearly themeaning itwas intendedtoexpress,viz. that thesacramentsare necessary, ex necessitate praecepti non ex necessitate medii; -

necessary ex necessitate praecepti, because the observance of them iscommandedorenjoined,andmustthereforebepractisedbyallwhohaveinprovidenceanopportunityofdoingso,sothatthevoluntaryneglectordisregardofthemissinful;butnotnecessaryexnecessitatemedii,orinsuchasensethatthemerefactofmennothavingactuallyobservedthemeither produces or proves the non-possession of spiritual blessings, -eitherexcludesmenfromheaven,oraffordsevidencethattheywillnotinpointoffactbeadmittedthere.Regenerationorconversion,asimplyingathorough change of moral nature, is necessary, both ex necessitatepraeceptiandexnecessitatemedii.Itisnecessary,notmerelybecauseitiscommandedorenjoined,sothattheneglectoromissionofitissinful,but also because, from the nature of the case, the result cannot beattainedwithoutit;inasmuchasitholdstrue,absolutelyanduniversally,inpointoffactandinthecaseofeachindividualofourrace,thatexceptwe be born again we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. No suchnecessity can be established with respect to the sacraments, thoughRomanistsandTractariansassert this,andmustdoso inordertocarryouttheirprinciplesconsistently.

ButwhilethisgreatgeneralprincipleaboutspiritualblessingsandeternalhappinessbeingdependentuponuniontoChristanduponnothingelse,isinconsistentwiththePopishandTractariannotionsofthenecessityofthe sacraments, and furnishes a strong presumption against the higherviewsof the importanceandefficacyof theseordinances, itdoesnotofitselfgiveusanydirectinformationastowhatthesacramentsare,-astotheir nature, objects, and effects. Protestants profess to have a certaintheoryordoctrineinregardtothesacraments,aswellasRomanistsandTractarians. A definition of the sacraments - or, throwing aside thetechnicalscholasticmeaningof theworddefinition,adescriptionof theleading featuresof the sacrament, or a statementof themainpositionsheld concerning them - is properly the sacramental principle; althoughthatphrasehasbeencommonlyemployed in thepresentday inamorelimited and specific sense. At the time of the Reformation the nameSacramentarianwas applied by Luther to Zwingli and his followers, toconveytheideathattheyexplainedawayorreducedtonothingthevalueand efficacy of the sacraments; while Zwingli, throwing back thenickname,protestedthatitmightbeappliedwithmoreproprietytothose

who made great mysteries of the sacraments, and ascribed to them avalueandimportancebeyondwhatScripturewarrants.Thejusticeofthisstatement of Zwingli has been confirmed by the aspect which thediscussionofthistopichasassumedinthepresentday.TheTractariansseem to think that none ought to be regarded as really believing insacraments,exceptthosewhoconcurwiththeChurchofRomeinholdingthatthereisaninvariableconnectionbetweentheoutwardsignandthespiritualblessingsignified,andthattheoutwardordinanceexertsarealefficaciousinfluenceinproducingtheinternalresult.This,accordingly,iswhattheymeanbythesacramentalprinciple,onwhichtheyarefondofenlarging,andofwhichtheyclaimtothemselvesasortofmonopoly.Andthisisthesenseinwhichthephraseisnowcommonlyused.Butthesensein which the expression ought to be employed, is just to designate thefundamental idea of the general doctrine of Scripture on the subject ofthe sacraments; and in this sense, of course, Protestants have theirsacramentalprincipleaswellasRomanistsandTractarians.

We believe that Scripture furnishes sufficient materials for giving ageneraldefinitionordescriptionofthe.sacraments,orofasacramentassuch;andwecall this thesacramentalprinciple,or the truedoctrineofScripture concerning the sacraments. The Reformers put forth theirsacramental principle, or their general doctrine concerning thesacraments,inoppositiontotheviewswhichprevailedatthetimeintheChurchofRome,andwhichwereafterwardsestablishedbytheCouncilofTrent. Definitions and descriptions of the sacraments were inconsequence introduced into all the Confessions of the Reformedchurches;andtheinvestigationofthenature,theobjects,andtheeffectsofthesacramentshascontinuedeversincetoholdaplaceintheologicaldiscussions.SincethetimewhenCalvinsucceededinbringthechurchesof Geneva and Zurich to a cordial agreement upon this subject, in theadoption of the Consensus Tigurinus in 1549, there has been no verygreat difference of opinion concerning it among Protestant divines,although there have occasionally been individuals who showed aninclination either towards the Popish and superstitious, or towards theSocinianandRationalisticdoctrine,andalthoughtheChurchofEngland,fromherunfortunatebaptismalservice,hasbeenrepeatedlyplacedinamost difficult and deplorable position. But though there is no great

difference of opinion among the Reformed churches, and amongProtestant divines, concerning the general doctrine of the sacraments,thereseemstohavesprungupinmoderntimesagreatdealofignoranceand confusion in men’s conceptions upon this subject. While thesacraments individually, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, have been agood deal discussed in some of their aspects, the general doctrine ofsacraments,asequallyapplicabletoboth,ortoanyotherordinancesforwhich the designation of a sacramentmight be claimed, has been verymuch overlooked. Even the boasting of the Tractarians about thesacramentalprinciple,hasnot led tomuchdiscussionabout the natureanddesignof thesacraments ingeneral.Thetwolatestworks,sofarasweknow,whichhavebeenpublishedunderthetitleoftheDoctrineoftheSacraments,containnothingwhateveronthegeneralquestionstowhichwehaveadverted.Intheyear1838aworkwaspublished,entitled“TheDoctrineof theSacraments,”extracted fromthe“RemainsofAlexanderKnox,”whowasthefriendandcorrespondentofBishopJebb,andwhosewritings seem to have contributed in no small degree to the rise andgrowth of Tractarianism; and thiswork discusses,with no little ability,many questions about baptism and about the Lord’s Supper, but itcontainsnothingaboutthesacramentsingeneral,oraboutsacramentsassuch. This statement likewise applies to a recent work of ArchbishopWhately, the latestwebelievehehas published. In 1857heput forth awork, entitled “The ScriptureDoctrine concerning the Sacraments, andthe Points connected therewith;” and it contains an able discussion onsomepointsconnectedwithbaptism,andonsomepointsconnectedwiththeLord’sSupper,butnothingwhateveron thegeneralnature,objects,andeffectsofthesacraments.

The disregard of this topic has tended to produce a great deal ofconfusionanderrorinmen’sconceptionsuponthewholesubject.WeareinthehabitofseeingbaptismandtheLord’sSupperadministeredinthechurch,andarethusledinsensibly,andwithoutmuchconsideration, toform certain notions in regard to them, without investigating carefullytheirleadingprinciplesandgrounds,andespeciallywithoutinvestigatingthe relation in which they stand to each other, and the principles thatmayapplytobothofthem.Webelievethatthereisscarcelyanysubjectset forth in the confessions of the Reformed churches, that is less

attended to and less understood than this of the sacraments; and thatmanyevenofthosew’hehavesubscribedtheseconfessions,restsatisfiedwithsomedefectiveandconfusednotionsonthesubjectofbaptismandon the subject of the Lord’s Supper, while they have scarcely even afragmentofanideaofasacramentalprinciple,orofanygeneraldoctrineortheoryonthesubjectofsacraments.

Wearepersuadedthatitwouldtendgreatlytoenablementounderstandmore fully,whatwe fearmanysubscribewithoutunderstanding, if theytook some pains to form a distinct and definite conception of what istaughtintheconfessionsoffaithinregardtosacramentsingeneral,andthenappliedtheseviewstothetwosacramentsofbaptismandtheLord’sSupperseparately.ItisquitetruethattheScripturescanscarcelybesaidtocontainanystatementswhichbearverydirectlyandformallyuponthetopicsusuallysetforthinconfessionsoffaith,anddiscussedinsystemsoftheology,undertheheadDeSacramentisingenere,ortogiveusanythinglike full and systematic information about the general subject of thesacraments as such. But theNew Testament plainly sets before us twooutward ordinances, and two only, the observance of which is ofpermanent obligation in the Christian church, and which manifestlyresembleeachotherinmanyrespects,bothintheirgeneralcharacterasemblematicorsymbolical institutions,and in theirgeneralpurposeandobjectasmeansofgrace,-thatis,asconnectedinsomewayorotherwiththecommunicationandthereceptionofspiritualblessings.Asthesetwoordinancesevidentlyoccupyapeculiarplaceoftheirowninthegeneralplan of the Christian system, and in the arrangements of the Christianchurch, it is natural and reasonable to inquire whether there are anymaterials in Scripture for adopting any general conclusions as to theirnature,design,andefficacy,thatmaybeequallyapplicabletothemboth.And,accordingly,whatisusuallygivenasthedefinitionordescriptionofthesacraments,orofasacramentassuch,isjustanembodimentofwhatitisthoughtcanbecollectedordeducedfromScripture,asbeingequallypredicableofbaptismandtheLord’sSupper.Ofcoursenothingoughttobeintroducedintothedefinitionordescriptionofthesacraments,whichcannotbeprovedtobeequallyandalikeapplicabletoalltheordinancestowhichthedesignationofasacramentisgiven;andthelessmenfindinScripture thatseems to themequallyapplicable tobothordinances, the

moremeagre is theirsacramentalprinciple,or theirgeneraldoctrine inregardtothenatureanddesignofthesacraments.

TheReformedconfessionsandProtestantdivines,ingeneral,haveagreedvery much in the definition or description of the sacraments, thoughthere is a considerable diversity in the clearness and distinctness withwhich their doctrine upon this subject is unfolded. It can scarcely, wethink,bedenied that thegeneral tendency, evenamong theReformers,was to exaggerate or overstate the importance and efficacy of thesacraments.Zwingli’sviewswereareactionagainstthosewhichgenerallyprevailedintheChurchofRome;buttheextenttowhichhewentratherreacted upon the other Reformers, and made them again approximatesomewhat inphraseology to theRomishposition.ThisappearsmoreorlesseveninCalvin,thoughinhiscasetherewasanadditionalpervertingelement - the desire to keep on friendly terms with Luther and hisfollowers,andwith thatview toapproximateas farashe could to theirnotionsof thecorporalpresenceofChrist in theEucharist.Wehavenofault to findwith the substance of Calvin’s statements in regard to thesacraments in general, orwith respect to baptism; butwe cannot denythathemadeanefforttobringoutsomethinglikearealinfluenceexertedbyChrist’shumannatureuponthesoulsofbelievers,inconnectionwiththedispensationof theLord’sSupper, - aneffortwhich,of course,wasaltogether unsuccessful, and resulted only in what was about asunintelligibleasLuther’sconsubstantiation.This isperhapsthegreatestblot in thehistory ofCalvin’s labours as a public instructor; and it is acuriouscircumstance,thattheinfluencewhichseemstohavebeenchieflyefficaciousinleadinghimastrayinthematter,wasaqualityforwhichheusually gets no credit, viz. an earnest desire to preserve unity andharmonyamongthedifferentsectionsoftheChristianchurch.

But,independentlyofanypeculiarityofthissort,wehavenodoubtthatthegeneraltendencyamongProtestantdivines,bothattheperiodoftheReformation and in the seventeenth century,was to lean to the side ofmagnifyingthevalueandefficacyofthesacraments,andthatsomeofthestatements even in the symbolical books of some churches are notaltogether free from indicationsof thiskind.Butwhile this is true, andshould not be overlooked, there is not nearly so much ground for the

allegation, and in so far as there is ground for it, it does not apply topoints of nearly so much importance, as persons imperfectly andsuperficially acquainted with the history of theological discussion havesometimessupposed.Indeed,blundershaveoccurredinconnectionwiththissubjectwhichareperfectlyludicrous.

DrPhillpotts, thepresentBishopofExeter, amanof very considerableskill and ability in controversy, and respectably acquainted with somedepartments of theological literature, asserted, in a charge which hepublished in 1848, that several of the confessions of the Reformedchurches - specifying “the Helvetic, that of Augsburg, the Saxon, theBelgic, and the Catechism of Heidelberg” - agreed with the Church ofRome and the Church O O of England in teaching the doctrine ofbaptismal regeneration.DrGoode, nowDean ofRipon -whohas donemostadmirableservicetothecauseofChristianProtestanttruth,byhiscrushing and unanswerable exposures of Tractarianism, and who, inpointoflearningandability,isoneofthemostcreditableandsuccessfulchampionstheEvangelicalpartyintheChurchofEnglandhaseverhad-thoroughly exposed this “astounding statement,” - “this mostextraordinary blunder.”He showed that it arose from a very imperfectandsuperficialacquaintancewiththeirtheologyasawhole;andprovedthattheconstructionthusputuponsomeoftheirstatementswas,inthefirst place, not required by anything they had said; and, in the secondplace, was precluded, not only by the views set forth in some of thesedocuments on the subject of election, but by the views taught in all ofthem on the general character and objects of the sacraments, and thepersons forwhom they are intended, and inwhom alone they producetheir appropriate effects. The exposure was so conclusive, that DrPhillpotts felt himself constrained to withdraw the statement in thesecond edition of his charge; but tried to cover his retreat by anunfoundedallegation,thatthedocumentstowhichhehadreferredwereself-contradictory.

ItwasuponthesamegroundswhichmisledtheBishopofExeter,thatthesame allegation of teaching baptismal regeneration has recently beenadduced against “the deliverance of the Westminster divines in theShorterCatechismonthesubjectofbaptism.”It isverycertain that the

Westminster divines did not intend in this deliverance, or in any otherwhichtheyputforth,toteachbaptismalregeneration.Acontradictionisnottobeimputedtothem,ifbyanyfairprocessofconstructionitcanbeavoided;anditisinthehighestdegreeimprobablethattheyshouldhavecontradictedthemselvesuponapointatoncesoplainandsoimportant.Thedoctrineofbaptismalregeneration,whateverelse itmay include, isalways understood to imply, that all baptized infants are regenerated.Now there is nothing in the Shorter Catechism which gives anycountenancetothisnotion,orindeedconveysanyexplicitdeliveranceasto the bearing of baptism upon infants. The notion that the ShorterCatechismteachesbaptismal regeneration,must,wepresume,bebasedupon the assumption, that the general description given of the importand object of baptism, is intended to apply to every case in which theoutwardordinanceofbaptismisadministered.Butthereisnogroundforthis assumption. The general description given of baptism must beconsidered in connection with the general description given of asacrament,anditisthedisregardofthiswhichisonemaincauseoftheignorance and confusion so often exhibited upon thiswhole subject. Inaccordancewithviewswhichwehavealreadyexplained,thedescriptionofasacramentisintendedtoembodythesubstanceofwhatistaughtorindicatedinScripture,asbeingtrueequallyandalikeofbothsacraments.Ofcourse,all that issaidaboutasacramentnotonlymay,butmust,beappliedbothtobaptismandtheLord’sSupper,asbeinginallitsextenttrueofeachofthem.

The definition or description given of a sacrament in the ShorterCatechismis,thatit“isaholyordinanceinstitutedbyChrist,wherein,bysensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the new covenant arerepresented,sealed,andappliedtobelievers.”InordertobringoutfullytheteachingoftheCatechismonthesubjectofbaptism,wemust,inthefirstplace,takeinthegeneraldescriptiongivenofasacrament,andthenthespecialdescriptiongivenofbaptism,andwemust interprettheminconnectionwitheachotheraspartsofoneschemeofdoctrine.Uponthisobviousprinciplewesay, thatthefirstandfundamentalpositiontaughtintheShorterCatechismconcerningbaptismisthis,thatit(aswellastheLord’s Supper) “is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein, bysensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are

represented, sealed, and applied to believers.” It is of fundamentalimportance to remember, that the Catechism does apply this wholedescriptionofasacramenttobaptism,andtorealizewhatthisinvolves.In addition to this general description of baptism as a sacrament,commonto itwith theLord’sSupper, theCatechismproceeds togiveamore specific description of baptism as distinguished from the othersacrament.Itisthis,-“Baptismisasacrament,whereinthewashingwithwater, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, dothsignifyandsealouringraftingintoChrist,ourpartakingofthebenefitsofthe covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.”Now theonly ground for alleging that this teaches baptismal regeneration,mustbe the notion, that it applies in point of fact to all who have beenbaptized, and that all who have received the outward ordinance ofbaptism are warranted to adopt this language, and to apply it tothemselves. But the true principle of interpretation is, that thisdescriptionofbaptismappliesfullyandinallitsextentonlytothosewhoarepossessedofthenecessaryqualificationsorpreparationsforbaptism,andwhoareabletoascertainthis.Andthequestionastowhotheseare,mustbedeterminedbyacarefulconsiderationofallthatistaughtuponthissubject.Muchevidentlydependsupontheuseandapplicationofthepronounourhere; that is,uponthequestion,Whoare thepersons thatare supposed to be speaking, or to be entitled to speak, - that is, toemploy the language inwhich thegeneralnatureandobjectofbaptismareheresetforth?Theour,ofcourse,suggestsawe,whoaresupposedtobethepartiesspeaking;andthequestionis,Whoarethewe?Aretheyallwhohavebeenbaptized?oronly thosewhoare capableof ascertainingthattheyhavebeenlegitimatelybaptized,andwho,beingsatisfiedonthispoint, are in consequence able to adopt the language of the Catechismintelligentlyandtruly?Nowthisquestionissimilartothatwhichisoftensuggestedinthe interpretationof theapostolicalepistles,wheretheuseofthewordswe,us,andour,raisesthequestion,Whoarethewethataresupposedtobespeaking?thatis,Whoarethewe,inwhosename,orasoneofwhom,theapostleistherespeaking?Andthisquestion,whereveritarises,mustbedecidedbyacarefulexaminationof thewholecontextand scope of the passage. In the Catechism we have first a generaldescription given of a sacrament, intended to embody the substance ofwhatScriptureisheldtoteachorindicate,asequallyandalikeapplicable

tobothsacraments.One leadingelement in thisdescription is, that thesacraments are for the use and benefit of believers, and this principlemustbekeptinviewinallthemorespecificstatementsafterwardsmadeabouteithersacrament.Thisconsideration,aswellasthewholescopeofthe statement, clearly implies, that the description given of baptismproceeds upon the assumption, that the persons who partake in it arepossessedofthenecessaryqualifications,-thatis,thattheyarebelievers,anddoormayknowthattheyareso.

This principle of construction is a perfectly fair andnatural one. It hasalwaysbeenafundamentalprincipleinthetheologyofProtestants, thatthe sacramentswere institutedand intended for believers, andproducetheir appropriate beneficial effects only through the faith which musthavepreviouslyexisted,andwhichisexpressedandexercisedintheactofpartakinginthem.ThisbeingafundamentalandrecognizedprincipleintheProtestanttheologyofthesacraments, itwasquitenatural that itshouldbeassumedandtakenintoaccountingivingageneraldescriptionof their objects and effects. And the application of this principle ofinterpretationtothewholedeliverancesoftheWestminsterdivinesuponthesubjectofthesacraments,intheConfessionofFaithandintheLargerCatechismaswellasintheShorter,introducesclearnessandconsistencyintothemall,whereasthedisregardofitinvolvestheminconfusionandinconsistency.

On thegroundswhichhavenowbeenhintedat, andwhich,whenoncesuggested,mustcommendthemselvestoeveryonewhowilldeliberatelyand impartially examine the subject,we think it very clearandcertain,that thewe,suggestedby theour in thegeneraldescriptionofbaptism,areonlythebelieverswhohadbeenpreviouslysetforthastheproperandworthyrecipientsofthesacraments;andthatconsequentlythestatementthat “baptism signifies and seals our ingrafting intoChrist,” etc.,must,mean,thatitsignifiesandsealstheingraftingintoChristorthoseofUSwho have been engrafted into Christ by faith. This construction, ofcourse, removes all appearance of the Catechism teaching baptismalregeneration.

Thetruthis,thattheonlyrealdifficultyinthecaseispreciselythereverseof thatwhichhasbeenstarted.Thedifficulty is,not that theCatechism

appears to teach that infants are all regenerated in baptism, but that itappearstoteachthatbelieversaretheonlyproperrecipientsofbaptism,aswellasoftheLord’sSupper;whileyetatthesametimeitalsoexplicitlyteaches,thattheinfantsofsuchasaremembersofthevisiblechurcharetobebaptized.Thiswillrequiresomeexplanation,whileatthesametimetheinvestigationofitwillbringusbackagaintothemainsubjectwhichwewishedtoconsider,-viz.thetruedoctrineoftheReformedchurches,and especially of the Westminster standards, in regard to the nature,objects,andeffectsofthesacramentsingeneral.

The general view which Protestants have commonly taken of thesacramentsis,thattheyaresignsandsealsofthecovenantofgrace;thatis, of the truths which unfold the provisions and arrangements of thecovenant,andofthespiritualblessingswhichthecovenantprovidesandsecures, - not only signifyingor representingChrist and thebenefits ofthe new covenant, but sealing or confirming them, and in some senseapplyingthemtobelievers.Asthesacramentsarethesignsandsealsofthecovenant,sotheybelongproperlyto,andcanbenefitonly,thosewhohaveaninterestinthecovenant,thefoederati;andthereisnoadequateground for counting upon their exerting their appropriate influence inindividual cases, apart from the faith which the participation in themordinarily expresses, andwhichmust existbeforeparticipation in themcanbeeitherwarrantableorbeneficial.ThesearetheleadingviewswhichProtestantdivineshaveusuallyput forth inregard to thesacraments ingeneral, - that is, their general nature, design, and efficacy. In lookingmorecloselyatthedoctrinesofProtestantchurchesuponthissubject,itis necessary to remember, not only that, aswe have already explained,they usually assume, in their general statements, that the personspartaking in the sacraments are duly prepared, or possessed of thenecessarypreliminaryqualifications,butalso that,whenstatementsaremade which are intended to apply equally to baptism and the Lord’sSupper,orwhenthegeneralobjectanddesignofbaptismaresetforthintheabstract, - theyhave in theirview,and take into theiraccount,onlyadultbaptism,thebaptismofthosewho,aftertheyhavecometoyearsofunderstanding,askandobtainadmissionintothevisiblechurchbybeingbaptized.

Thismodeofcontemplatingtheordinanceofbaptismissodifferentfromwhat we are accustomed to, that we are apt to be startled when it ispresented tous, and find it somewhatdifficult to enter into it. It tendsgreatlytointroduceobscurityandconfusionintoourwholeconceptionson the subject of baptism, that we see it ordinarily administered toinfants,andveryseldomtoadults.Thisleadsusinsensiblytoformverydefectiveanderroneousconceptionsofitsdesignandeffects,orrathertolive with our minds very much in the condition of blanks, so far asconcerns any distinct and definite views upon this subject. There is agreat difficulty felt - a difficulty which Scripture does not afford usadequate materials for removing - in laying down any distinct anddefinitedoctrineastothebearingandefficacyofbaptisminthecaseofinfants,towhomaloneordinarilyweseeitadministered.Asenseofthisdifficultyisveryapttotemptustoremaincontentedlyingreatignoranceofthewholesubject,withoutanyseriousattempttounderstanddistinctlywhat baptism is and means, and how it is connected with the generaldoctrineof the sacraments.And yet it is quite plain to any onew’he iscapableofreflectinguponthesubject,thatitisadultbaptismalonewhichembodies and brings out the full idea of the ordinance, and should beregarded as the primary type of it, - that from which mainly andprincipally we should form our conceptions of what baptism is andmeans,andwasintendedtoaccomplish.Itisinthisaspectthatbaptismis ordinarily spoken about and presented to our contemplation in theNewTestament,andweseesomethingsimilar intracingtheoperationsofourmissionarieswhoareengagedinpreachingthegospel inheathenlands.

Adult baptism, then, exhibits the original and fundamental idea of theordinance, as it is usually brought before us, and as it is directly andformally spoken about in the New Testament. And when baptism iscontemplatedinthislight,thereisnomoredifficultyinformingadistinctanddefiniteconceptionregardingitthanregardingtheLord’sSupper.Ofadultbaptismwecansay,justaswedooftheLord’sSupper,thatitisineveryinstance,accordingtothegeneraldoctrineofProtestants,eitherthesign and seal of a faith and a regeneration previously existing, alreadyeffectedbyGod’sgrace,orelsethatthereceptionofitwasahypocriticalprofessionofastateofmindandfeelingwhichhasnoexistence.Wehave

nodoubtthatthelawfulnessandtheobligationofinfantbaptismcanbeconclusivelyestablishedfromScripture;butitismanifestthatthegeneraldoctrineortheoryjuststated,withrespecttotheimportandeffectofthesacraments,andofbaptismasasacrament,cannotbeappliedfullyinallits extent to the baptism of infants. The reason of this is, becauseScripturedoesnotaffordusmaterialseitherforlayingdownanydefinitepositionas toacertainand invariableconnectionbetweenbaptismandspiritual blessings, - that is, for maintaining the doctrine of baptismalregeneration;or for stating suchadistinct anddefinitealternativewithrespecttotheefficacyoftheordinanceinindividuals,ashasbeenstatedabove in the case of adult baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Butnotwithstanding these obvious considerations, we fear it is a verycommonthingformen,justbecausetheyordinarilyseeinfant,andveryseldom see adult, baptism, to take the baptism of infants, with all thedifficulties attaching, to give a precise and definite statement as to itsdesignandeffect in theircase,and toallow this to regulate theirwholeconceptionswith respect to this ordinance in particular, and evenwithrespecttothesacramentsingeneral.Thisisaverycommonprocess;andwecouldeasilyproduceabundantevidence,bothofitsactualprevalence,andof its injuriousbearinguponmen’swholeopinionson this subject.Therightandreasonablecourseisplainlyjustthereverseofthis,-viz.toregard adult baptism as affording the proper fundamental type of theordinance,-toderiveourgreatleadingconceptionsaboutbaptismfromthecase,notof infant,butofadult,baptism,viewed inconnectionwiththegeneral theoryordoctrineapplicable tobothsacraments;and then,sinceinfantbaptismisalsofullywarrantedinScripture,toexaminewhatmodifications the leading general views of the ordinance may or mustundergo,whenappliedtothespecialandpeculiarcaseofthebaptismofinfants.

Theseviewswereactedupon, thoughnot formallyandexplicitlystated,by the Reformers in preparing their confessions of faith, and in theirdiscussions of this subject. It is impossible to bring out from theirstatements about the sacraments a clear and consistent sense, exceptuponthehypothesisthat,inlayingdowntheirgeneralpositionsastothenature,objects, andeffectsof the sacraments, theyproceededupon theassumption,thatthosepartakingintheseordinancesweredulyqualified

andrightlyprepared;andmoreparticularly,thatthepersonsbaptized,inwhomthetrueandfulloperationofbaptismwasexhibited,wereadults,-adultbelievers.TheCouncilofTrent,intheirdecreesandcanonsonthesubject of justification, which in the Romish system comprehendsregeneration, and of which they asserted baptism, or the sacrament offaith,astheycall it, tobethe instrumentalcause,dealtwiththesubjecton the assumption that they were describing the process which takesplaceinthecaseofpersonswho,aftertheyhaveattainedtoadultage,areledtoembraceChristianityandtoapplyforbaptism.AndwefindthattheReformers, in discussing these matters with their Romish opponents,accommodated themselves to thismodeofputting thecase;andhavingthusadultbaptismchieflyintheirview,wereledsometimestospeakasifthey regardedbaptismandregenerationas substantially identical.Theycertainly did notmean to assert or concede thePopish principle, of aninvariable connection between the outward ordinance and the spiritualblessing;for it isquitecertain,andcanbeconclusivelyestablished,thatthey rejected this. They adopted this mode of speaking, which at firstsightissomewhatstartling, lst,because,theCouncilofTrentdiscussedthe subject of justification chiefly in its bearing upon the case of thosewho had not been baptized in infancy, and with whom, consequently,baptism,ifitwasnotamerehypocriticalpretence,destituteofallworthor value,was, in the judgmentofProtestants, a signand seal of a faithand regeneration previously wrought and then existing; and 2dly,because it was, when viewed in this aspect and application, that theirgreatgeneraldoctrines,astothedesignandefficacyofthesacramentsintheirbearinguponthejustificationofsinners,stoodoutforexaminationintheclearestandmostdefiniteform.Thiswasthetruecauseofamodeof speaking sometimes adopted by the Reformers, which, to thoseimperfectly acquainted with their writings, and with the state oftheological discussion at the time, might seem to countenance thedoctrineofbaptismalregeneration.

It was very important to bring out fully and distinctly the nature andcharacter of the sacraments as signs and seals of the covenant of graceand its benefits, the import of the profession implied in partaking inthem,andthequalificationsrequiredforreceivingthemrightly;andthentoconnectthestatementoftheiractualeffectswithrightviewsuponall

these points. This process was at once themost obvious and themosteffectualwayofshuttingouttheerroneousanddangerousnotionsuponthe subject of the sacraments that prevailed in the Church of Rome. Itwasveryimportant,withthisview,togiveacompendiousandsummaryrepresentation of what was set forth in Scripture as the sacramentalprincipleor theory,asbeingequallyapplicabletobothsacraments;andtokeepsteadilybeforemen’smindstheconsideration,thatthiscouldbeheld to be fully realized and exhibited only in those for whom thesacraments were mainly intended, and who were duly prepared forreceivingandimprovingthemaright.Theirmindswerefilledwiththeseprinciples,andtheywereanxioustosetthemforth,inoppositiontothegreatsacramentalsystemwhichhadbeenexcogitatedbytheschoolmen,andsanctionedbytheChurchofRome.Anditwasbecausetheirmindswere filledwith theseprinciples, that, though strenuously opposing thetenetsoftheAnabaptists,theyyetsawclearlyandadmittedthesomewhatpeculiarandsupplementalpositionheldby infantbaptism.Theyheld ittobeofprimaryimportancetobringoutfullythesacramentalprincipleasexhibitedinitsentirenessinadultbaptismandtheLord’sSupper;andin aiming at accomplishing this, they were not much concerned aboutputting forth definitions or descriptions of the sacraments or even ofbaptism, which could scarcely be regarded as comprehending infantbaptism,orasobviouslyanddirectlyapplyingtoit.Theyneverintendedtoteachbaptismalregeneration,andtheyhavesaidnothingthatappearstoteachit,orthatcouldbesupposedtoteachit,byanyexceptthosewhowere utterly ignorant of the whole course of the discussion of thesesubjectsasitwasthenconducted.Theyneverintendedtodiscountenanceinfantbaptism;onthecontrary,theystrenuouslydefendeditslawfulnessandobligation.Buttheycertainlygavedescriptionsofthegeneralnature,design, andeffectsof the sacraments,which, if literally interpretedandpressed,mightberegardedasomittingit,orputtingitaside.

It is impossible todeny, that the general descriptionwhich theShorterCatechism gives of a sacrament teaches, by plain implication, that thesacraments, so far as regards adults, are intended only for believers;whilenoProtestants,exceptsomeoftheLutherans,haveeverheld thatinfants are capable of exercising faith. It also teaches, by plainimplication, in the previous question, the 91st, £hat the wholesome

influence of the sacraments is experienced only by thosewho “by faithreceive them.” All this is applied equally to baptism and the Lord’sSupper. Its general import, as implying a virtual restriction of theseordinances tobelievers, is tooclear tobemisunderstoodor toadmitofbeingexplainedaway.Andthen,again,theapparentdiscrepancybetweenthis great principle, and the position that “the infants of such as aremembers of the visible church are to be baptized,” is too obvious toescape the notice of any one who deliberately examines the Catechismwith a view to understand it. These considerations would lead us toexpecttofindthatthediscrepancyisonlyapparent,andthatthereisnogreat difficulty in pointing out a mode of reconciliation. The mode ofreconciliation we have already hinted at. It is in substance this, thatinfantbaptismistoberegardedasapeculiar,subordinate,supplemental,exceptional thing,which stands indeed firmlybasedon its owndistinctandspecialgrounds,butwhichcannotwellbebroughtwithinthelineofthe general abstract definition or description of a sacrament, asapplicabletoadultbaptismandtheLord’sSupper.

TheWestminsterdivines,then,havegivenadescriptionofasacrament,whichdoesapplyfullytoadultbaptismandtheLord’sSupper,butwhichdoesnotdirectlyandinterminiscomprehendinfantbaptism.This,whichis theplain factof thecase,couldonlyhavearisen fromtheir finding itdifficult,ifnotimpossible,togiveadefinitionofthesacramentsintheirgreat leading fundamentalaspects,whichwouldat thesametimeapplyto and include the special case of the baptism of infants. This, again,impliesan admission that the definition given of a sacrament does notapplyfullyandinallitsextenttothespecialcaseofinfantbaptism;whileitimplies,also,thatthecompilersoftheCatechismthoughtitmuchmoreimportant to bring out fully, as the definition of a sacrament, all thatcouldbetrulypredicatedequallyofadultbaptismandtheLord’sSupper,than to tryand formadefinition thatmightbewideenoughandvagueenoughtoincludeinfantbaptism,-atopicofapeculiarandsubordinatedescription.ThisistheonlyexplanationanddefencethatcanbegivenofthecourseofstatementadoptedintheCatechism.

Itmaypossiblyoccurtosome,thatsinceitiscertainthatthecompilersoftheCatechismheldthatitwasthechildrenofbelieversonlythatwereto

be baptized, and that they were to be baptized on the ground of theirparents’ faith, and the general principle of covenant relationship basedupon this, the word believers, in the definition of a sacrament, mightincludeinfants,viewedasonewiththeirbelievingparents,andvirtuallycomprehended in them. But, besides that this leaves untouched thestatement which implies that spiritual benefit is derived from thesacramentsonlyby“thosewhoby faithreceive them,”wethink itquiteplainandcertain,fromthewholescopeofthestatementgiveninanswerto the question,What is a sacrament? that the believers to whom thesacramentsrepresent,seal,andapplyChristandHisbenefits,are thoseonlywho themselvesdirectlyandpersonallypartake in the sacraments,and not those also who, though not believers themselves, may b§admitted to one of the sacraments because of their relationship tobelievers.

A similardoubtmightbe started about themeaning andapplicationofthe parallel passage in the Larger Catechism. A sacrament is theredescribed as “an holy ordinance instituted by Christ, inHis church, tosignify,seal,andexhibituntothosethatarewithinthecovenantofgrace,thebenefitsofHismediation,tostrengthenandincreasetheirfaith,”etc.Nowtherecanbenodoubtthat,accordingtotheprevailingopinionsandthe current usus loquendi of the period, - and, as we believe, inaccordance with Scripture, - the expression, “those that are within thecovenant of grace,” might include the children of believers, who wereregarded as foederati, and as thus entitled to the “signa et sigillafoederis.”But it is quite certain that the expression is not usedhere inthisextendedsense,oras includinganybutbelievers.Forthissentencegoes on immediately, without any change in the construction, andwithoutanyindicationofalterationorrestrictioninregardtothepersonsspokenof,tosay,thatthesacramentswereinstituted“tostrengthenandincreasetheirfaith,”- implying,ofcourse,thatthepersonsherespokenof had faith before the sacraments came to bear upon them, or couldconferuponthemanybenefit.

There can, then,beno reasonabledoubt that theShorterCatechism, indefining or describing a sacrament, restricts itself to the case of adultbelievers;andtheonlywayofreconcilingthedefinitionwithitsteaching

onthesubjectofinfantbaptismisbyassumingthatitisnottobeappliedabsolutely and without all exception in other cases; and that infantbaptism,thoughfullywarrantedbyScripture,doesnotcorrespondinallrespects with the full sacramental principle in its utmost extent andclearness,asexhibitedinadultbaptismandtheLord’sSupper,andmustthereforeberegardedasoccupyingapeculiarandsupplementalposition.Weknownootherwayofshowingtheconsistencywitheachotherofthedifferentstatements contained in theCatechism.Theprinciplewehaveexplained refutes the allegation of inconsistency or contradiction, andresolvesthewhole difficulty into a certain concession on the subject ofinfantbaptism,-aconcessionnotaffectingthescripturalevidenceforthemaintenanceofthepracticeofbaptizinginfants,butmerelythefullnessandcompletenessofthedoctrinalexplanationthatshouldbegivenofitsobjectsandeffects.

Theexplanationwehavegivenuponthispointisinfullaccordancewiththe views set forth in theWestminster Confession of Faith, and in theconfessionsof theReformedchurchesgenerally.Theyallof themassertthescripturalauthorityofinfantbaptism,whileatthesametimemostofthem, though with different degrees of clearness, present statementsabout the sacraments or about baptism, which do not very fully anddirectlyapplytothebaptismofinfants.Wehavebeenthemoredisposedtogivesometimetotheexplanationofthepeculiarpositionandstandingof the topicof infantbaptism,because it isnotmerely indispensable tothe intelligent and consistent exposition of the Shorter Catechism, butalso because ignorance or disregard of it produces much error andconfusioninmen’swholeviewswithrespecttothesacramentsingeneral.Men who have not attended to and estimated aright this topic of thepeculiarandsubordinateplaceheldbythesubjectofinfantbaptismarevery apt to run into one or other of two extremes. - viz. lst, That oflowering the true sacramental principle, as brought out in the generaldefinition of a sacrament, and as exhibited fully in the case of adultbaptismandtheLord’sSupper,tothelevelofwhatsuitsthespecialcaseof infantbaptism;or2d,Thatof raising theexplanationpropoundedofthebearingandeffectofinfantbaptism,uptoameasureofclearnessandfullness which really attaches only to adult baptism and the Lord’sSupper. And as error is generally inconsistent, and extremes have a

strong tendency to meet, cases have occurred in which both theseopposite extremes have been exhibited by the same persons, inconnectionwiththatonesourceoferrorandconfusiontowhichwehavereferred. . The truth, as well as the importance, of some of the pointswhich have been referred to in the course of the precedingstatements,.willappearmoreclearlyasweproceedtoexplainmorefullyand formally the general doctrine of the sacraments as set forth in theWestminster symbols, in accordance with the other confessions of theReformedchurches.

The doctrine of the sacraments, or the sacramental principle, in theproper import of that expression, is intended, aswe haveexplained, toembody the sum and substance of what is taught or indicated inScripture,asequallyandalikeapplicabletoboththeordinancestowhichthenameofasacramentiscommonlygiven.Ofcourse,nothingoughttobeintroducedintothedefinitionordescriptionofasacrament,butwhatthereissufficientscripturalground,moreorlessdirectandexplicit,andmoreorlessclearandconclusive,forholdingtobepredicableequallyandalikeofbaptism,-that is,adultbaptismandtheLord’sSupper.Besidesthe scriptural statements that bear directly upon these two ordinancesseparately, there are views suggested by their general character andposition,takeninconnectionwithgeneralscripturalprinciples,towhichitmaybeproper,inthefirstinstance,toadvert.Thereisnotagreatdealin Scripture that can be said to bear very directly upon the question,Whatisasacrament?butthereisagooddealthatmaybededucedfromScripturebygoodandnecessaryconsequence.

There are two different aspects in which the sacraments are to beregarded,-1st,Simplyasinstitutionsorordinanceswhoseappointmentby Christ stands recorded in Scripture, and whose celebration in thechurch,accordingtoHisappointment,maybecontemplatedorlookedatbyspectators;and2d,asactswhichmenperform,transactionsinwhichmen individually take a part; - that is, theymay be regarded either asmere instituted symbols, or also, and in addition, as symbolic actionswhichmenperform.

Viewed in the first of these aspects as symbols, theymerely signify orrepresent (these two words are generally used synonymously in this

matter)spiritualblessings,Christandthebenefitsof thenewcovenant,and the scriptural truths which make known, unfold, and offer theseblessingstomen;while,inregardtothesecondaspectofthem,thismuchat least must be evident in general, that the participation in thesacraments by men individually, is on their part an expression orprofession of a state of mind and feeling, with reference to the truthswhich the outward symbols represent, and the blessings which theysignify.Viewedinthefirstoftheseaspectsasmeresymbols,whichhavebeen instituted and described in Scripture, and which may becontemplatedorlookedat,itisevidentthatthesacramentsaremerely,touse an expression which Calvin and other Reformers applied to them,appendages to the gospel, - that is, merely means of declaring andbringingbeforeourmindsinanotherway,byadifferentinstrumentality,whatisfullysetforthinthestatementsofScripture.Inbaptism,viewedinthislight,Godisjusttellingus,bymeansofoutwardsymbolsinsteadof words, thatmen in their natural condition need to be washed fromguilt anddepravity, and that full provisionhas beenmade for effectingthis,throughthesheddingofChrist’sbloodandtheeffusionofHisSpirit.In the Lord’s Supper, in likemanner,He is just telling us that Christ’sbodywasbrokenandthatHisbloodwasshedformen;andthat inthisway, full provision has been made, not only for restoring men to theenjoymentofGod’sfavour,andcreatingthemagainafterHisimage,butfor affording them abundance of spiritual nourishment, and enablingthemtogrowupinallthingsuntoHimwhoistheHead.Thesacramentsas symbols thus teach, by outward and visible representations, theleading truths which are revealed in Scripture concerning the way ofsalvation;andteachtheminamannerpeculiarlyfitted,accordingtotheprinciples of our constitution, to bring them home impressively to ourunderstandingsandourhearts.

And it is important to notice that, even in this simplest and mostelementary view of the sacraments, they may truly and reasonably becalled seals as well as signs, - they may be said not only to signify orrepresent,buttoseal.Asealissomethingexternal,usuallyappendedtoadeed or document, or impressed upon a substance which forms thesubjectofnegotiationorarrangement,anditisintendedtostrengthenorconfirm conviction or faith, expectation or confidence. A seal in this

sense,theonlysenseinwhichitcanapplytothesacraments,isathingofnorealintrinsicvalueorimportanceapartfromtheengagementratified.Its use and efficacy are purely conventional. Seals are based, indeed,uponanaturalprinciple inourcomplexconstitution, invirtueofwhichexternal objects or actions connected with, or added to, declarations,engagements, or promises, are regarded as tying or binding morestrongly those from whom these deeds or documents proceed, and asthustendingtostrengthenandconfirmthefaithandthehopeofthosetowhomtheyaredirected. It is thisprinciple inour constitutionwhich isthesourceandorigin,therationaleanddefence,notonlyofthesealingofdeedsanddocuments,-thatis,ofthepracticeofappendingasealtothesignature of the names attached to them, - but of the whole series ofoutwardsignificantritesandceremonies,whichinallagesandcountrieshave been associated with covenants and treaties, with bargains andbarterings.Thesesealings,andothersimilarritesandceremonies,whichinsuchvarietyhaveprevailedinallagesandcountriesinconnectionwithtransactionsofthissort,havebeenalwaysregardedandfeltassomehowbinding the parties more strongly to' their respective statements andengagements,andas thusstrengtheningtheirrelianceuponeachother,inreferencetoeverythingthathadbeendeclaredorpromised.Andyetitisquiteplain,thatthesesealingsandotherritesandceremoniesusuallyconnectedwith compacts and bargains, can scarcely be said to possessanyvalueapartfromtheengagementsealed,ortoexertareal influenceineffectinganyimportantresult.Theonlyessentialthingsintransactionsof this sort are the deeds or documents, embodying a statement of thethings arranged or agreed upon, with all their circumstances andconditions, and the signaturesof theparties,binding themselves to thetermssetforthinthedeed.

ApplyingtheseobviousprinciplestoChristianityandsalvation,itisplainthat the essential things, as bearing on the practical result, arearrangementsandproposals,madeandrevealedbyGod,understoodandacceptedbymen.It is indispensablethatmenunderstandtheimportoftheoffersandproposalsmadetothem,besatisfiedthattheycomefromGod,andthenacceptandactuponthem.Thecovenantofgrace is thussubstantiallyaproposalmadebyGodtomen,whichisacceptedbythem;andtheessentialthingsare,thesubstanceoftheproposalsetforthasina

deedordocument, and the concurrenceof theparties, as if attestedbytheir signatures. The sacraments, according to the views which havegenerally prevailed among Protestants, are signs and seals of thiscovenant,-thatis,assignstheyembodyinoutwardelements(forwearenotspeakingatpresentofthesacramentalactions)thesubstanceofwhatis set forth more fully and particularly in the written word; and thisadditional, superadded, external embodiment of the provisions andarrangements,isregardedasoccupyingtheplaceandservingthepurposeofasealappendedtoasignaturetoadeed;notcertainlyasifitcouldverymateriallyaffecttheresult,solongaswehadthedeedandthesignatures,but still operating, according to the well-known principles of ourconstitution, ingivingsomeconfirmation toour impressions, ifnotourconvictions, of the reality and certainty or reliability of the wholetransaction.

But we proceed to advert to the second and higher view that mustobviouslybetakenofthesacraments.Theywereintendednotsomuchtobe read about or to be looked at, as to be participated in. Men areindividuallytobewashedwithwater,inthenameoftheFather,theSon,andtheHolyGhost;andtheyare individuallytoeatbreadandtodrinkwineat theLord’stable, inremembranceofChrist.Thisbeing thecase,thequestionsnaturallyarise,Whatisthemeaningandwhattheobjectofthoseactswhichtheyperform?WhydidGodrequirethesethingsattheirhands?Whatistheeffectwhichthedoingof thesethings is intendedtoproduce?and,Whataretheprincipleswhichregulateanddeterminetheproductionof theresultingeffects!Now,asbearingupon theanswer tothesequestions, therearesomepositionswhicharegenerallyadmitted,andareattendedwithnodifficulty.Thetwoleadingaspectsinwhichthesacraments, viewed as actions which men perform, are represented inScriptureare,-first,asdutieswhichGodrequiresofus;andsecond,asmeansofgraceorprivilegeswhichHeappointsandbestows.Andagain,underthefirstoftheseheads,viz.commandedduties,therearetwoviewsthatmay be taken of them, - 1st, as acts ofworship; and 2d, as publicprofessionsofChristianity. It is,ofcourse,men’sduty torender toGodtheactsofworship, and tomake theprofessions,whichHe requires ofthem. The sacraments seemplainly to possess these two characters. InparticipatinginthemwearerenderinganactofworshiptoGod,andwe

aremaking a public profession by an outward act, and all thisHe hasrequiredatourhands,orimposeduponusasaduty.Ifthisbeso,thenitfollows that any general principleswhich are indicated in Scripture, orinvolved in thenatureof the case, asbeing rightly applicable to acts ofworshipandtopublicprofessions,mustbeappliedtothem.Whateverisnecessary tomakeanactofworship reasonableandacceptable toGod,and whatever is necessary to make a public profession intelligent andhonest,mustbefoundinmen’sparticipationinthesacraments,inorderto make it fitted to serve any of its intended purposes. And this mostsimple and-obvious view of the general nature and character of thesacramentalactionsoughtnottobeoverlookedorforgotten,asitiswellfitted,whenrememberedandapplied, toguardusbothagainsterror indoctrineanddelusioninpractice.

Itisthesecondoftheseviewsofthem,however,-thatwhichrepresentsthem as outward public professions, - which bears more immediatelyupon their mode of operation and their actual effects, as privileges ormeansofgrace.Alladmitthatthesacramentsembodyorinvolveapublicprofessionof a certain stateofmindand feeling. Indeed, this is plainlyimpliedintheircharacterassymbolicaloremblematicalordinances.Wecannotconceive that it shouldhavebeen requiredasadutyof those towhom the gospel is preached, that they should be baptized and shouldpartake in the Lord’s Supper, unless this washing with water, and thiseatingbreadanddrinkingwine,symbolizedandexpressedsomestateofmind,someconvictionorfeelingorpurpose,bearingupontheirrelationto God, and the salvation of their souls. That participation in thesacraments isadiscriminatingmarkorbadgeofwhatmaybecalled, insome sense, a profession of Christianity, and that it involves anengagementtoperformcertainduties,isadmittedbyall,eventhosewhotakethelowestviewsoftheirnatureanddesign.Andallorthodoxdivineshold that this constitutes one end andobject of the institution of theseordinances,thoughtheyregarditonlyasasubordinateone.Intheveryimportantdocumentformerlyreferredto,called“ConsensusTigurinus,”prepared by Calvin, and embodying the agreement among the Swisschurchesonthewholesubjectofthesacraments,whileitisadmittedthattherearevarious.endsandobjectsofthesacraments,-suchas,thattheymay be marks and badges of a Christian profession and union or

brotherhood, - that they may be incitements to thanksgivings andexercisesoffaithandapiouslife,andengagementsbindingtothis,-itislaiddown,“thattheoneprincipalendoftheseordinancesis,thatGod,bythem, may attest, represent, and seal His grace to us.” This mode ofstatement is in accordance with the views generally entertained by theReformed divines, and it is adopted in the Westminster Confession,fwhere, after describing it as the end or object of the sacraments “torepresentChristandHisbenefits,andtoconfirmourinterestinHim,”itadds, evidently in theway of suggesting some additional points of lessfundamental importance, a as also to put a visible difference betweenthosethatbelonguntothechurchandtherestoftheworld,andsolemnlytoengagethemtotheserviceofGodinChrist.”Thesesubordinateendsof the sacraments, connected with their character and functions asbadgesofapublicprofessionandsolemnengagementstoduty,donotinthemselves require lengthened explanation, as they are simple andobvious,andhavenotgivenrisetomuchdiscussion,except insofarasthequestionhasbeenraised,astothepreciseimportandamountoftheprofessionwhichparticipationinthesacramentsinvolves.

Thisisaquestionofsomedifficultyandimportance;anditisintimatelyconnectedwiththeinvestigationofthegreatprimaryendorobjectofthesacraments,andwiththeircharacterandfunctionasmeansofgrace.Itisgenerally admittedbyProtestant divines, that the sacraments are signsandsealsof thecovenantofgrace, - that is, of the truthsandpromisessetting forth the provisions and arrangements which may be said toconstitutethecovenant,andofthespiritualblessingswhichthecovenantoffersandsecures;andtheseterms,accordingly,areapplied to theminalmost all the confessions of the Reformed churches. But even wherethereisaconcurrenceintheuseoftheseepithets,thereisstillroomforerror and confusion on some important topics connected with thismatter. The leading questions connected with the sacraments may beranked under two heads, - 1st, What are their objects or ends,comprehending the purposes for which they were instituted, and theeffects which they actually produce? and 2d, Who are their propersubjects, the parties for whom they were intended, those who arequalifiedtopartakeinthemlawfullyandbeneficially?Thesetwoheadsofinvestigation,whichmaybebrieflydescribedasrespecting, thefirst the

objects,and thesecond thesubjects,of thesacraments,areverycloselyconnectedwith each other. The settlement of either of these questionswouldgofartodeterminetheother.Ifwehadonceascertainedwhat isthe leading primary object of the sacraments, there would be no greatdifficulty in deducing from this, viewed in connection with otherdoctrines plainly taught in Scripture, what kind of persons ought topartake inthem;andifweonceknewwhoare theparties thatought topartakeinthem,wemightfromthisinferagooddeal,positivelyaswellasnegatively, in regard to thepurpose theywere intended to serve.Onsomegrounds itwouldseemtobemorenaturalandexpedient tobeginwith examining the objects or ends of the sacraments. But as we havebeen led, in thearrangementwehaveadopted, toadvert to theviewofthesacramentsasbadgesofapublicprofession,andastheconsiderationofthistopic,whichhasnotyetbeencompleted,isconnectedratherwiththe examination of the subjects than the objects of the sacraments, weshall consider, in the first place, in contemplating them as means ofgrace, thequestion,Whoare theparties forwhom theywere intended?We are the less concerned about following whatmight seem to be themorestrictlylogicalorder,becauseourobjectisratherexplanationthandefence; it is rather to bring out what the doctrine of the Reformedconfessions, and especially of theWestminster symbols, on the generalsubjectofthesacramentsis,thantoestablishitstruthandtovindicateitfromobjections;-aswehaveinviewchieflythecaseofthosewhohaveprofessed tobelieve these symbols, butwho still exhibit a great deal ofignoranceinregardtotheirmeaningandimport.

Wehavementioned,asthefirstandmostgeneraldivisionthatobtainsonthesubjectofthesacraments,thattheymayberegardedeither,first,asdutieswhichGodrequires;orsecond,asmeansofgrace.Thedifficultieswhich have arisen, and the discussions which have been carried onrespectingthem,haveturnedchieflyupontheircharacterandfunctionsas means of grace. It is universally admitted that the sacraments aremeans of grace; and the great general idea involved in this position isthis,thattheyareinstitutionswhichGodintendedandappointedtobe,insomesense,theinstrumentsorchannelsofconveyingtomenspiritualblessings, and in the due and right use ofwhichmen arewarranted toexpecttoreceivethespiritualblessingstheystandinneedof.Inthiswide

andgeneralsense,eventhosewhoholdthelowestviewofthesacramentsadmit that they aremeans of grace; while it is also true that the greatdifferencesindoctrinewhichhavebeenmaintainedbydifferentchurcheson the whole subject of the sacraments, resolve very much into thedifferentsensesinwhichthepositionthattheyaremeansofgracemaybeexplained. In the wide sense above stated, the position that thesacraments are means of grace may be conclusively inferred from thefact,thatGodhasappointedthem,andrequiredtheobservanceofthematourhands.Astheoutwardactswhichconstitutetheobservanceofthesacraments are in themselves not moral, but merely positive orindifferent,wearewarrantedtobelieve thatGodappointedthemsolelyfor our benefit, and because He intended them to be in some wayinstrumentsorchannelsofconveyingtousspiritualblessings.

TheRomishdoctrineuponthissubjectis,thatthesacramentscontainthegrace which they signify; that they confer grace always and certainly,wheremendonotputanobstacleintheway;thattheydothisexopereoperato, or by some sort of physical or intrinsic power bestowed uponthem,apart from the stateofmindof the recipient; thatbaptism is theinstrumentalcauseofjustification,asincludingbothremissionofsinandregeneration; and that the Lord’s Supper invariably conveys spiritualnourishment.Therearesomepoints,however,involvedintheexpositionofthesedoctrines,whichhavenotbeenexplicitlysettledbytheauthorityofthechurch,andinregardtowhichsomelatitudeisleftforadifferenceof opinion. Among Protestants, again, High Churchmen, and mendisposedtoexaltthevalueandefficacyofthesacraments,havegenerallyadopted,oratleastapproximatedto,theRomishdoctrineasexplainedbyitsmorereasonabledefenders,andhavebeendisposedtoallegethatthecontroversies with the Church of Rome upon this subject, resolve verymuchintodisputesaboutwordsorpointsofnogreatimportance;whilesounder Protestants have, in general, met the Romish doctrines withdecidedopposition.Atthesametime itmustbeadmitted, that it isnoteasytofix-uponanydefinitemodesofstatement,whichcanbesaidtobedistinctlyProtestantasopposed toRomanism,about the true characterandfunctionsofthesacramentsasmeansofgrace,viewedapartfromthedoctrine held with regard to their subjects and objects. It is generallysupposed that the strongest statement towhich theChurch ofRome is

pledged on this point is, that the sacraments “contain the grace whichtheysignifyorrepresent,”implyingthatthegraceresidesorislaidupinthem, and that they give it out; and yet Calvin, in his “Antidote to theCouncilofTrent,”seventhsession,admitsthatthereisasenseinwhichitis true “sacramentis contineri gratiam quam figurant.” He asserts alsothatthosewhoallege,thatbythesacramentsgraceisconferreduponuswhenwedonotputanobstacleintheway,overturnthewholepowerofthe sacraments; while he distinctly admits that the sacraments areinstrumental causes of conferring grace upon us, though the power ofGod is not tied to them, and though they produce no effect whateverapart from the faith of the recipient. And, moreover, we find, upon aprinciple formerly explained, that in dealing (sixth session) with thepositionthatbaptismistheinstrumentalcauseofjustification,heratherobjects to theomissionof thegospelor the truth,andto thehighplaceassignedtobaptism,thanmeetsthepositionofthecouncilwithadirectnegative.Hisstatement is this: “It isagreatabsurdity tomakebaptismalonetheinstrumentalcause.Ifthisbeso,whatbecomesofthegospel?Willitnotevengetintothelowestcorner$But,theysay,baptismisthesacramentoffaith.True;butwhenall.issaid,Iwillstillmaintainthatitisnothingbutanappendagetothegospel(evan-geliiappendiceal).Theyact. preposterously in giving it the first place; and this is just as if oneshould say that the instrumental cause of a house is the handle of theworkman’s trowel. He who, putting the gospel in the background,numbersbaptismamong the causesof salvation, shows thereby thathedoesnotknowwhatbaptismisormeans,orwhatisitsfunctionanduse.”Itwouldbeeasytoshowthattherearemanyothereminentdivineswhohave differed from each other as to the phraseology that ought to beemployed in explaining the position that the sacraments are means ofgrace,someassertingandothersdenyingthattheyarecausesofgrace,-thattheyconfer,orconvey,orbestowspiritualblessings,-whileyetthereisnoverymaterialdifferenceofopinionamongthem;asisevidentfromtheir agreement in regard to the two important questions, as to thepersons forwhom the sacraments are intended, and the purposes theywere institutedtoserve..Andonthisgroundweshallnow,ashasbeenintimated, consider - lst, the subjects, and 2d, the objects, of thesacraments; assuming only, in the meantime, that the position,universally admitted, that the sacraments are means of grace, implies

that,insomewayorother,theyareemployedbyGodasinstrumentalorauxiliaryinbestowinguponsomemensomespiritualblessings.

1. Let us first advert, then, to the subjects of the sacraments, or thepersonsforwhomtheywereintended.Wehavealreadyseenthat,bothintheLarger and the ShorterCatechism, theWestminsterAssembly havedistinctly laid down the position that the sacraments, baptism and theLord’sSupper,are intendedforbelievers, formenwhohadalreadyandpreviouslybeenledtoembraceChristastheirSaviour;andthattheywerenotintheleastdeterredfromtheexplicitassertionofthisgreatprinciplebyitsappearingtoexcludeorignorethepracticeofinfantbaptism,whichtheybelieved tobe fully sanctionedbyScripture.Thisgreatprinciple isnotset forth in theConfessionofFaithquite soexplicitlyas it is in theCatechisms, but it is taught there by very plain implication. TheConfession lays it down as the first and principal end or object of thesacraments, of both equally and alike, “to represent Christ and Hisbenefits,andtoconfirmourinterestinHim,”-thislastclauseimplying,that those for whom the sacraments were intended, have already andpreviouslyacquiredapersonalinterestinChrist,whichcouldbeonlybytheir union to Him through faith. It further,! in speaking still of thesacraments,andofcourseofbaptismaswellastheLord’sSupper,assertsthat “the word of institution contains a promise of benefit to worthyreceivers;”andworthyreceivers,inthefullimportoftheexpression,are,in thecaseof adultbaptism,believers. In thenext chapter, the twenty-eighth, the description given of baptism manifestly applies only tobelieving adults. It is there described as a “sacrament of the NewTestament,ordainedbyJesusChrist,notonlyforthesolemnadmissionof thepartybaptized into the visible church, but also to beuntohimasign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his engrafting into Christ, ofregeneration,ofremissionofsins,andofhisgivingupuntoGod,throughJesusChrist, towalk innewnessof life.” It isquite true that infants,aswell asadults, though incapableof faith,mustbeengraftedintoChrist,and must receive regeneration and remission; and that without this,indeed,theycannotbesaved.ButthestatementintheConfessionplainlyassumes, that each individual baptized not only should have thenecessarypreliminaryqualifications,butshouldbehimselfexercisedandsatisfied upon this point; and should thus be prepared to take part,

intelligentlyandconsciously,inthepersonalassumptionofthepracticalobligationswhichbaptismimplies.

This issufficient toshowthat the teachingof theConfession isquite inharmonywiththatoftheCatechisms,thoughuponthisparticularpointitisnotaltogethersoexplicit.Itholdstrue,indeed,generally-wemightsayuniversally - of the Reformed churches, as distinguished from theLutheran,andofalmostall theReformedtheologians, that though firmbelieversinthedivineauthorityofinfantbaptism,theyneverhesitatetolay down the general positions, that the sacraments are intended forbelievers; that participation in them assumes the previous and presentexistenceof faith inallwhorightlyreceivethem;andthattheyproducetheir appropriate beneficial effects only through the operation andexerciseoffaithinthosewhopartakeinthem.TheReformeddivines,notholding the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, did not regard thebaptismofinfantsasbeingofsufficientimportancetomodifythegeneraldoctrinetheythoughtthemselveswarrantedtolaydownwithrespecttothe sacraments, as applicable to adult baptism and the Lord’s Supper.And it is interesting and instructive to notice, that the adoption by theLutheransofthedoctrineofbaptismalregeneration,ledthemtobemuchmore careful of laying down any general statements, either about thesacraments or about baptism, which virtually ignored the baptism ofinfants. They aremuchmore careful than theReformeddivines, eitherexpressly and by name to bring in infant baptism into their generaldefinitionsordescriptions,oratleasttoleaveampleroomforit,sothattheremaybenoappearanceofitsbeingomittedorforgotten.Itmaybeworthwhiletogiveaspecimenofthis.Buddaeus,oneofthebestof theLutherandivines,amanwhoseworksexhibitaveryfinecombinationofabilityandgoodsense,learningandevangelicalunction,intreatingoftheeffect of baptism, which, he says, may also be regarded as the end orobject of theordinance, lays it down, that it is “with respect to infants,regeneration, and with respect to adults, the confirming and sealing(confirmatio et obsignatio) of the faith of which they ought to bepossessed before they are admitted to baptism.” In contrast with this,manyof theReformeddivinesasserted,withoutanyhesitation, thatthegreat leading object and effect of the sacraments, and of course ofbaptismaswellasoftheLord’sSupper,wasjusttheconfirmatiofidei,-

thatis,theconfirmingandstrengtheningof thefaith,whichmust,oratleast should, have existed in the case of adults before either sacramentwasreceived.

This, however, bears rather upon the objects than the subjects of thesacraments.And in returning to the latterof these topics,wewould laybefore our readers, what we regard as a very complete andcomprehensivesummaryofthedoctrineoftheReformedchurchesuponthispoint, in thewordsofMartinVitringa, inhis“Adnotationes”tothe<eDoctrinaChristianseReligionisperAphorismossummatimdescripta”ofCampegiusVitringa:-

“From thesequotations it clearly appears, that thecommondoctrineofourdivinesconcerningthepropersubjectsofthesacramentsamountstothis:-

“lsi, That the sacraments have been instituted only for thosewho havealready received the grace of God, - the called, the regenerate, thebelieving, the converted, thosewhoare in covenantwithGod; andalsothat it is proper for those to come to them who have true faith andrepentance.

“2d,That theywhoreceive thesacramentsarealready,before receivingthem, partakers through faith of Christ and His benefits, and arethereforejustifiedandsanctifiedbeforetheytakethesacraments.

“3d, That faith is themedium, themouth, and the hand, by which werightlyreceiveandperceivethesacraments.

“4th, That the faith of those who lawfully receive the sacraments isconfirmedandincreasedbythem,andthattheyaremorecloselyunitedtoChrist.

• “5th,That thoseonlywhoreceive thesacraments in faithhave, in theuse of them, the promise of the remission of sins and of eternal lifebestowed, sealed, and applied in a singular way, just as if God wereaddressing them individually, andwere promising and sealing to themremissionofsinsandeternal life;andthusbelieversarerenderedmore

certainabouttheircommunionwithChristandHisbenefits,sothattheycancertainlydeterminethatChristbelongstothemwithHisgifts.

“6th,Thatby the sacraments thepromisesof the covenantof grace areofferedandsealed,undertheconditionoftruefaithandpenitence.

u7th,That only truebelievers and truepenitents, using the sacramentsworthily, receivenotonly the signs,butalso the things signified,whicharesealedtothem,andalsothattheyonlyreceivethemwithbenefitandadvantage.

“8th,ThatGodwishes the sacraments tobe administered to thosewhoare possessed of true faith and unfeigned repentance; but that theministersofthechurchoughttoadmittothesacramentsthosewhomakea profession of faith and penitence, and do not openly contradict it bytheir lifeandconduct ,and that they,beforecoming to thesacraments,oughttobeadmonishedtotrythemselves,whether theyhave true faithandrepentance,lest,beingdestituteoffaithandrepentance,theyshouldreceivethesacramentstotheircondemnation.

“9th, That unbelieving and impenitent persons receive only the nakedsigns but not the things signified; that nothing is sealed to them; that,moreover,theyprofaneandcontemnthesacraments;andthatfromthisprofanation and contempt the sacraments not only do not benefit buthurt them,andbringto themcondemnationanddestruction;andthen,that the sacraments,when administered to unbelieving and impenitentpersons, remain sacraments so far as God is concerned, but so far asconcernstheunbelievingandimpenitent,losethenatureandpowerofasacrament.

“10th, That the sacraments do not, in the first instance, bestow grace,faith, and penitence, and are not the instruments of producing thebeginnings of faith and penitence, but only confirm, increase, and sealthem.”

Itwillbeobservedthatalltheseimportantdoctrinalstatementsaremadeconcerning thesacraments,andof courseare intended toapply equallyand alike to baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and that the sum and

substanceofwhatishereassertedofboththeseordinancesis,that,inthecaseofadults,theywereintendedonlyforpersonswhohavealreadybeenenabledtobelieveandrepent,andthatitisbelieversonlywhodoorcanderiveanybenefitfrompartakinginthem,allothersusingthemonlytotheir own condemnation. We do not adopt every expression in thissummaryjustasitstands.Butwehavenodoubtthat,initssubstance,itisinfullaccordancewiththeteachingofScripture,andoftheReformedasdistinguished fromtheLutheranchurches.Upon thesecondof thesepoints,indeed,-thehistoricalquestion'oftheidentityoftheseviewswiththoseof theReformedchurchesandof the leadingReformeddivinesofthe sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, - Vitringa has produced hisevidenceatlength.

Hisquotationsfillabouttwentypages,andarecertainlyamplysufficientto establish his position. They prove that the quotation we haveproduced, contains a correct summary of the doctrine of theReformedchurches in regard to the proper subjects of the sacraments. Vitringagives extracts from eight or ten of the confessions of the Reformationperiod,andfromabovefiftyofthemosteminentdivinesofthatandthesucceeding century. He has thus brought together a vast store ofmaterials, abundantly sufficient to establish his position, so far asauthority is concerned; andwe think itmaybeworthwhile to give thenames of the divines from whom he produces his extracts. They areZwingli, CEcolam-padius, Bucer, Musculus, Bullinger, Calvin, Beza,Zanchius, Ursi-nus, Olevianus, Sadeel, Whitaker, Aretus, Sohnius,Polanus,Chamier,Junius,Perkins,Bucanus,Kuchlinus,»Acronius,Trel-catius, Scharpius, G. J. Vossius, Maccovius, Walaeus, Rivetus,Amyraldus,Altingius,Forbes,Voetius,Wendelinus,Cocceius,Hottinger,Heidanus, Maresius, Venema, Burman, Mastricht, Wit-sius, Turretine,Heidegger, Leydecker, Braunius, Marckius, Roell, Meyer, Gerdes,Wyttenbach; in short, all the greatest divines of the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries. Here is a storehouse of names and quotations,whichmightenableanyonetosetupasaneruditetheologianbymeansofastockofsecond-handauthorities.

We are dealing at present only with the historical and not with thescripturalviewofthecase;butwemaybrieflyadverttothekindofproof

bywhichitcanbeshown,thatthepropersubjectsof thesacramentareonlybelievingandregeneratedmen.Thegeneralplaceorpositionofthesacraments seems plainly to indicate that they were intended only forthosewho had already been led to embraceChrist, and had been bornagainofHisword.Itisevident,fromalltherepresentationsgivenusonthis subject in the inspired account of the labours of the apostles, thatmen first of all had the gospel preached to them,werewarned of theirguiltanddangerassinners,andwere instructed in thewayofsalvationthrough Christ; and that thus, through the effectual working of God’sSpirit, they were enabled to believe what they were told, to embraceChrist freely offered to them, and to receive Him as their Lord andMaster.Theyweretold,amongotherthings,thatitwasChrist’swillthattheyshouldbebaptized,andshouldtherebypubliclyprofesstheirfaithinHim,andbe formallyadmitted into the societywhichHehad founded.When, in these or in similar circumstances, andupon these grounds, amanasksandobtainstheadministrationtohimofbaptism(ofcoursewespeakatpresentonlyofadults,for,upongroundsformerlyexplained,wemustformourprimaryandleadingconceptionsoftheimportandobjectof this ordinance from the baptism of adults, and not of infants), theapplication seems plainly to carry upon the face of it, a profession ordeclaration,thathehasbeenledtochooseChristashisSaviourandhisMaster, and isdetermined in everyway to followout thisprofessionofentire dependence and of implicit subjection. If faith and regenerationarenecessarypreparations andqualifications for baptism, theymustofcourseexist inallwhocometo theLord’s table,which, from itsnature,and from theplace itoccupies in theapostolichistory,mustmanifestlycomeafterbaptism.

Theseobviousgeneral considerations tell in favourof theposition, thatthesacramentswereinstitutedandintendedonlyforbelievers;andthisviewisconfirmed,byacloserexaminationof theparticular featuresandprovisionsoftheordinancesthemselves.InregardtotheLord’sSupper,it isgenerallyadmitted, that it is intended for, and canbe lawfully andbeneficially partaken of only by, those who have already been receivedintoGod’sfamily,andarelivingbyfaithinHisSon.Anattempt,indeed,wasmadeinthecourseoftheErastiancontroversy,asconductedatthetimeof theWestminsterAssembly, to set up thenotion that theLord’s

Supperisaconvertingordinance,andmaythereforeberightlypartakenof by those who have not yet believed and been regenerated. But thisnotion, manifestly got up merely for the purpose of underminingecclesiasticaldiscipline,wasunanswerablyexposedbyGeorgeGillespie,in the thirdbookofhis “Aaron’sHodBlossoming.”Andwhenasimilarnotion was, with a similar purpose, promulgated about a century lateramong the Congregationalists of New England, it was again put down,withequalabilityandsuccess,byJonathanEdwards,inhis“InquiryintotheQualifications forCommunion.”Thenotionhasnotagain, so farasweareaware,beenrevivedinanysuch’circumstancesastoentitle it tonotice. It is otherwise in regard to baptism. Somemen seem to shrinkfrom laying down the position, either that the sacraments, or thatbaptism, should be held to be intended for believers, and of course torequireorpresupposefaithandregeneration,becausethisleavesoutandseemstoexclude thecaseof infantbaptism, -adifficultywhichneithertheReformers nor the compilers of theWestminster standards, thoughdecidedpaedobaptists, allowed to influenceormodify their statements.Otherstakewiderandmoredefiniteground,andendeavourtoestablishagreatdisparitybetweenbaptismandtheLord’sSupperastotheirimportand objects, and to disprove the equal applicability to both theseordinances, of the definition and description usually given of asacrament.Noone,indeed,candeny,thattherearesomepointsinwhichbaptismandtheLord’sSupperstandaloneandresembleeachother.Alladmit that both these ordinances are emblems or symbolicalrepresentationsofscripturaltruths,fittedandintendedtoembodyandtoexhibit the great doctrines revealed in theword ofGod concerning thesalvation of sinners. This description is undoubtedly true of theseordinances so far as it goes. It is admitted by all Protestants, that thisdescriptionappliesequallyandalike tobaptismand theLord’sSupper,andthat therearenoother institutionsunder theChristianeconomytowhich it does apply. But the question is, Can we not get materials inScripture for giving a more complete and specific account of what isequally trueof these twoordinances, andmay thereforebe set forthasthefullandadequatedescriptionofthesacraments?andmoreespecially,have we not materials for making statements of a more precise andspecifickind,bothaboutthesubjectsandtheobjectsoftheseordinances,that shall apply equally tobothof them?Thisat least iswhathasbeen

generallymaintained and acted upon by Protestant divines. They haveembodied the substance of these materials in their description of asacrament;andtheleadingfeaturesofthisdescription,assetforthintheWestminsterstandards,are,thatbothordinances,equallyandalike,areintendedforbelievers,andrepresent,seal,andapplytobelieversChristandHisbenefits.’

Sofarasconcernsthesubjectsofthesacraments,thetopicwithwhichatpresentwe havemore immediately to do, it is generally admitted, thatpartakingintheLord’sSupperimpliesaprofessionoffaithinChrist,andisthereforewarrantableandbeneficialonly tobelievers.Butmany,andwefearagrowingnumber,refusetoadmitthisprincipleasapplicabletobaptism.Itiscontended,notonlythatinfantswhoareincapableoffaithought to be baptized (a position which all the Reformers and all theconfessionsoftheReformedchurchesdecidedlymaintained,thoughtheydidnotallowittoaffecttheirgeneraldefinitionofasacrament),butalsothatadultsmaybeadmittedtobaptism,thoughtheyarenot,anddonotprofess tobe, believers and regeneratepersons, - baptism, it is alleged,notexpressingorimplyingaprofessionofbelievinginChrist,butonlyaprofession of a willingness to be instructed in the principles ofChristianity. This notion is flatly opposed to the leading views withrespecttothesacramentswhichhavealwaysprevailedintheProtestantchurches,andbeenembodiedintheReformedconfessions.ButitseemsnowtoprevailtoaconsiderableextentamongtheCon-gregationalistsofthiscountry.Andwefearthat it is likelytocontinuetoprevail,becausewhile it can be defendedwith considerable plausibility in. argument, ithasalsothisimportantpracticaladvantage,thatitfurnishesawarrant,oranexcuse,forbaptizingtheinfantsofpersonswhocouldnotberegardedasqualifiedtobemembersoftheChristianchurchinfullstanding,orasadmissible to the Lord’s table. There is a very elaborate and ingeniousdefence of this view of the import and object of baptism, and of theabsence of all similarity in these respects between it and the Lord’sSupper, inDrHailey’swork, entitled, “Baptism, theDesignation of theCatechumens,nottheSymboloftheMembers,oftheChristianChurch,”which Dr Wardlaw, in reply to whom chiefly it was written, did notanswer, and which Dr W. Lindsay Alexander has pronounced to beunanswerable.Wethinkitcan,anditcertainlyshould,beanswered.But

thiswe cannot attempt at present, our object being chiefly explanationratherthandefence.TheattempttomakesowideagulfbetweenbaptismandtheLord’sSupper,andtoextendtheapplicationofbaptismbeyondtherangeof themembershipof thechurch,soasto includeallwhoareplaced, by their own voluntary act, or that of their parents, under thechurch’s superintendence and instruction, while neither in connectionwiththeirownbaptismnorthatoftheirchildrenaretheyheldtomakeaprofessionof faithand regeneration, is, of course, flatly opposed to thedefinitionordescriptionofa sacrament,given in the confessionsof theReformed churches as applicable to both ordinances. It is also, we arepersuaded, inconsistent with every consideration suggested by thesymbolic or emblematic character of the ordinance as an outward act,implyingadeclarationorprofessionofacertainstateofmindandfeelingon the part of the person baptized, and with all that is asserted orindicatedinScriptureas to theconnectionbetweenbaptismontheonehand,andremissionandregenerationontheother.

Itis,aswehaveexplained,offundamentalimportanceinjudgingofthesesymbolicalordinances,toattendtotheprofessionimpliedintheoutwardact,andtothecorrespondencebetweentheoutwardactandthestateofmind and heart of the recipient. When a man asks, in obedience toChrist’scommands,tobesolemnlywashedwithwater,inthenameoftheFather,theSon,andtheHolyGhost,andwhen,incompliancewiththisrequest,hehasbaptismadministeredtohim,heseemsasplainlyandasexplicitlytomakeaprofessionof faith inChrist,aswhenheapplies forandobtainsadmissiontotheLord’stable.Baptism,indeed,maybesaidto be a formal and solemn entering into Christ’s service, implying apromise to be thereafter governed and guided byHim.And it surely isthis,atleast,-thatis,thisisjustaboutaslowaviewascanbetakenoftheordinance, andof the act of engaging in it. But even this view of itimplies, that in the honest and intelligent reception of baptism, suchviewsofChristareprofessedaspresupposetheexistenceofsavingfaith.MencannothonestlyandintelligentlyenterChrist’sservice,andprofesstheirunreservedsubmissiontoHisauthority,unlessanduntiltheyhavebeenledtoadoptsuchviewsofwhatisrevealedinScriptureconcerningHim,as implyandproduce true faith inHimasaSaviour.Whyshouldany man desire and ask to be washed with water in the name of the

Father, theSon, and theHolyGhost, unlesshehas alreadybeen led toadoptsuchviewsofthethreePersonsoftheGodhead,andofthewayofsalvation,asmusthaveledhimtoembraceChristasallhissalvationandall his desire? In short, an application to be baptized, and the beingactually baptized as the result of the application, plainly imply aprofession,that the person so acting has been already led to believe inChrist, toreceiveandacceptofHimashisSaviourandhisMaster;andthatheintendstoprofessordeclare,bybeingbaptized,theviewshehasbeenbroughttoentertainconcerningChrist,andtherelationintowhichhehasbeenledtoenterwithrespecttoHim,andtopledgehimselftothedischarge of all the obligations which these views and that relationimpose.Whenthisstateofmindandfeelinghasnotbeenproduced,wecannot conceive that the baptism of an adult can be an honest andintelligent act. The nature of the act itself, and the almost universalconsent of theChristian church, in every age and countrydown till thepresent day, attach thismeaning and significance to the baptism of anadult;and if so, thebaptismofanyonewhohasnotbelievedandbeenbornagain,mustbeahypocriticalform.

Thisviewof thematter isconfirmed,wethink,byall that issaid in theNew Testament, whether in explicit statement or in indirect allusion,concerningtherelationbetweenbaptismandthegreatspiritualblessingswhich are invariably connected with faith in Christ, viz. remission andregeneration. The relation subsisting between baptism and thesefundamental blessings involves a discussion of the whole topicscomprehended in the controversy about baptismal justification andregeneration; and on thiswe cannot enter. It seems to us pretty plain,thatthescripturalstatementswhichareusuallybroughttobearuponthesettlement of this controversy, and which are founded on by theadvocatesofbaptismalregeneration,implythatsomeconnectionsubsistsbetween baptism, in the legitimate use of it, and these fundamentalblessings; while the view which, has been devised by modern Con-gregationalists, and is defended by Dr Hailey, seems to deny anyconnectionwhateverbetweenthem.Thetextsreferredtoseemto implyeither, that baptism, in the right and legitimate use of it, is a sign orsymbol, a seal and a profession of remission and regeneration, aspreviouslyconferredandthenexistinginthepartybaptized;orelsethat

regeneration is produced or bestowed in baptism, and through theinstrumentality of that ordinance. The first of these views is, we arepersuaded, that which is sanctioned by Scripture, and certainly it hasbeen generally taught by the Reformed churches. The latter is thecommon Popish and Tractarian doctrine; and though it has no solidscriptural ground to rest upon, it can be defended from Scripturewithsomeplausibility,andthis ismore,wethink,thancanbesaid,sofarasconcerns this branch of the argument, in favour of the notion thatbaptismmayberightlyandhonestlyappliedforandreceivedbymenwhohave not already and previously received faith in Jesus Christ, theforgivenessoftheirsins,andtheregenerationoftheirnatures.Wewouldonlysay,beforeleavingthissubject,thatwecannotbutregardtheseriouserror to which we have adverted, as affording another illustration of adanger formerly mentioned, that, namely, of allowing the notions orimpressionswhichthespecialexceptionalcaseofinfantbaptismisapttosuggest,toinfluenceundulyourviewsaboutbaptismingeneral,andevenabout the sacraments as a whole. The giving undue prominence to thespecial case of infant baptism, is very apt to blind men’s eyes to thestrengthoftheevidence,thatbaptisminitsgeneral importandobject-thatis,adultbaptisminitslegitimateuse-impliesaprofessionoffaithinChrist, and can therefore be rightly received and improved only bybelievers; while at the same time the temptation to reject this greatscriptural principle, which is so explicitly set forth in almost all theconfessions of the Reformed churches, is strengthened by the openingthusmade,forgivingbaptismtothechildrenofthosewhodonotmakeaprofession of faith, and who would not, or should not, have beenadmittedtotheLord’sSupper.

2.Wemustnowproceedtoadvert to thesecond leadingdivisionof thesubject,viz.theobjectsofthesacraments,orthepurposesforwhichtheywere instituted, and which they are fitted and intended to serve, - or,what is virtually the same thing, the beneficial effects which men arewarrantedtoexpect,anddoreceive,fromtherightuseofthem.Thereis,as we havementioned, a very close connection between this topic andthatwhichwehavealreadyconsidered.Ifthesacramentswereintendedforbelievers, - if theirproper subjects are those onlywhohave alreadybeenunitedtoChrist,andbeenbornagainofHisword,-thenitfollows

that they could not have been fitted or intended to be auxiliary orinstrumentalinbestowingorproducinganythingwhichisimpliedintheexistenceofsavingfaith,orineffectinganythingwhichisinvolvedin,orresults from, saving faith,wherever it exists.Upon theground, then,ofwhat has been already set forth under the former head, it follows, notonlythatjustificationandregenerationarenotbestowedorproducedinor by baptism, but that they must have been already bestowed andproduced before baptism can be lawfully or safely received. This is aprinciple of fundamental importance, and it is confirmed by all that istaughtusinScripture,bothwithrespecttothesubjectsandtheobjectsofthe sacraments. There is, indeed, no principle more important withreference to this whole matter, whether viewed theoretically orpractically,whether regarded as an exposition of truth, or as a securityagainstcorruptionandabuse,thanthatthesacramentsareintendedforbelievers,andofcoursemusthavebeenfittedtoaidtheminsomewayorother in the greatwork of carrying on the life ofGod in their souls, inpromoting their growth in knowledge, righteousness, andholiness.Thesacraments are means of grace, - that is, they are ordinances orappointmentsofGod,whichareintendedtobeinsomewayauxiliaryorinstrumental in conveying to men spiritual blessings. The blessingsconveyed by the sacraments, and to be expected from the right use ofthem,cannotofcoursebethosewhich,accordingtoGod’sarrangements,areconveyedtomen,andmustexistinandbepossessedbythem,beforethesacramentscanbelawfullyandhonestlyreceived.Itisafundamentalprinciple of scriptural doctrine, that justification and regeneration arenecessarily and invariably connected with faith, and that they arecontemporaneouswithit,whatevermaybethepreciserelationsubsistingamongthemintheorderofnature.WhoeverhasbeenenabledtobelieveinJesusChristhasbeenjustifiedandregenerated;hehaspassedthroughthat great ordeal onwhich salvationdepends, andwhich canoccurbutonce in the history of a soul. And if these principles are well founded,thenthespiritualblessingswhichthesacramentsmaybeinstrumentalinconveying,canbethoseonlywhichmenstillstandinneedof,withaviewtotheirsalvation,aftertheyhavebeenjustifiedandregeneratedbyfaith.Andthesearetheforgivenessofthe.sinswhichtheycontinuetocommit,a growing sense of God’s pardoning mercy, and grace and strength toresisttemptation,todischargeduty,toimproveprivilege,andtobeever

advancing in holiness; - or, to adopt the language of the ShorterCatechism in describing the blessings which accompany or flow fromjustification,adoption, and sanctification, theyareaassuranceofGod’slove,peaceof conscience, joy in theHolyGhost, increase of grace, andperseverancethereintotheend.”There isnothingassertedor indicatedinScripture topreclude theconveyanceofanyorallof theseblessings,through the instrumentality of the sacraments, as well as of the othermeans of grace. On the contrary, there is good scriptural ground whybelieversshouldexpecttoreceive,intherightuseofthesacraments,anyor all of these blessings, according as they may need them. Andaccordingly, it is thegeneraldoctrineof theReformedconfessions, thatthegreatleadingobjectofthesacraments-themainpurposewhichtheywere designed and fitted to accomplish - is just to be instrumental orauxiliaryinconveyingtheseblessingstothosewhohavebelievedthroughgrace,inproducingtheseresultsinthosewhohavealreadybeenrenewedin the spirit of their minds, and to do this mainly, if not solely, bystrengtheningandconfirmingtheirfaith.

Wehave alreadyhadoccasion toquote theprincipalpassages inwhichthis doctrine concerning the great leading object or design of thesacramentsissetforthintheWestminstersymbols,butitmaybeproperto advert to them somewhat more formally in this connection. In theConfession of Faith, the main position laid down regarding thesacramentsisthis,thatthey“areholysignsandsealsofthecovenantofgrace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and Hisbenefits, and to confirm our interest in Him; as also,” etc. Here thegeneral nature and character of the sacraments is declared to be, thattheyareholysignsandsealsofthecovenantofgrace;andtheprincipalobject- the leadingdesign,onaccountofwhich theywere institutedbyGod-issaidtobe“torepresentChristandHisbenefits,andtoconfirmourinterestinHim.”The“representingChristandHisbenefits”appliesmore properly to the sacraments in their character and functions assigns; “the confirming our interest in Him,” in their character andfunctionasseals.TherepresentingorsignifyingChristandHisbenefits,-that is, the blessings of the covenant of grace, and the doctrines orpromiseswhichunfoldandoffer,andwhich,whenbelievedandapplied,instrumentallyconveyorbestowthem,-appliesmoreimmediatelytothe

mere symbols or elements, and to the preaching of the gospel to all,withoutdistinctionor exception,which is involved in the selection andappointment of such symbols, as recorded in the New Testament. The“confirming our interest in Him” brings under our notice the morelimitedandspecificobjectofthesacraments,asbroughtoutintheactualindividual participation in them by persons duly qualified and rightlyprepared.Thislatterstatementsuggestsatonce,asafundamentalpointinthedoctrineofthesacraments,-and,ofcourse,astrueofbaptismasofthe Lord’s Supper, - that they are intended only for those who havealreadyobtainedaninterestinChristbyfaith,andthattheyaredesignedto benefit these persons mainly by confirming this interest in Christ,whichtheyhavealreadyacquired, andwhich theymusthavepossessedbeforetheycould lawfullyandbeneficiallypartakeeveninthe initiatorysacramentofbaptism.Thisimportantprincipleisalsoexplicitlydeclaredin the 19th chapter of the Confession, which treats of Saving Faith.Concerning saving faith, it says, that “it is ordinarily wrought by theministry of the word, by which also, and by the administration of thesacraments and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.” Here theincreasing and strengthening of saving faith, previously produced andalreadyexisting,isascribedtotheadministrationofthesacraments,andof course is predicated equally and alike of baptism and the Lord’sSupper; and this incidental, though most explicit, assertion of theprinciple,thatthesacramentsweredesignedtoincreaseandstrengthensaving faith, shows how familiar the minds of the compilers of theWestminsterConfessionwerewith a doctrine,which is now verymuchignoredbymanywhoprofesstofollowintheirfootsteps.

ThesamedoctrineastotheobjectsofthesacramentsisveryexplicitlysetforthintheLargerCatechism,where,inanswertothequestion,Whatisasacrament?itissaid,that“asacramentisanholyordinanceinstitutedbyChrist in His church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that arewithinthecovenantofgrace,thebenefitsofHismediation,tostrengthenandincreasetheirfaithandallothergraces,toobligethemtoobedience,totestifyandcherishtheirloveandcommuniononewithanother,andtodistinguishthem from those that arewithout.”Wehave already shownthat, according to the strict grammatical construction of this sentence,the expression, “those that are within the covenant of grace,” is used

simplyassynonymouswithbelievers,andnotinthewidersenseinwhichitmight include also the children of believers; and that, therefore, theLarger Catechism agrees with the Confession of Faith and the ShorterCatechism,insettingforththisgreatdoctrineinregardtothesubjectsofthe sacraments, viz. that they are intended for believers, for thosewhohave already received the gift of faith; not meaning to exclude thebaptismofinfants,-whichwasregardedasfullysanctionedbyscripturalauthority,-butvirtuallyconceding,1st,Thatthefullandadequateideaofasacrament,asexhibited inadultbaptismand theLord’sSupper,doesnotdirectlyandthoroughlyapplytothecaseof infantbaptism;and2d,That it is of more importance to bring out fully and explicitly, thesacramentalprinciple,-thetrueandlulldoctrineofthesacraments,-asapplicabletoadultbaptismandtheLord’sSupper,thantoattempttolaydownsomemorevagueanddilutedviewuponthissubject,whichmightincludethespecialandpeculiarcaseofthebaptismofinfants.Thisbeingassumed,weseethattheLargerCatechism,inentireaccordancewiththeConfessionofFaith,givesitasthetrueaccountofthegeneralnatureandcharacter of the sacraments, that e( they signify, seal, and exhibit” thebenefitsofChrist’smediationtobelievers,andthattheirprimaryleadingobjectistostrengthenandincreasefaithandallothergraces,wherethesehavebeenalreadyproduced.Thethreeotherobjectshereassignedtothesacraments,viz.“toobligethemtoobedience,totestifyandcherishtheirlove and communion one with another, and to distinguish them fromthosethatarewithout,”-all,beitobserved,applicableonlytobelievers,-areusuallydescribedbytheologians,andwerenodoubtregardedbytheWestminsterdivines,asthesecondaryorsubordinateobjectsorendsofthesacraments.Anditisplainthat,inrespectofintrinsicimportanceintheirbearingupon the salvationof sinners, theydonot standupon thesame level with the great object and result of strengthening andincreasingfaithandallothergraces,andtherebysignifying,sealing,andexhibitingthebenefitsofthecovenantofgrace.

ThegeneraldefinitionordescriptionofasacramentgivenintheShorterCatechism is very explicit in declaring, that the proper subjects of thesacraments are believers, though it does not bring out so formally andfullywhataretheirobjectsorends,exceptinsofarasthetruthuponthispoint is implied in their general nature and character. But as the

statement in the Shorter Catechism is that with whichmost people inScotlandarefamiliar, though inmanycases,we fear, familiaronlywiththewords,withoutunderstandingthemeaning,itmaybepropertogiveasomewhatfullandformalexplanationofit,eventhoughthismayinvolvesomerepetition.Itisthis:aAsacramentisanholyordinanceinstitutedbyChrist,wherein by sensible signs Christ and the benefits of the newcovenantarerepresented,sealed,andappliedtobelievers.”

1. This statement explicitly asserts, as we have shown, that thesacraments, baptism as well as the Lord’s Supper, are intended forbelievers, andproduce theirappropriatebeneficial resultsonly in thosewho by faith receive them; while it assumes or takes for granted, thatthose who partake in them are duly qualified for doing so, by thepossessionofthatfaithwhich,inreceivingthem,isprofessedordeclared.

2.The thingswhichare represented, sealed,andapplied tobelievers inthe sacraments are, “Christ and the benefits of the new covenant, notsome of the benefits of the covenant, however important andfundamental,butthesebenefitsasawhole,-everything,includingbothachange of state and of character, which is invariably connected withsavingfaith;notthecovenantofgrace,regardedmerelyasastatementorexpositionofacertaincompactortransactionrevealedinScriptureandbearingupon thesalvationof sinners,but thegraceof the covenant,orthe blessings which the covenant offers, conveys, and secures. Anyattempt to represent baptism, or the water the application of whichconstitutesbaptism,asrepresentingorsignifyingremission,-apartfromregeneration,orregenerationapartfromremission,-andanyattempttoexplain the difficulty about sealing by distinguishing between thecovenant of grace and the grace of the covenant, and alleging that.sacraments are seals of the covenant, but are only signs or symbols ofspiritualblessings,-isprecludedbythetermsofthisstatement,andstillmoreexplicitlybythefurtherexplanationgivenintheConfessionofFaithandLargerCatechism.

3.“Christandthebenefitsof thenewcovenant”areheredeclaredtobeequallyandalike“represented,sealed,andappliedandthisonecomplexposition being predicated of them, it cannot, in consistency with thisstatement, be alleged that these benefits, or any of them, are either

representedandnotsealed,orsealedandnotrepresented,inreferencetoany one class or section of legitimate and worthy recipients. Theadmissionoftheaccuracyofthisdescriptionofasacramentimplies,thatthereisasenseinwhichChristandHisbenefitsare,inbaptismandtheLord’s Supper, not only represented and signified, but also sealed andappliedtobelievers.

4.The “signify, seal, andexhibit”of theLargerCatechismareevidentlyidentical with the “represented, sealed, and applied” of the Shorter, -“signify”beingsynonymouswith“represent,”and“exhibit”withaapply.”And in considering these expressions, we have first to advert to thequestionoftheconsistencyofthisaccountofthenatureandcharacterofthe sacraments,with theviewwhich,aswehaveseen, isgiven in thesesymbols,oftheirmainobject,theirprincipaldesign.Thereisnodifficultyin perceiving how the signifying and sealing here ascribed to thesacraments' accord with the doctrine which represents their leadingobject to be, to confirm or strengthen a faith previously existing, andthereby to contribute to convey theblessingswhichbelievers stillneed.Signifyingandsealingnaturallysuggesttheidea,thatthethingssignifiedand sealednot only exist, but are actually possessed by those towhomthey are signified and sealed. Whatever may be the precise kind ofinfluenceandeffectindicatedbythesewords,theyassumeorimply,thatthe things ofwhich they are predicated have been already bestowed orconveyed, and are now held or possessed. The sacraments are forbelievers. Indescribing their general nature and character, it is usuallyassumed that the persons who receive them are duly qualified by thepossession of faith; by receiving the sacraments, they express andexercise their faith; they thus have all the great fundamental blessings,the possession of which is invariably connected with the existence offaith,signifiedandsealedtothem;andthetendencyandeffectofthisareto strengthen and increase their faith, and thereby to convey to themmorefullyandabundantlythoseotherblessingsofwhichtheystillstandinneed.

But while the signifying and sealing ascribed to the sacraments areplainly, whatever may be their precise meaning and import, quiteaccordantwiththegeneraldoctrinetaughtconcerningtheirobjects,there

seemstobemoredifficultyabout“exhibiting”or“applying.”Donotthesewordsconveytheideaofconferringorbestowingwhatwasnotpreviouslypossessed? Do they not thus sanction the notion that Christ and Hisbenefitsareconveyedorbestowed,notpreviouslytothelawfulreceptionofthesacraments,butinandbytheuseofthem?Now,inoppositiontothis notion,we take the position, that the doctrine that the sacramentsareforbelievers,andassumethepreviousexistenceinworthyrecipientsof the great spiritual blessings with which saving faith is invariablyconnected,isfartooexplicitlyandtoofullysetforthintheWestminstersymbols, in accordance with the general doctrine of the Reformedchurches,toadmitofitsbeingsetasideorinvolvedinuncertainty,onthegroundof a single vague andambiguousexpression, even though therewere greater difficulty than there is, in interpreting that expression inharmonywiththegeneralstrainoftheirteaching.Theproofofthisinthestatementsof theConfessionandCatechisms is too clear to require theapplicationofanycollateralandsubordinateevidence.Butitsohappensthatwehaveevidenceofthissort,whichwouldbeconclusiveastowhatwasthedoctrinewhichtheWestminsterdivines intendedtoteachuponthispoint,eventhoughthelanguageoftheirsymbols,takenasawhole,had been much more ambiguous than it is. This evidence we find instatements contained in Samuel Rutherford’s “Due Right ofPresbyteries,” and in George Gillespie’s “Aaron’s Rod Blossoming.”RutherfordandGillespieare,literallyandwithoutanyexception,justthetwo very highest authorities that could be brought to bear upon aquestion of this kind, at once from their learning and ability astheologians,andfromtheplacetheyheldandtheinfluencetheyexertedin the actual preparation of the documents under consideration. ThatRutherfordheldtheviewsaboutthesacramentswhichwehaveascribedto the Westminster standards, is quite certain, from the followingquotationsfromtheworkabovereferredto:-

“Allbelieversasbelievers,inforoDeibeforeGod,haverighttothesealsofthecovenant;thosetowhomthecovenantandthebodyofthecharterbelongeth,tothosethesealbelongeth;butinforoecclesiastice,andinanorderlychurchway,thesealsarenottobeconferredbythechurchuponpersons because they believe, but because they profess their believing;thereforetheapostlesneverbaptizedPagans,butuponprofessionoftheir

faith.”“Certainly,Godordaineththesacramentstobelieversasbelievers,and because they are within the covenant, and their interest in thecovenant is the only true right of interest to the seals of the covenant;profession doth but declare who believe and who believe not, andconsequentlywhohave right to thesealsof thecovenant,andwhonot;butprofessiondothnotmakeright,butdeclarethwhohaveright.”

There is no great difficulty connectedwith theLord’s Supper, so far asconcernsthepointnowunderconsideration.Thedifficultyappliesonlytobaptism,andinregardtobaptismthefollowingstatementsofRutherfordareconclusive:-

“1.BaptismisnotthatwherebyweareenteredintoChrist’smysticalandinvisiblebodyas such, for it is presupposedwebemembersofChrist’sbody,andoursinspardonedalreadybeforebaptismcometobeasealofsins pardoned. But baptism is a seal of our entry into Christ’s visiblebody,asswearingtothecolours is thatwhichenterethasoldier tobeamemberofsuchanarmy,whereas,beforehisoath,hewasonlyaheart-friendtothearmyandcause.

“2.Baptism,asitissuch,isaseal,andaseal-asaseal-addethnonewlandsorgoodstothemantowhomthecharterandsealisgiven,butonlydoth legallyconfirmhimin therightof such landsgiven to themanbyprince or state. Yet this hindereth not; but baptism is a real legal seal,legally confirming the man in his actual visible profession of Christ,remission of sins, regeneration, so, as though before baptism hewas amemberofChrist’sbody,yet,quoadnos,heisnotamemberofChrist’sbodyvisible,untilhebemadesuchbybaptism.”_

Gillespie, in likemanner,has the followingexplicit statementupon thissubject:-

“ThePapistsholdthatthesacramentsareinstrumentaltoconfer,give,orworkgrace;yea,exopereoperato,as theschoolmenspeak.Ourdivineshold that the sacraments are appointed of God, and delivered to thechurchassealingordinances,nottogive,buttotestifywhatisgiven;nottomake, but to confirm saints. And they not only oppose the Papist’sopus operatum, but they simply deny this instrumentality of the

sacraments, that theyare appointedofGod forworkingorgivinggracewhere it is not. This is so well known to all who have studied thesacramentariancontroversies,thatIshouldnotneedtoproveit;yetthatnonemaydoubtofit,takeheresomefewinsteadofmanytestimonies.”fNay, what is somewhat remarkable, and singularly pertinent to ourpresent purpose, we find that the same difficulty which we are nowconsideringisstatedandansweredbyGillespie,andthathisanswertoitis virtually a commentary upon the passage we are examining, andestablishes the sense inwhich itwas understood by thosewhomay beregardedasitsauthors,-thusnotonlyprovingthatthedoctrinewehaveasserted is tobemaintained,notwithstanding its apparentdiscrepancy,with one expression, but at the same time showing in what way thisapparent discrepancy is to be explained. The remarkable passage is asfollows: - “Youwill say, peradventure, that Protestant writers hold thesacraments to be, 1, Significant or declarative signs; 2, Obsignative orconfirming signs; and 3, Exhibitive signs, so that the thing signified isgiven or exhibited to the soul.” Now these three points are manifestlyidentical with the three words employed in the Catechisms, - “signify,seal,andexhibit,” intheLarger;and“represent,seal,andapply,” intheShorter.Themainquestionis,Whatismeantbythethirdpoint,exhibitandapply,orexhibitivesigns?andGillespie’sansweristhis:-

“Ianswer,thatexhibition,whichtheyspeakof,isnotthegivingofgracewhere it is not (as ismanifest by the afore-quoted testimonies), but anexhibitiontobelievers,areal,effectual,livelyapplicationofChrist,andofall His benefits, to every one that believeth, for the staying,strengthening,confirming,andcomfortingofthesoul.Ourdivinesdonotsay that the sacraments are exhibitive ordinances, wherein grace iscommunicated to those who have none of it, to unconverted orunbelievingpersons.

“Bythistimeitmayappear(Isuppose)thatthecontroversybetweenusandthePapists,concerningtheeffectofthesacraments(settingasidetheopusoperatum,which isadistinctcontroversy,andisdistinctlyspokentobyourwriters,-settingasidealsothecausalitasphysicaandinsita,bywhichsomeof thePapists say the sacramentsgivegrace, thoughdiversothersofthemholdthesacramentstobeonlymoralcausesofgrace),is

thus far thesamewith thepresentcontroversybetweenMrPrynneandme, thatProtestantwriters do not only oppose the opus operatum andthecausalitasphysicaand insita,but theyoppose(as ismanifestby thetestimonies already cited) all causality or working of the first grace ofconversionandfaithinorbythesacraments,supposingalwaysamantobeabelieverandwithinthecovenantofgracebeforethesacrament,andthatheisnotmadesuch,nortranslatedtothestateofgraceinorbythesacrament.”

We think it of some importance to show, that these views of thesacramental principle, or of the doctrine of the sacraments, which,thoughsoclearlyandfullysetforthintheWestminsterstandards,havebeen somuch lost sight of amongst us,were openlymaintainedby theleadingdivinesof theChurchofScotlandduring last century.PrincipalHadowandThomasBostonmayberegardedastheheadsoftwodifferentschoolsof theology inScotland in theearlypartof last century,and;ashappens not unfrequently in theological discussions, they divided, wethink,thetruthbetweentheminthepointscontroverted.Theyhavebothleft very explicit statements of their views upon this subject of thesacraments, especially in regard tobaptism, aboutwhich alone there isany difficulty, so far as concerns the points we have been considering.Principal Hadow lays down this position, that the commonly receiveddoctrineoftheReformedchurchesdoesnot“ascribeanyothervirtueorefficacytobaptism,thanwhatismoralandobjective,inrepresentingandsigningthepromises,confirmingoffaith,andexhibitingorapplyingthepromisedbenefitsof thecovenantuntobelievers,bywayofa signandseal,whichstillsupposethgracealreadyconferredonthoseinwhomthissacramenthathitsdueoperation;”andhesupportsthisandoneortwoother positions of a similar import and tendency by quotations fromZwingli,Bullinger,PeterMartyr,Musculus,Polanus,Wollebius,Aretius,Calvin,Beza,Spanheim,Turretine,Heidegger,Bucer,Zanchius,Ursinus,Parseus,Wendelinus,Rivet,Walseus,Hoornbeck,Essenius,Leydecker,Mastricht, Witsius, Alting, Maresius, Gomarus, Maccovius, Ames,Arnoldus,Danseus,Chamier,Amyraut,DuMoulin,-thusfurnishing,likeVitringa,agreatstorehouseofmaterialsforatheologicaldisplay.

Boston’s views are brought out in the following extract from his

“MiscellanyQuestionsinDivinity:”-

“Thesacramentsarenotconvertingbutconfirmingordinances;theyareappointed for theuse andbenefit ofGod’s children,notofothers; theyare given to believers as believers, as Rutherford expresses it, so thatnoneotheraresubjectscapableofthesamebeforetheLord.Eithermustwe say they have no respect at all to saving grace, or that they areappointed as means of the conveyance of the first grace, - that is, toconvertsinners,-orfinally,forconfirmationofgracealreadyreceived.Ifitbesaidtheyhavenorespectatalltosavinggrace,thenbaptismcannotbe called the baptism of repentance, nor are persons baptized for theremissionofsins,norcanitbelookedonasasealoftherighteousnessoffaith,allwhichisevidentlyagainstScripturetestimony.Ifitbesaidtheyareappointedasmeansof the conveyanceof the first grace, then, first,eithertherearenoneconvertedbeforebaptism,whichismanifestlyfalse,orelsebaptismisinvainconferredonconverts,whichisnolessfalse.Butsurely in vain are means used to confer on any that which they hadbefore. Second, it were unfaithfulness to Christ and cruelty to men towithholdthesacramentsfromanypersonwhatsoever.Were itnotsoul-murdertowithholdthemeansofconveyanceofthefirstgracefromany,andunfaithfulnesstoHimwhowillhaveallmentobesavedandcometothe knowledge of the truth? But that the sacraments, and particularlybaptism, are not to be conferred on all promiscuously, none can deny.Wherefore it remains that they are indeed appointed for confirmation,which doth necessarily suppose the pre-existence of grace in the soul,seeingthatwhichisnotcannotbeconfirmed.”

These quotations confirm everything we have said as to the doctrinewhichhasbeenregardedbythemostcompetentjudgesastaughtintheWestminsterstandards.WegiveonlyoneothershortquotationfromDrJohnErskine,probably thegreatestdivine in theChurchofScotland inthelatterpartoflastcentury:-

“ScripturesufficientlyprovesthatthesacramentsoftheNewTestamentare signs and seals of no other covenant than that covenant of gracewhichsecureseternalhappinesstoallinterestedinit.Andthepartakingofthemmanifestly impliesapartakingofcovenantblessingsontheonehand,andtheexerciseoffaithontheother.Tobeginwithbaptism:John

baptized for the remissionof sins, and sodidChrist’sdisciples.Wearetoldthatbaptismsavesus;andbybaptismwearesaidtoputonChrist,todie, to be buried, and to rise with Him, because the water in baptismrepresentsandsealsthatbloodofJesuswhichcleansethfromtheguiltofsin,andpurchasesforusthesanctifyinginfluencesoftheSpirit,andallotherneedfulblessings.Baptism,then,isasealofspiritualblessings;andspiritualblessingsitcannotsealtotheunconverted.”

WehavenowexplainedthedoctrinetaughtintheWestminsterstandardsconcerning the subjects and the objects of the two sacraments of theChristianchurch,-thatis,thepersonswhocanlawfullyandbeneficiallypartakeinthem,andthepurposeswhich,inthesepersons,theyarefittedand intended to accomplish. Another question still remains to beconsidered, viz. Have we any further information as to the way andmannerinwhichthesacramentsproducetheirappropriateeffects,orasto theprincipleswhichregulate theproductionof the results?Somuchmischiefhasbeendonetothesoulsofmenbytheperversionorabuseofthe sacraments, that we consider it necessary, in connection with thisbranch of the subject, to state again distinctly what is, of course,obviously implied in the views we have explained, viz. that men whooutwardlypartakeinthesacramentswithouthavingbeenpreviouslyledto believe in Christ Jesus, can derive from them no benefit whatever.Persons who are still unbelieving and impenitent, do not, in receivingbaptismortheLord’sSupper,dischargeaduty,orperformanacceptableactofworship,orenjoyandimproveaprivilegeormeanofgrace.Onthecontrary, they are only committing a sin, because they arepresumptuously engaging in a sacred service, while destitute of thequalifications which God has required, and because, in the very act ofoutwardly receiving the sacraments, they are making a false andhypocritical profession; they are declaring by deeds the existence of acertainistateofmindandheart,correspondingtotheoutwardacttheyareperforming,while ithas reallyno existence.The sacraments canbeexpected to become the means of grace, or the channels of conveyingspiritualblessings,onlywhenmen rightly receive them, - that is,whentheyaredulypreparedforthereceptionofthem,andwhentheyfaithfullyimprove them for their intended objects. With respect to the duepreparation, there are required what the old divines used to call an

habitual and an actual, or a general and a special, preparation. Thehabitualorgeneralpreparationis,ofcourse,faith,withoutwhichalreadyexistingtherecanbenowarrantforparticipatinginthesacraments,andnocapacityofbenefitingbythem;andtheactualorspecialpreparationisjust faith in exercise, under the influence of right views and suitableimpressions of our own wants and necessities at the time, and of thenature,character,andobjectsoftheordinance,whetheritbebaptismortheLord’sSupper,inwhichweareabouttoengage.

It isonlyinthesecircumstancesthatthesacramentscanbeexpectedtoprovemeansofgrace.Thequestionthusbecomeslimitedtothis,Inwhatway,orthroughwhatprocess,dothesacramentsbecomeinstrumentalinconveying spiritual blessings to those persons who, having previouslybelieved in Christ, and been justified and regenerated, receive theseordinancesunderaduesenseofregardtoChrist’sauthority,andfromasincere desire to sharemore abundantly in the blessings ofwhich theystillstandinneed,andwhicharealltreasuredupinHim?Nowastotheway and manner, the process and regulating principles, according towhichthesemenderivebenefitfromreceivingthesacraments,thewordof God has certainly not given us much direct information. And this,indeed,is justapartoraconsequenceofamoregeneraltruth,viz.thatScripture does not ascribe to the sacraments any such prominence orinfluence in thewayofcontributing tomen’ssalvation,byconveying tothemspiritualblessings,as thePopishorTractarian theorydoes.Thereare, indeed, some important negative truths bearing upon this subject,whichareclearandcertain,andwhichit is importanttorememberandto apply, as the great securities against error and abuse.Most of thesehave been referred to already, but itmay be proper now to state themtogether,andinthisconnection.Theyarechieflythese-

1. That the sacraments do not occupy any such place in the scheme ofGod’sarrangements,astomaketheparticipationinthem,orineitherofthem, necessary to the possession and enjoyment of any spiritualblessing,ortoentiremeetnessforheaven.

2.Thatno spiritualblessings arederived from the sacraments,withoutthepreviousexistenceandthepresentexerciseoftruesavingfaith.

3. That the sacraments become effectualmeans of grace and salvation,notfromanyvirtue-thatis,anypowerorworth,personalorofficial-inhimwhoadministersthem,norfromanyvirtue inthem,- that is, fromanyintrinsicefficacyinherentinthem,andresultingexopereoperato,-and that they do not operate certainly and invariably in conveying anyspiritualblessings.

4. That the sacraments are not seals of spiritual blessings in any suchsense as implies that they are attestations to the personal character orspiritualconditionofthosewhoreceivethem,orthatthemerereceptionof thesacraments is tobeheldasof itself furnishingaproof,orevenapresumption, that those receiving them are true believers, andmay beassuredthattheyhavereachedaconditionofsafety.

These truths, it will be observed, are to a large extent negative. Theyconsist mainly of denials of certain notions about the nature andnecessity, thesubjects,objects,andeffectsof thesacraments,whicharevery apt to spring up in men’s minds, and which have been openlymaintained by Romanists and High Churchmen. And when we reflectupon the extent to which these unwarranted and extravagant notionsabout the sacraments have prevailed, and upon the fearful amount ofinjurytheyhavedonetothesoulsofmen,wereckonitaboutsufficienttoknow,thatinthecaseofadultstheyarenotintendedforthosewhohavenot already faith and regeneration; that they do not produce anybeneficial results which may not be comprehended under the generalhead of aiding and assisting believers in carrying on the work ofsanctification in their hearts; and that they do not directly and ofthemselves furnish any evidence, that faith and regenerationhavebeenproduced,andthattheworkofgracehasbegun.Letmenfirmlybelieveand carefully apply these negative doctrines, and they will thus bepreservedfromerroranddelusion,andat thesametimewillbeable, ifthey carefully improve what they know, and wait upon God for Hisblessing,toderivefromthesacramentsallthespiritualbenefitstheywereeverfittedandintendedtobethemeansofconveying.„

There is really nothing more declared or defined upon this point inScripture,orintheWestminstersymbols,exceptwhatmaybeimpliedinor deducible from their general character as signs and seals of the

covenantofgrace.Thegeneralideasuggestedbythewordsealisthatofconfirming;andthereisnogreatdifficultyinseeinghowthisideamaybeappliedtothesacraments,withoutimaginingthattheyareinthemselvesattestationsonGod’sparttomen’sindividualcharacterandcondition,orthattheyinvolveanythingveryexaltedormysterious.Thereis,firstofall,the general consideration, that Christ having expressly appointed thesetwospecialordinancestobeinstrumentsorchannelsofconveyingtomenspiritualblessings, inadditiontowhatmaybecalledthemoreordinarymeansofgrace, thewordandprayer,wehave inthisverycircumstancespecial grounds for confidently expectingHis special blessingwhenwereceiveandusethemaright.Thisconsideration iswell fittedtoconfirmusinourdeterminationtoimprovethesacramentstotheuttermost,andinourconfidentexpectationofderivingspiritualbenefitfromdoingso.

Andwhenwelookmoreparticularlytothecharacterofthesacramentsasoutward actions of a symbolic import,we see plainly that theyhave anindividualizing, appropriating bearing or tendency, which fits themspecially for being made the instruments in the hand of the Spirit ofguidingustoapersonalapplicationofdivinetruthtoourownconditionand circumstances, and thus sealing or confirming our faith, love, andhope.Abeliever,inpartakingofthesacraments,standsforth,plainlyandpalpably, as making a personal profession of his faith in Christ, andgivingapersonalpromiseandpledgetopersevereinfaithandobedience.Thenaturaltendencyofthisistoleadhimtorealizemorefullyhisactualposition,obligations, andprospectsasabeliever, and thiswarrants theconfident expectation that the Spirit will actually employ it foraccomplishingthisresult.ButthesacramentsaretoberegardedassignsandsealsonthepartofGodaswellasofman.And in thisaspect theirsealingorconfirmingcharactercomesoutinthisway:God,bygivingtoabeliever, in the ordinary course of His providence, an opportunity ofpartakinginthesacraments,doesnotindeedtherebyattestorindorsehispersonal character and standing as a believer, but He may be said tosingle him out and to deal with him in his’ individual capacity, -addressing to him personally, and in a manner and circumstancespeculiarly fitted to comehomewith power to his understanding, heart,andconscience,thegreattruthsofScripture,withtheknowledge,belief,andapplicationofwhichall spiritualblessings are connected; and thus

intimatingHis readiness andwillingness to bestow, in connectionwiththese ordinances, all needful spiritual blessings, in accordance with allthat He has revealed in His word, as regulating His conduct in suchmatters.ViewedassignsandsealsonGod’spart,thesacramentsmaybefairlyregardedassignifyingorintimatingthis;andthedeclarationofallthisinsuchcircumstances,andwithsuchaccompaniments,iswellfittedtoexertasealingorconfirminginfluenceuponthemindsofbelievers.

Thesubstanceof thismattermaybeembodiedinthese twopositions, -1st, That the Holy Spirit ordinarily employs the sacraments, whenreceived by persons duly qualified and rightly prepared, as means orinstruments of conveying to them clearer views and more lively andimpressive conceptionsofwhatHehasdoneand revealed inHisword;withrespecttotheprovisionsandarrangementsofthecovenantofgrace,andtheirspecialapplicationtomenindividually.And2d,ThattheHolySpirit, acting in accordance with the principles and tendencies of ourconstitution,ordinarilyemploysthesacraments,asmeansorinstrumentsof increasing and strengthening men’s faith with reference to all itsappropriate objects, and thereby of imparting to them, in greaterabundance,allthespiritualblessingswhichareconnectedwiththelivelyandvigorousexerciseoffaith,-that is,all thosesubordinateblessings-asinacertainsensetheymaybecalled-whichaccompanyandflowfromjustificationandregeneration.

WehavenowstatedthesubstanceofwhatissuggestedbyScripture,andsetforthintheWestminsterstandards,concerningthewayandmannerin which the sacraments become means of grace, and produce theirappropriate beneficial effects; and, indeed, more generally, concerningthenature and character, the subjects and theobjects, the endand theeffect,oftheseordinances.Andwehavedonesoundertheinfluenceofastrong desire and determination to avoid the very common and veryinjurioustendency,eitherdirectlytooverratethevalueandefficacyofthesacraments, or to furnish facilities and encouragements to others tooverratethem,byleavingourstatementsonthesesubjectsinaconditionofgreatvaguenessandconfusion.Anyattemptstoassigntothemgreaterdignity, value, and efficacy thanwehave ascribed to them, or to investthemwith a deeper shade ofmystery, are, we are persuaded, not only

unsanctionedbyScripture,but inconsistentwith the fairand legitimateconsequences of what it teaches, and are fitted to exert an injuriousinfluence upon the interests of truth and holiness. The strong naturaltendencyofmentosubstitute the tithingofmint,anise,andcumin, fortheweightiermattersofthelaw,-tosubstitutetheobservanceofoutwardritesandceremonies for thediligent cultivationofChristiangracesandthefaithfuldischargeofChristianduties,-isstrengthenedbyeverythingwhich,professedlyuponreligiousgrounds,eitheraddstothenumberofthe rites and ceremonieswhichGod has prescribed, or assigns even toprescribed rites and ceremonies an importance and an efficacy beyondwhatHehas sanctioned. In the second of theseways, aswell as in thefirst,thetruthofGodhasbeengrievouslyperverted,andtheinterestsofpractical godliness have been extensively injured. Almost the only ritesand ceremonies permanently binding upon the Christian church arebaptism and the Lord’s Supper; and these have been in every age sodistorted and perverted by exaggeration and confusion, as to haveproved,inpointoffact,theoccasionsoffearfulinjurytomen’ssouls.Itistruethatmenhavesometimesexhibitedatendencytogototheoppositeextreme, to depreciate instituted ordinances, and to reduce theirimportance, value, and efficacy below the standard which the word ofGod sanctions. But the tendency to overvalue the sacraments, and tomake the observance of them a substitute, more or less avowedly, forthings ofmuch greater importance, is farmore common and farmoredangerous;moredangerous,atonce,becauseitismorelikelytocreepin,andtogainanascendencyinmen’sminds,andbecause,whenyieldedtoandencouraged,itexertsamoreinjuriousinfluenceuponthehighestandholiest interests,bywrappingmen in strongdelusion in regard to theirspiritualconditionandprospects,andleadingthemtobuildtheirhopesofheavenuponafalsefoundation.

We have confined ourselves to an explanation of the sacramentalprinciple, or the general doctrine or theory of the sacraments asapplicable to both these ordinances - a subject greatly neglected andmisunderstood.WehavereferredtobaptismandtheLord’sSupperonlyinsofarasthiswasnecessaryforillustratingsomethingconnectedwiththeexpositionofthegeneraldoctrine.WehavehadnooccasiontodwellupontheLord’sSupper,becausetheapplicationofthegeneraldoctrineof

the sacraments to it is plain enough, and because there is no seriousdifficultyconnectedwithit,unlesswehadgoneintothediscussionofthekindandmannerof thepresenceofChrist in this ordinance,whichweregardasoneofthemostuselesscontroversiesthateverwasraised.Wehave been obliged to dwell at some length on baptism, and especiallyinfantbaptism,chieflybecauseofthepeculiarplacewhichinfantbaptismholds,-apeculiarity,theignoranceordisregardofwhichhasintroducedmucherrorandconfusionintomen’sviewsuponthiswholesubject,Thepeculiarity is, that infant baptism really occupies a sort of subordinateandexceptionalposition;while,at thesame time, thispeculiaritybeingoverlooked,andinfantbaptismcomingmuchmorefrequentlyunderournoticethanadultbaptism,weareveryapttoallowthespecialtiesofthispeculiarcasetomodifyundulyourviews,notonlyofbaptism,butevenofthesacramentsingeneral.

Theviewswehavesetforthuponthissubjectmayatfirstsightappeartobe large concessions to the anti-paedobaptists, - those who deny thelawfulness of the baptism of infants; and to affect the solidity of thegroundsonwhichthepracticeofpaedobaptism,whichhaseverprevailedalmost universally in the Christian church, is based. But we are firmlypersuaded, that amore careful consideration of the whole matter wallshow, that these views - besides being clearly sanctioned by Scripture,andabsolutelynecessaryfortheconsistentandintelligibleinterpretationof the confessions of the Reformed churches, and especially of theWestminster symbols - are, in their legitimate application, fitted todeprive thearguments of the anti-paedobaptists of the plausibility theypossess.Itcannotbereasonablydenied,thattheyhaveagooddealthatisplausible to allege against infant baptism.Butwe are satisfied that theplausibility of their arguments will always appear greatest tomenwhohave not been accustomed to distinguish between the primary,fundamental, and complete idea of this ordinance as exhibited in thebaptism of adults, and the distinct and peculiar placewhich is held byinfant baptism, with the special grounds on which it rests.We cannotconclude without simply stating the following leading positions thatoughttobemaintainedandsetforth,inordertoguardagainsterroranddelusiononthesubjectofinfantbaptism:-

lsi,ThatScripture,while furnishing sufficientmaterials to establish thelawfulnessandobligationofinfantbaptism,doesnotgiveusmuchdirectinformation concerning it, - doesnot furnishmaterials for layingdownany very definite deliverances as to its proper effects in relation toindividuals; and that the whole history of the church inculcates thelesson, that upon this subject men should be particularly careful toabstain from deductions, probabilities, or conjectures, beyond whatScriptureclearlysanctions.

2d, Thatwhile believers are under the same obligation topresent theirinfantchildrenforbaptismastobebaptizedthemselves,iftheyhavenotbeen baptized before, no infants ought to be baptized, except those ofpersonswhoought themselves tobebaptizedas adultsupon their ownprofession, and who, being thus recognized as believers, are not onlyentitledbutboundtobehabituallyreceivingtheLord’sSupper.

3d, Thatwhile believers arewarranted to improve the baptism of theirchildren in thewayofconfirmingtheir faith in thesalvationof thoseofthemwhodieininfancy,andinthewayofencouragingthemselves inaheartyandhopefuldischargeofparentaldutytowardsthoseofthemwhosurviveinfancy,neitherparentsnorchildren,whenthechildrencometobeproper subjects of instruction, should regard the fact that they havebeenbaptized,asaffordingof itself even the slightestpresumption thatthey have been regenerated; that nothing should ever be regarded asfurnishinganyevidenceofregeneration,excepttheappropriateproofsofan actual renovation of the moral nature, exhibited in each caseindividually: and that, until these proofs appear, every one, whetherbaptizedornot,shouldbetreatedanddealtwith inall respectsas ifhewereunregenerate,andstillneededtobebornagainofthewordofGodthroughthebeliefofthetruth.

JohnCalvin

JohnCalvinwasbyfarthegreatestoftheReformerswithrespecttothetalents he possessed, the influence he exerted, and the services herendered in the establishment and diffusion of important truth. TheReformers who preceded himmay be said to have been all men who,fromthecircumstances inwhich theywereplaced,and the occupationswhichthesecircumstancesimposeduponthem,orfromthepowersandcapacities with which they had been gifted, were fitted chiefly for theimmediatenecessarybusinessoftheageinwhichtheirlotwascast,andwerenotperhapsqualifiedforrisingabovethissphere,-which,however,wasaveryimportantone.Theirefforts,whetherinthewayofspeculationorofaction,werejustsuchastheirimmediatecircumstancesandurgentpresent duties demanded of them, while they had little opportunity ofconsideringandpromotingthepermanentinterestsofthewholeschemeof scriptural truth, or the whole theory and constitution of Christianchurches.AfterallthatLuther,Melancthon,andZwinglihaddone,therewas still needed some one of elevated and comprehensive mind, whoshould be able to rise above the distraction and confusion of existingcontentions, to survey the wide field of scriptural truth in all itsdepartments, to combine and arrange its various parts, and to presentthemasaharmoniouswholetothecontemplationofmen.

Thiswas thespecialwork forwhichGodqualifiedCalvin,bybestowingupon him both the intellectual and the spiritual gifts necessary for thetask; and this He enabled him to accomplish. God makes use of theintellectualpowerswhichHebestowsuponmen,fortheaccomplishmentofHisownpurposes;orratherHebestowsuponmenthose intellectualpowers which may fit them naturally, and according to the ordinaryoperation ofmeans, for the purposes whichHe inHis sovereignty hasassigned to them to effect. He then leads them byHis grace to devotetheirpowerstoHisgloryandservice,Heblessestheirlabours,andthusHisgraciousdesignsareaccomplished.

Calvin had received from God mental powers of the highest order.

Distinguishedequallybycomprehensivenessandpenetrationofintellect,byacutenessandsoundnessof judgment,hiscircumstances inearly lifewere so regulated in providence that he was furnished with the bestopportunitiesof improvinghis faculties,andacquiring the learningandculturethatmightbenecessarywithaviewtohisfuturelabours.LedbyGod’sgraceearlyanddecidedlytorenouncethedevil,theworld,andtheflesh,andtodevotehimselftotheserviceofChrist,hewasalsoled,underthe same guidance, to abandon the Church of Rome, and to devotehimselftothepreachingofthegospel,theexpositionoftherevealedtruthofGod,and theorganizationof churches inaccordancewith the sacredScriptures and the practice of the apostles. In all these departments ofusefullabourhiseffortswerehonouredwithanextraordinarymeasureofsuccess.CalvindidwhattherestoftheReformersdid,andinadditionhedidwhatnoneof themeitherdidorcouldeffect.Hewasadiligentandlaboriouspastor.Hegavemuchtimetotheinstructionofthosewhowerepreparingfortheworkoftheministry.Hetookanactivepartinopposingthe Church of Rome, in promoting the Reformation, and in organizingProtestant churches. Entering with zeal and ardour into all thecontroversieswhich the ecclesiasticalmovementsof the timeproduced,hewaseverreadytodefendinjuredtruthortoexposetriumphanterror.ThiswasworkwhichhehadtodoincommonwiththeotherReformers,though he brought higher powers than any of them to bear upon theperformance of it. But in addition to all this, he had for his specialbusinessthegreatworkofdigestingandsystematizingthewholeschemeof divine truth, of bringing out in order and harmony all the differentdoctrines which are contained in the word of God, unfolding them intheirmutualrelationsandvariousbearings,andthuspresentingthem,inthemost favourable aspect, to the contemplation and the study of thehighestorderofminds.

The systematizing of divine truth, and the full organization of theChristian church according to the word of God, are the great peculiarachievements of Calvin. For thisworkGod eminently qualified him, bybestowing 'uponhim thehighest gifts both of nature andof grace; andthisworkhewas enabled to accomplish in such away as to confer thegreatest and most lasting benefits upon the church of Christ, and toentitlehimtothecommendationandthegratitudeofallsucceedingages.

The first edition of his great work, "The Institution of the ChristianReligion,”waspublishedwhenhewastwenty-sevenyearsofage;anditisamostextraordinaryproofofthematurityandvigourofhismind,ofthecarewithwhichhehad studied thewordofGod, andof thedepthandcomprehensiveness of his meditations upon divine things, that thoughtheworkwas afterwards greatly enlarged, and though some alterationswereevenmadeinthearrangementofthetopicsdiscussed,yetnochangeof any importancewasmade in the actual doctrineswhich it set forth.Thefirstedition,producedat thatearlyage,contained thesubstanceofthewholesystemofdoctrinewhichhassincebeencommonlyassociatedwith his name, - the development and exposition of which has beenregarded bymany as constituting a strong claim upon the esteem andgratitudeof thechurchofChrist, andbymanyothersas renderinghimworthyofexecrationandeveryopprobrium.Helivedtwenty-sevenyearsmoreafterthepublicationofthefirsteditionoftheInstitutes,andalargeportionof his timeduring the remainder of his lifewas devoted to theexaminationofthewordofGodandtheinvestigationofdivinetruth.Buthesawnoreasontomakeanymaterialchangeintheviewswhichhehadput forth; and a large proportion of themost pious, able, and learnedmen,andmostcarefulstudentsofthesacredScriptures,whohavesinceadorned the churchofChrist, have received all his leadingdoctrines asaccordantwiththeteachingofGod’sword.

Commonplaces-theonlyonepublishedbeforeCalvinproducedthefirsteditionofhis“Institutes” -wasnot tobecomparedtoCalvin’swork, inthe accuracy of its representations of the doctrines of Scripture, in thefullnessandcompletenessofitsmaterials,orintheskillandabilitywithwhichtheyweredigestedandarranged;andinthesubsequenteditions,whilethe inaccuracyof itsstatements increasedinsomerespectsratherthandiminished, it still continued, to a considerable extent, a defectiveand ill-digested work, characterized by a good deal of prolixity andwearisomerepetition.ItwasinthesecircumstancesthatCalvinproducedhis“Institutes,”thematerialsofwhichitwascomposedbeing inalmostevery instance the true doctrines really taught in theword ofGod, andexhibiting the whole substance of what is taught there on matters ofdoctrine,worship,government, anddiscipline, - and thewholeof thesematerials being arranged with admirable skill, and expounded in their

meaning,evidence,andbearings,withconsummateability.ThiswasthegreatandpeculiarservicewhichCalvinrenderedtothecauseoftruthandtheinterestsofsoundtheology,anditsvalueandimportanceitisscarcelypossibletooverrate.

Intheologythereis,ofcourse,noroomfororiginalityproperlysocalled,for itswholematerials are contained in the actual Statements ofGod’sword;andheisthegreatestandbesttheologianwhohasmostaccuratelyapprehended the meaning of the statements of Scripture, - who, bycomparingandcombiningthem,hasmostfullyandcorrectlybroughtoutthewholemindofGodonallthetopicsonwhichtheScripturesgiveusinformation,-whoclassifiesanddigeststhetruthsofScriptureinthewaybestfittedtocommendthemtotheapprehensionandacceptanceofmen,- and who can most clearly and forcibly bring out their scripturalevidence, and most skillfully and effectively defend them against theassaultsofadversaries.Inthiswork,andindeedinalmostanyoneofitsdepartments, there is abundant scope for the exercise of the highestpowers, and for the application of the most varied and extensiveacquirements. Calvin was far above the weakness of aiming at theinvention of novelties in theology, or of wishing to be regarded as thediscoverer of new opinions. The main features of the representationwhichheput forthof theschemeofdivine truth,mightbe found in thewritings of Augustine and Luther, - in neither singly, but in the twoconjointly.

Butbygraspingwithvigourandcomprehensivenessthewholeschemeofdivine truth and all its various departments, and combining them intoone harmonious and well-digested system, he has done what neitherAugustinenorLutherdidorcouldhavedone,andhasgivenconclusiveevidencethathewaspossessedofthehighestintellectualpowers,aswellasenjoyedthemostabundantcommunicationsofGod’sSpirit.

Thetwoleadingdepartmentsoftheologicalsciencearetheexegeticalandthesystematic.Thetwomostimportantfunctionsofthetheologianare-first,tobringoutaccuratelythemeaningoftheindividualstatementsofGod’sword,theparticulartruthswhicharetaughtthere;andsecond,toclassifyandarrangethesetruthsinsuchawayastobringoutmostfullyandcorrectlythewholeschemeofdoctrinewhichisthereunfolded,and

toillustratethebearingandapplicationoftheschemeasawhole,andofits different parts. And it is important to notice, that in both thesedepartmentsCalvinstandsoutpre-eminent,havingmanifestedinbothofthemthehighestexcellenceandattainedthegreatestsuccess.Hehasleftus an exposition of nearly the whole word of God; and it is not onlyimmeasurably superior to any commentary that preceded it, but it hascontinued ever since, and continues to this day, to be regarded by allcompetent judges as a work of the highest value, and as manifestingmarvellous perspicacity and soundness of judgment. There is nodepartment of theological study the cultivators of which, in moderntimes, are more disposed to regard with something like contempt thelabours and attainments of their predecessors, and to considerthemselves as occupying a much higher platform, than the exact andcriticalinterpretationofScripture;andwethinkitmustbeadmittedthatin modem times greater improvements have been made in thisdepartment of theological science than in any other. Yet Calvin’sCommentary continues to secure the respect and the admiration of themostcompetentjudges,bothinthiscountryandonthecontinent,evenofthoseW’he are disposed to estimatemost highly the superiority of thepresent age over preceding generations in the department of scripturalexegesis. And it is perhaps the most striking illustration of theextraordinarygiftswhichGodbestoweduponCalvin,andofthevalueoftheserviceswhichhehasrenderedtoChristiantruthandtotheologicalscience,thathereachedsuchdistinguishedexcellence,andhasexertedsoextensiveandpermanentaninfluence,bothasanaccurateinterpreterofScripture,andasasystematicexpounderofthegreatdoctrinesofGod’sword.

BesidestheCommentaryuponScriptureandthe“Institutes,”theleadingdepartments of Calvin’s works are his “Tractatus” and his “Epistolae,”bothofwhicharemuchlessknownamongstus.thantheyshouldbe.The“Tractatus” are chiefly controversial pieces, in defence of the leadingdoctrinesofhissystemwhenassailedbyadversaries,andinoppositiontotheerrorsofthePapists,theAnabaptists,theLibertines,theadvocatesofcompromises with the Church of Rome, and the assailants of theorthodox doctrine of the Trinity. His “Epistolae” consist partly ofconfidential correspondence with his friends, and partly of answers to

applicationsmade tohim fromallpartsof theProtestantworld,askinghisopinionandadviceuponallthemostimportanttopicsthatoccurred,connectedwith the administration of ecclesiastical affairs in that mostimportant crisis of the church’s history. They manifest throughout thegreatestpracticalwisdomandthetruestscripturalmoderation,aswellaswarm friendship and cordial affection; and the perusal of them isindispensabletoourformingarightestimateofCalvin’scharacter,andofthespiritandmotivesbywhichhewasanimated,whileit isabundantlysufficient of itself to dispelmany of the slanders bywhichhe has beenassailed.

Inthesedifferentdepartmentsofhisworks,wehaveCalvinpresentedtousasaninterpreterofScripture,asasystematicexpounderoftheschemeofChristiandoctrine,asacontroversialdefenderoftruthandimpugnerof error, and as a friend and practical adviser in the regulation of theaffairs of the church; and his pre-eminent excellence in all thesedepartmentsare,wearepersuaded,suchasjustlytoentitlehimtoaplacein the estimation andgratitudeof the churchofChrist,whichnootheruninspiredmanisentitledtoshare.Calvincertainlywasnotfreefromtheinfirmitieswhich are always found in some form or degree even in thebest men; and in particular, he occasionally exhibited an angryimpatienceofcontradictionandopposition,andsometimesassailedandtreated theopponents of the truth and cause ofGodwith a violence ofinvectivewhichcannotbedefended,andshouldcertainlynotbeimitated.Hewas not free from error, and is not to be implicitly followed in hisinterpretationofScripture,orinhisexpositionofdoctrine.ButwhetherwelooktothepowersandcapacitieswithwhichGodendowedhim,themannerinwhichheemployedthem,andtheresultsbywhichhislabourshave been followed, - or to the Christian wisdom, magnanimity, anddevotedness which marked his character and generally regulated hisconduct, there is probablynot one among the sonsofmen,beyond therangeof thosewhomGodmiraculously inspiredbyHisSpirit,whohasstrongerclaimsuponourvenerationandgratitude.

We believe that this is in substance the view generally entertained ofCalvin by all who have read his works, and who have seen ground toadopt in the.main the systemofdoctrinewhichhe inculcatedasbased

upondivineauthority.ManymenwhowerenotCalvinistshavebornethehighesttestimonytoCalvin’sgreattalentsandhisnoblecharacter,tohisliterary excellences and his commanding influence. But those who arepersuadedthathebroughtoutafull,andinthemainaccurateviewofthetruthofGodwithrespecttothewayofsalvationandtheorganizationoftheChristianchurch,musteverregardhiminaverydifferentlightfromthose who have formed an opposite judgment upon these subjects. IfCalvin’s system of doctrine, government, and worship is in the mainscriptural, he must have enjoyed very special and abundantcommunicationsofGod’sSpirit intheformationofhisconvictions,andhe must have rendered most important services to mankind by thediffusionofinvaluabletruth.MenwhoarenotCalvinistsmayadmirehiswonderfultalents,anddojusticetotheelevationofhisgeneralcharacter,andthepurityanddisinterestednessofhismotives.Butunless theyarepersuaded thathis viewsuponmostpointswere in themainaccordantwith Scripture, they cannot regard him with the profound venerationwhich Calvinists feel, when they contemplate him as God’s choseninstrumentfordiffusingHistruth;norcantheycherishanythinglikethesame estimate of the magnitude of the services he has rendered tomankind,andofthegratitudetowhichinconsequenceheisentitled.

TheCalvinTranslationSociety,whichhasdoneagreatandusefulworkbymakingalmostallhiswritingsaccessibletoEnglishreaders,translatedandcirculatedProfessorTholuck’sDissertationformerlyreferredto;andsubjoined to it a number of testimonies in commendation of Calvin’sworks, from eminent men of all classes and opinions, of all ages andcountries,includingnotonlyCalvinistsandtheologians,butalsoinfidelsandArminians,statesmenandphilosophers,scholarsandmenofletters.Thesetestimonieshavebeenaddedtofromtimetotime,andbeingnowcollected together, they fill above 100 pages in the last volume of hisworks,whichcontainsthetranslationofhisCommentaryuponJoshua»Manymore testimonies to the value and excellence ofCalvin’swritingsmight have been produced. But this collection as it stands could notprobably be matched in the kind and amount of commendation itexhibits, in thecaseofanyothermanwhosewritingsand labourswereconfinedtothedepartmentofreligion.

Indeed, it is probably true that no man whose time and talents weredevoted exclusively to subjects connected with Christianity and thechurch,haseverreceivedsolargeasharebothofpraiseandofcensure.Hehasbeencommended in thestrongest termsbymanyof thehighestnames both in Christian and in general literature; and the strength oftheircommendationhasbeengenerallyverymuchinproportiontotheircapacitiesandopportunitiesofjudging.Butifhehasreceivedthehighestcommendation,hehasalsobeenvisitedwithavastamountof censure;the one being really, in the circumstances, just about as significant atestimony to his excellence and his influence as the other. The Papistshad the sagacity to see that Calvin - by his great talents and thecommanding influence which he exerted - was really their mostformidableadversaryat the .eraof theReformation.And inaccordancewith their ordinary principles and policy, they endeavoured to ruin hischaracter by the vilest slanders.Most of these calumnies being utterlydestitute of all evidence, and therefore disgraceful only to those whoinvented or repeated them, have long since been abandoned by everyPapistwho retained even the slightest regard for character or decency,thoughtheyarestilloccasionallybroughtforwardorinsinuated.SomeoftheLutheranwritersofhisowntime,andof thesucceedinggeneration,mortifiedapparentlythatCalvin’sinfluenceandreputationwereeclipsingthoseoftheirmaster,railedagainsthimwithbittermalignity,andwereeven mean enough sometimes to countenance the Popish slandersagainsthischaracter.Specimensofthisdiscreditableconductonthepartof the Lutherans,may be seen in the answersmade by Calvin himself,andbyBeza,totheattacksofWestphalusandHeshusius.

During Calvin’s life, and for more than half a century after his death,most of the divines of the Church of England adopted his theologicalviews,andspokeofhimwiththegreatestrespect.Butafter,throughtheinfluence of Archbishop Laud and the prevalence of Arminian andPelagianviews,sounddoctrineandtruereligionwereinagreatmeasurebanished from that church, Calvin, as might be expected, came to beregarded in a very different light. During most of last century, thegeneralityoftheEpiscopaliandivineswhohadoccasiontospeakofhimand his doctrines indulged in bitter vituperation against him, and notunfrequentlytalkedasiftheyregardedhimasamonsterwhooughttobe

helduptoexecration.Indeed,wedonotknowthattheologicalliteraturefurnishes a more melancholy exhibition of ignorance, prejudice, andbitter hatred of God’s truth, than the general mode of speaking aboutCalvinandhisdoctrinesthatprevailedamongtheEpiscopalianclergyoflast century. Some of them write as if they were ignorant enough tobelievethatCalvinismandPresbyterianismwereinventedbyCalvin,andwere never heard of in the church till the sixteenth century; andwhenthey speak of him in connection with his views about the divinesovereignty anddecrees,wemight be tempted to think, from the spiritthey oftenmanifest, that they looked upon him almost as if he himselfweretheauthororcauseofthefateofthosewhofinallyperish.Itisbutfair tosay that thisstateof thingshasbeengreatly .improvedsince thelatterpartoflastcentury.ThisisowingpartlytothehighcommendationwhichBishopHorsleygavetoCalvin’swritings,andtothepublicadvicewhichhetenderedtotheEpiscopalianclergy,asoneofwhichtheystoodgreatly in need, viz. to see that they understood what Calvinism wasbefore they attacked it; - but chiefly to that far greater prevalence ofevangelicaldoctrineandtruereligion,which,thoughgrievouslydamagedbyTractarianism,stillformssopleasingafeatureintheconditionoftheEnglishChurch.

Calvinhasalsohadthehonourtoreceiveatalltimesaverylargeshareoftheenmityof“theworldoftheungodly,”-ofmenwhohateGod’struth,andallwhohavebeeneminentlyhonouredbyHimtobeinstrumentalinpromotingit.Suchpersonsseemtohaveasortofinstinctivedeep-seateddislike to Calvin, which leads them to dwell upon and exaggerateeverything in his character and conduct that may seem fitted todepreciatehim,Itisnotuncommon,eveninourownageandcountry,tohear infidel and semi-infidel declaimers, who know nothing of Calvin’swritingsorlabours,whentheywishtosayaparticularlysmartandcleverthingagainstbigotryandintolerance,-meaningtherebyhonestzeal forGod’struth,-bringinsomethingaboutCalvinburningServetus.

The leading charges commonly adduced against Calvin’s character, asdistinguishedfromhisdoctrines,arepride,arrogance,spiritualtyranny,intolerance, and persecution. Some of these are charges which, asuniversal experience shows, derive their plausibility in a greatmeasure

from the view that may be taken of the general character and leadingmotives of the man against whom they may be directed, and of thegoodness and rectitude of the objects which he mainly and habituallyaimed at. Thosewho have an unfavourable opinion of aman’s generalmotivesandobjects,willseeevidenceofpride,obstinacy,andintoleranceinmattersinwhichthosewhobelievethathewasgenerallyinfluencedbya regard toGod’s glory and the advancement ofChrist’s cause,will seeonlyintegrityandfirmness,uncompromisingvigouranddecision,mixeditmaybewith theordinary remainsofhuman infirmity.Thepiety andintegrityofCalvin,hisparamount regard to thehonourofGodand thepromotion of truth and righteousness, to the advancement of Christ’scauseandthespiritualwelfareofmen,arebeyondallreasonabledoubt.Andthosewho,convincedofthis,examinehishistorywithattentionandimpartiality, will have no difficulty in seeing that for most of thesechargesthereisnorealfoundation;andthat,insofarasevidence,canbeadduced in support of any of them, it really proves nothingmore thanthat Calvin manifested, like all other men, the remains of humaninfirmity, especially, of course, in those respects to which his naturaltemperamentand the influenceofhispositionandcircumstancesmorepeculiarlydisposedhim.The stateofhishealth, thebent ofhisnaturaldispositions, and the whole influence of his position, occupations, andhabits,wereunfavourabletothecultivationofthosefeaturesofcharacter,and thosemodesof speakingandacting,whichareusually regardedasmostpleasingtoothers,andbestfittedtocallforthloveandaffectioninthe ordinary intercourse of life. The flow of animal spirits, the readyinterest in all ordinary commonplace things, and the play of the socialfeelings,which give such a charm to Luther’s conversation and letters,were alien to Calvin’s constitutional tendencies, and to his ordinarymodes of thinking and feeling. He had a great and exalted missionassigned to him; he was fully alive to this, thoroughly determined todevote himself unreservedly, and to subordinate everything else, to thefulfilment of hismission, and not unconscious of its dignity, or of thepowerswhichhadbeenconferreduponhimforworkingitout.Withsucha man - so placed, so endowed, and so occupied - the temptation, ofcourse, would be to identify himself and all his views and proceedingswiththecauseofGodandHis truth, - toprosecute thesehighandholyobjects sternly and uncompromisingly, without much regard to the

opinions and inclinations of those around him, - and to deal withopposition, as if it necessarily implied something sinful in those fromwhom it proceeded, as if opposition to him involved opposition to hisMaster.Calvinwouldhavebeensomethingmorethanman,if,endowedandsituatedashewas,hehadneveryieldedtothistemptation,andbeenled to deal with opponents and opposition in a way which only thecommissionoftheinspiredprophetswouldhavewarranted.

Calvin did occasionally give plain indications of undue self-confidenceand self-complacency, and of amixture of personal and carnal feelingsandmotives,withhiszealforthepromotionoftruthandrighteousness.Butthereisnothingsuggestedbyafairviewofhiswholehistorythatisfittedtothrowanydoubtuponthegeneralexcellenceofhischaracter,astried by the highest standard that has ordinarilybeen exhibited amongmen; or on the general purity, elevation, and disinterestedness of themotives by which he was mainly and habitually influenced. There issufficient evidence that he still had, like the apostle, “a law in hismemberswarringagainstthelawofhismind,”andsometimes“bringinghim into captivity to the law of sin.” And from what we know, fromScripture and experience, of the deceitfulness of the heart and thedeceitfulnessofsin,wecannotdoubtthattherewasalargeradmixtureofwhatwassinfulinhismotivesandconductthanhehimselfwasdistinctlyawareof.Butthis,too,ischaracteristicofallmen,-eventhebestofthem,- and there is really no ground whatever for regarding Calvin asmanifestingalargermeasureofhumaninfirmitythanattaches,insomeformorother,tothebestandholiestofourrace;whilethereisabundantevidence that, during a life of great labour and great suffering, he fullyestablished his supreme devotedness to God’s glory and service, histhorough resignation to His will, his perfect willingness to labour inseasonandoutofseason,tospendandtobespent,forthesakeofChristandHisgospel.Itwasassuredlynosuchproud,arrogant,domineering,heartless despot as Calvin is often represented to have been, whocomposed the dedications which we find prefixed to his commentariesupon the different portions of the Bible, andmany of his letters to hisfriends, - expressing often thewarmest affection, the deepest gratitudefor instruction and services received; and exhibiting a most cordialappreciationof the excellences of others, ahumble estimate of himself,

andaperfectwillingnesstobeortodoanythingforthesakeofChristandofHiscause.Itwascertainlynosuchmanasheisoftendescribed,wholivedsolongonsuchtermswithhiscolleaguesintheministry,andheldsuch a place, not only in their veneration and confidence, but in theiresteem and affection, as are indicated by the whole state of thingsunfoldedtousinBeza’slifeofhim.

With reference to the principal charge which, in his own as well assubsequent times, was brought against hismotives and temper, Calvinhasputonrecordthe followingprotestation, ina letterwrittentowardstheendofhislife,intheyear1558:-

“Icanwithreasonboast,howevermuchungodlymencallmeinexorable,thatIhaveneverbecometheenemyofonehumanbeingonthegroundofpersonal injuries. I confess that I am irritable; and, though this vicedispleasesme,IhavenotsucceededincuringmyselfasmuchasIcouldwish.But,thoughmanypersonshaveunjustlyattackedme,aninnocent,and, what is more, well-deserving man, - have perfidiously plotted allkindsofmischiefagainstme,andmostcruellyharassedme,-IcandefyanyonetopointoutasinglepersontowhomIhavestudiedtoreturnthelike,eventhoughthemeansandtheopportunitywereinmypower.”

On a ground formerly adverted to, we have no doubt that there wassometimes, in Calvin’s feelings and motives, a larger admixture of thepersonalandtheimperfectthanhewashimselfawareof,orthanhehereadmits.Wealwaysshrinkfrommenmakingprofessionsaboutthepurityoftheirmotives,aswecannotbutfearthatthisindicatesthewantofanadequate sense of the deceitfulness of sin and of their own hearts, adispositiontothinkofthemselvesmorehighlythantheyoughttothink.Itwouldnot,wethink,havebeenatallunwarrantableorunbecoming,ifCalvin, in the passagewe have quoted, hadmade a fuller admission ofsinful motives, which he would no doubt have acknowledged that theSearcherofheartsmusthaveseeninhim.Andyetwehavenodoubtthathis statement, strong as it is, is substantially true, so far as concernsanything that came fairly under the cognizance of his fellow-men -anythingonwhichothermenwereentitledtoformajudgment.WhatevertheSearcherofheartsmightseeinhim,webelievethattherewasnothinginhisordinary conduct, inhis usual course of outwardprocedure, that

couldentitleanymantohavedeniedthetruthofthestatementwhichhehere made about himself, or that would afford any materials fordisproving it. And if this or anything like it be true, then the practicalresultis,thatthecommonnotionsaboutCalvin’sirritability,theextenttowhich he was ordinarily influenced by personal, selfish, and sinfulmotives,aregrosslyexaggerated;andthat, thoughthismightbesaid tobehisbesettingsin,-thattowhichhisconstitutionaltendenciesandthewhole influence of his position chiefly disposed him, - therewas reallynothinginitthatentitledanyofhisfellow-mentoreproachhim,orthatcouldbejustlyregardedasanythingmorethanadisplayofthatcommonhuman infirmity, which even the best men manifest in some form ordegree.

Calvin’s superiority to the influence of personal, angry, and vindictivefeelings,isveryfullybroughtoutinthecoursehepursuedwithrespecttothemenwhofilledtheofficeoftheministryatGenevaafterFarelandhehadbeendrivenintoexilein1538,-atopicwhichhasnotbeenbroughtout in any of the histories of Calvin so prominently as it should havebeen.CalvinandFarelhadbeenbanishedfromGeneva,solelybecauseoftheirintegrityandboldnessinmaintainingthepurityofthechurchintheexercise of discipline, by refusing to admit unworthy persons to theLord’sSupper.Their colleagues in theministrywhowerenotbanished,and the persons appointed to succeed them, were of course men whosubmitted to the dictation of the civil authorities in the exercise ofdiscipline, and admitted to the Lord’s table indiscriminately withoutregardtocharacter.Thesemenwerenodoubtstronglytempted,inself-defence, todepreciateasmuchaspossiblethecharacterandconductofCalvin and Farel, and to this temptation they yielded without reserve.Threeor fourmonths afterhis banishment,Calvinwrote fromBasle toFarel,whohadbeencalledtoNeufchatel,inthefollowingterms

“Howour successorsare likely togeton I canconjecture from the firstbeginnings. While already they entirely break off every appearance ofpeace by their want of temper, they suppose that the best course forthemselveswastotearinpiecesourestimation,publiclyandprivately,soas to render us as odious as possible. But ifwe know that they cannotcalumniateus,exceptinginsofarasGodpermits,weknowalsotheend

Godhas in view in granting suchpermission.Let ushumble ourselves,therefore,unlesswewishtostrivewithGodwhenHewouldhumbleus.”

Adivision soonarose atGenevaupon thequestion,whetherornot theministryofthesemenoughttoberecognizedandwaitedon.Many-andthese, asmight be expected, were the bestmen in the city in point ofcharacter and themost attached to Calvin -were of opinion that thesemenoughtnot tobe treatedasministers,and that religious ordinancesoughtnot tobe receivedat theirhands.SaunierandCordier (authorofthe“Colloquies”),menof thehighestcharacterandstanding,regents inthe college, refused to receive the Lord’s Supper at the hands of thesemen, andwere in consequence driven from their posts, and obliged toquitthecity.Calvin-whohadnowtakenuphisabodeatStrasburg-wasconsulted upon this important question of casuistry, and gave hisdecisiononthesideofpeaceandconciliation,advisingthemwithoutanyhesitationtorecogniseandwaitupontheministryofthesemen.Andthismay surely be regarded as a triumph of reason and conscience overpersonal and carnal feeling. In thewhole circumstances of this case, asnow adverted to, it is very plain that all the lower andmore unworthyclass of feelings, everything partaking of the character of selfishness inany of its forms or aspects, everything like wounded vanity or self-importance, everything like a tendency to indulge in anger orvindictiveness,must have tended towards leading Calvin to decide thisquestioninaccordancewiththeviewsofthoseinGenevawhomhemostrespected and esteemed. If Calvin had been such aman as he is oftenrepresented, - so arrogant and so imperious, so much disposed toestimate thingsbytheirbearinguponhisownpersonal importanceandself-complacency,andtoresentoppositionanddepreciation,-allthatweknow of human nature would lead us to expect, that he would haveencouragedhisfriendstorefuseallcountenancetotheexistingclergyandto the ecclesiastical system which they administered. The fact that hegave an opposite advice may be fairly regarded as a proof, that thepersonaland theselfish (in thewidesenseofundueregard toanythingabout self) had no such prominence or influence among his actuatingmotivesasmanyseemtosuppose, - that the lowerandmoreunworthymotiveswerehabitually subordinated to thepurerandmoreelevated, -and that their operation, so far as they did operate, should not be

regardedasdistinctivelycharacteristicoftheindividual,butmerelyasasymptomofthecommonhumaninfirmity,whichinsomeformordegreeisexhibitedbyallmen,eventhosewhohavebeenrenewedinthespiritoftheirminds.

AsCalvin’sconductinthismatterillustratesnotonlyhiselevationabovetheinfluenceofpersonalandselfishfeeling,butalsohisstrongsenseofthe importanceofrespectingconstitutedauthorities,andpreserving thepeaceofthechurch,itmaybeworthwhiletobringoutsomewhatmorefullywhathethoughtandfeltregardingit.Thegreatgeneralprincipleonwhichhefoundedhisjudgmentuponthisquestionwastothiseffect,thatthe men in office preached the substance of scriptural truth, andadministeredthesacramentsinaccordancewithscripturalarrangements,notwithstanding the promiscuousness of the admission to partake inthem, - and that this being secured, everything else was, in thecircumstances, of comparatively inferior importance, and should besubordinated,asamotive indeterminingconduct, totherespectduetotheministerialofficeandthepersonswhoinprovidenceheldit,andtoaregard to the peace of the community. He distinctly admits that thepeoplewereentitledtojudgeforthemselves,ontheirownresponsibility,whether or not theministers preached the gospel, and unless satisfiedupon this point, were fully warranted to abandon their ministry, -recognizing thus the paramount importance which Scripture assigns tothetruthandthepreachingofit,asthegreatdeterminingelementonthiswhole subject. It has been well said in regard to this matter, thatpreachingthetruthisGod’sordinance,butpreachingerrorisnotGod’sordinance,andisthereforenotentitledtoanyrecognitionorrespect.ThegroundtakenbyCalvinrecognizesthisprinciple,andtherefore,thoughitisabundantlywideand lax, -moreso,perhaps, thancanbe thoroughlydefended, - itgivesnocountenancewhatever to theviewsof thosewhoadvocate thewarrantablenessofwaitingupon theministryofmenwhodo not preach the gospel, but who are supposed to have otherrecommendations, on the ground of their connection with someparticular system or constitution, civil or ecclesiastical. Calvin’s firstexplicitreferencetothissubjectoccurs ina lettertoFarel,writtenfromStrasburginOctober1538.Thequestionasthereputwasthis,“WhetheritislawfultoreceivethesacramentoftheLord’sSupperfromthehands

ofthenewministers,andtopartakeofitalongwithsuchapromiscuousassemblage of unworthy communicants?” Calvin’s deliverance upon itwasthis:-

“In thismatter IquiteagreewithCapito.This, inbrief,was the sumofourdiscussion:thatamongChristiansthereoughttobesogreatadislikeofschism,asthattheymayalwaysavoid itso faras lies in theirpower.Thatthereoughttoprevailamongthemsuchareverencefortheministryof the word and of the sacraments, that wherever they perceive thesethings to be, there they may consider the church to exist. Whenever,therefore, it happens, by the Lord’s permission, that the church isadministeredbypastors,whateverkindofpersonstheymaybe,ifweseetherethemarksofthechurch,itwillbebetternottobreaktheunity.Norneed it be any hindrance that some points of doctrine are not quite sopure,seeingthatthereisscarcelyanychurch,whichdoesnotretainsomeremnants of former ignorance. It is sufficient for us if the doctrine onwhichthechurchofGodisfoundedberecognized,andmaintainitsplace.Nor should it prove any obstacle, that he ought not to be reckoned alawfulpastorwhoshallnotonlyhavefraudulentlyinsinuatedhimselfintotheofficeofatrueminister,butshallhavewickedlyusurpedit.Forthereisnoreasonwhyeveryprivatepersonshouldmixhimselfupwiththesescruples.Thesacramentsarethemeansofcommunionwiththechurch;theymust needs therefore be administered by the hands of pastors. Inregardtothose,therefore,whoalreadyoccupythatposition,legitimatelyornot,andalthoughtherightofjudgingastothatisnotdenied,itwillbewell to suspend judgment, in themeantime,until thematter shallhavebeenlegallyadjudicated.Therefore,ifmenwaitupontheirministry,theywill run no risk, that they should appear either to acknowledge orapprove,orinanywaytoratifytheircommission.Butbythismeanstheywillgiveaproofoftheirpatienceintoleratingthosewhotheyknowwillbe condemned by a solemn judgment. The refusal at first of theseexcellentbrethrendidnotsurprisenorevendispleaseme.”

CalvindiscussedthesamesubjectmorefullyinaletteraddressedinJune1539, “To the Church at Geneva;” and as it is most honourablycharacteristic of its author, while this topic has not received theprominence in his history to which it is entitled, we shall quote the

greaterpartofit.

“Nothing,most beloved brethren, has causedme greater sorrow, sincethose disturbances which had so sadly scattered and almost entirelyoverthrown your church, than when I understood your strivings andcontentions with those ministers who succeeded us. For although thedisorders which were inseparably connected with their first arrivalsamongyou,mightwithgoodreasonproveoffensivetoyou;whatevermayhavegiventheoccasion,Icannothearwithoutgreatandintensehorrorthat any schism should settle downwithin the church.Wherefore, thiswas farmore bitter tome thanwords can express; - I allude towhat Ihave heard about those your contentions, so long as you were tossedabout in uncertainty; since, owing to that circumstance, not only wasyour church rent by division quite openly, but also the ecclesiasticalministryexposedtoobloquyandcontempt...

Now,therefore,when,contrarytomyexpectation,Ihaveheardthatthereconciliation between your pastors and the neighbouring churches,havingbeenconfirmedalsobyFarelandbymyself,wasnotfoundtobesufficient forbindingyoutogether insincereand friendlyaffection,andbythetieofa lawfulconnectionwithyourpastors, towhomthecareofyour souls is committed, I feltmyself compelled towrite to you, that Imightendeavour,sofaraslayinme,tofindamedicineforthisdisease,which, without great sin against God, it was not possible for me toconceal. And although my former letters had not been very lovinglyreceivedbyyou,Iwasneverthelessunwillingtobewantinginmyduty,sothat, should I haveno further success, Iwould at least delivermyownsoul.Neitherdo I somuchquestionyour spiritofobedience (ofwhich,indeed,Ihaveproof)towardsGodandHisministers,asthatIcanatallfearthatthismyexhortationwillhavenoweightwithyou,neitherhasmysinceritytowardsyoulainconcealed.Thatmyadvicehasnotbeentakenby you, I consider is rather to be imputed to the circumstances of thetime,whensuchwasthestateofdisorder,thatitwasverydifficultindeedtodeterminewhatwasbest.Nowat length,however,whenyouraffairs,by the favourofGod, are inamore settledand composed state, I trustthatyouwill readilyperceivethatmyonlyobject is to leadyouintotherightway; thatbeingsopersuadedwithregardtome,youmayshowin

reality by what motive you are brought into subjection to the truth.Especially, I ask you toweighmaturely, having put aside all respect ofpersons,ofwhathonourtheLordaccountsthemworthy,andwhatgraceHehascommittedtothosewhomHehasappointedinHisownchurchaspastors and ministers of the word. For He not only commands us torenderawillingobedience,withfearandtrembling,tothewordwhileitisproclaimedtous,butalsocommandsthattheministersofthewordareto be treated with honour and reverence, as being clothed with theauthorityofHisambassadors,whomHewouldhavetobeacknowledgedasHisownangelsandmessengers.Certainlysolongaswewereamongyou,wedidnottrymuchtoimpressuponyouthedignityofourministry,thatwemightavoidall groundof suspicion;now,however, thatweareplacedbeyondthereachofdanger,Ispeakmorefreelymymind.HadItodowiththeministersthemselves,IwouldteachwhatIconsideredtobetheextentandmeasureoftheiroffice,andtowhatyoualsoareboundassittingundertheirministry.Since,ofatruth,everyonemust renderanaccountofhisown life,each individual forhimself,aswellministersasprivatepersons,itisrathertobedesiredthateveryoneforhimselfmayconsiderwhatisduetoothers,thanthathemayrequirewhatmayfurtherbeduetohimfromsomeoneelse.Wheresuchconsiderationshavetheirdue weight, then also this established rule will operate effectually,namely,thatthosewhoholdtheofficeofministersoftheword,sincetheguidance and rule over your souls is entrusted to their care, are to beownedandacknowledgedintherelationofparents,tobeheldinesteem,andhonouredonaccountofthatofficewhich,bythecallingoftheLord,theydischargeamongyou.NordoestheextentoftheirfunctionreachsofarastodepriveyouoftherightconferredonyonbyGod(asuponallHisownpeople),thateverypastormaybesubjecttoexamination,thatthosewho are thus approvedmay be distinguished from the wicked, and allsuch may be held back who, under the guise of shepherds, betray awolfishrapacity.This,however,ismyearnestwishconcerningthosewhoinsomemeasurefulfilthedutyofpastors,soastobetolerable,thatyoualsomayconductyourselvestowardstheminaChristianspirit,,andwiththisviewthatyoumaymakegreateraccountofthatwhichmaybeduebyyoutoothers,thanwhatothersowetoyourselves.

“ThisalsoIwillsetforthplainlyandinafewwords.Twothingshereare

to be considered. The one, that the calling of your ministers does nothappen without the will of God. For although that change which tookplaceuponourdeparturemayhavebeenbroughttopassbythesubtletyof the devil, so that whatever followed on that change may justly besuspectedbyyou:init,nevertheless,theremarkablegraceoftheLordistobeacknowledgedbyyou,whohasnotallowedyoutobeleftaltogetherdestitute;nor let you fallbackagainunder the yokeofAntichrist, fromwhichHehathoncerescuedyoualready.ButHeratherwishedthatboththedoctrineofthegospelshouldstillexist,andthatsomeappearanceofachurch should flourish among you, so thatwith a quiet conscience youmightcontinue there.WehavealwaysadmonishedyouthatyoushouldacknowledgethatoverturningofyourchurchasthevisitationoftheLordsentuponyou,andnecessaryalsoforus.NeitheroughtyousomuchtodirectyourthoughtsagainstthewickedandtheinstrumentsofSatan,asupon personal and individual sins, which have deserved no lighterpunishment, but indeed a far more severe chastisement. I would nowthereforeoncemorerepeatthesameadvice.ForbesidesthatsuchistheparticularandsuitableremedyforobtainingmercyanddeliveranceoftheLordfromthatjustjudgmentwhichliesuponyou,thereisalsoanothervery weighty reason that ought to bring you to repentance; lestperadventurewemayseemtoburyinoblivionthatverygreatbenefitofthe Lord towards you, in not having allowed the gospel edifice to fallutterlytoruininthemidstofyou,seeingthatithasheldsotogether,thatasaninstanceofHisdirectinterferenceitmustbereckonedasamiracleofHispower,bywhichaloneyouwerepreservedfromthatgreatestofallcalamity. However that may be, it is certainly the work of God’sprovidence, that you still have ministers who exercise the office ofshepherdsofsoulsandofgovernmentinyourchurch.Wemustalsotakeintoaccount,thatthoseservantsofGodwhoexercisetheministryoftheword in the neighbouring churches, have, in order to check suchdangerous contests, themselves approved of the calling of those men;whoseopinionswealsohavesubscribed,sincenobettermethodoccurredtousbywhichwecouldconsultyourwelfareandadvantage.Thatyouarewellassuredofourconscientiousintegritywehavenodoubt,sothatyououghtatoncetoconclude,thatwedidnothingwhichwasnotsincereandupright.Butputtingoutofviewevenallideaofkindlyaffection,theverydiscussionofthatdelicatepointwasaproofquiteassincereascouldbe

givenonmypart, thatyouwouldhavenoobscure instructionfromme.Therefore, youmust seriously look to it, that you are not too ready todisapprove of what the servants of God judge to be essential to youradvantageandthepreservationofthechurch.Theotherpointtobewellconsidered by you is this, that there may be due inspection of theirregulardischargeofduty,thattheymayfulfiltheministryofthechurch.And here, I confess, discretion evidently (nor would I wish to be theauthor of bringing any tyranny into the church) is required, that piousmen should esteem as pastors those who do not stand only on theircalling.Foritisanindignitynottobeborne,ifthatreverenceandregardistobegiventocertainpersonages,whichtheLordhimselfdesiresmaybe assigned only to the ministers of the word. Consequently, I readilygrantyouconcerningthatministerwhoshallnothavetaughtthewordofourLordJesusChrist,whatevertitleorprerogativehemayputforthasapretence,thatheisunworthytobeconsideredasapastor,towhomdueobediencecanbeshownintheministry.Because,however, it iscleartome in reference to our brethren who at present hold the office of theministryamongyou,thatthegospelistaughtyoubythem,Idonotseewhatcanexcuseyou,asbeforetheLord,whileyoueitherneglectorrejectthem.Ifsomeonemayreply,thatthisorthatintheirdoctrineormoralsisobjectionable,Irequireyou,inthefirstplace,byourLordJesusChrist,thatsofarasmaybe,youwillfirstofallweighthematterinyourmind,andwithoutanyhastinessofjudgment.Forsinceweallofusowethisonthescoreofcharitytooneanother,thatwemaynotrashlypasssentenceagainst others, but rather, so far as lies in us, that we hold fast byclemency and justice, much more is that moderation to be practisedtowardsthosewhomtheLord ispleased topeculiarlydistinguishaboveothers.Andevenalthoughtheremaybesomewhatwantingwhichmightjustlyberequiredofthem(astowhichIamnotabletospeakdefinitively,sinceIhavenocertainknowledge),youmustjustconsider,thatyouwillfind no person so thoroughly perfect as that there shall not be manythingswhicharestilltobedesired.Whereforethatruleofcharityisnotdulyhonouredbyus,unlessweupholdourneighbours,evenwith theirveryinfirmities,providedwerecogniseinthemthetruefearofGodandthe sincere desire of following the very truth itself. Lastly, I cannotpossibly doubt, in so far as concerns their doctrine, but that theyfaithfullydelivertoyouthechiefheadsofChristianreligion,suchasare

necessary to salvation, and join therewith the administration of thesacramentsoftheLord.Whereverthisisestablished,therealsotheverysubstanceoftheministryordainedbytheLordJesusChristthrivesandflourishes; and all due reverence and respect is to be observed towardhimwhoistheminister.

“Now,therefore,mostbelovedbrethren,Ientreatandadmonishyou, inthenameandstrengthofourLordJesusChrist,thatturningawayfromman your heart andmind, you betake yourselves to that one and holyRedeemer, and that you reflect, how much we are bound to submitentirely to His sacred commands. And if everything He has appointedamong you ought deservedly to be held inviolate, no considerationwhateveroughtsotodeflectyoufromthepathofduty,thatyoumaynotpreserve whole and entire that ministration which He so seriouslycommendstoyou.Ifalreadyyoudisputeandquarrelwithyourpastorstotheextentofbrawlsandrailing,asIhearhasoccurred,itisquiteevident,fromsuchacourseofproceeding,thattheministryofthoseverypersonsinwhich the brightness of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ ought toshine forth, must be subject to contempt and reproach, and all buttrampled under foot. It is therefore incumbent on you carefully tobeware, lest while we seem to ourselves only to insultmen, we in factdeclarewaronGodhimself.Nor,besides,oughtittoseemalightmatterto you, that sects and divisions are formed and cherished within thechurch,whichnoonewhohasaChristianheartbeatinginhisbreastcan,withouthorror,evendrinkinbythehearingoftheears.Butthatthestateofmattersisindeedsuchwhereaseparationofthiskindexists,andasitwereasecessionbetweenpastorandpeople,thethingspeaksforitself.Inconclusion, therefore,acceptthisadmonition, ifyouwishmetobeheldby you as a brother, that there may be among you a solid agreement,whichmay correspondwith such a name; that youmay not reject thatministrywhich, for your advantage and the prosperity of the church, Ihavebeen forced toapproveofwithoutany fearor favour in respectofmen....Here,therefore,withthemostferventsalutationwrittenbymyownhand,doIsupplicatetheLordJesus,thatHeprotectyouinHisholyfortressofdefence; thatHemayheaponyouHisgiftsmoreandmore;thatHemayrestoreyourchurchtodueorder,andspeciallythatHemayfillyouwithHisownspiritofgentleness, so that in trueconjunctionof

soul we may every one bestow ourselves in the promoting of Hiskingdom.”

We are not prepared to adopt every statementmade by Calvin in thislettertothechurchofGeneva,orintheonetoFarelformerlyquoted;butwethinkitveryplain,thatthedecisionwhichhegaveupontheimportantpracticalquestionsubmittedtohim,andthemaingroundsonwhichherestedit,conclusivelydisprovesomeofthemoreunfavourableprevalentimpressions in regard to his character and motives, - especially thesupposed undue predominance of pride and arrogance, and moregenerally of the irascible and vindictive tendencies of human nature.Indeed,we cannot conceive how any one can readCalvin’s letterswithattentionandimpartialitywithoutbeingsatisfiedoftheinjusticeoftheseimpressions.Knowinghowprevalent,andyethowunreasonable,wastheimpressionofCalvin’scoldnessandheartlessness,andofhisintemperateviolence and imperious arrogance,weonce took the trouble of runningoverthefirsttwovolumesoftheEnglishtranslationofhisLettersbyDr.Bonnet,publishedatEdinburghafewyearsago, tocollectproofsof thefalsehood of these impressions, andwe noted on the fly-leaf the pageswhich furnishedmaterials fitted toserve thispurpose.Wearrangedthereferencesunderthetwoheadsof-1st,Strongandheartyaffection;and2d,Moderation and forbearance - i.e.moderation in his own judgmentupon interestingand important topics, and forbearancewith thosewhodifferedfromhim.Ourreferencesunderbothheads,ourevidencesofthepossession of both these features of character, soon swelled to a largeextent, and at length presented a body of proof which seems to usperfectlyoverwhelming.Itmayinterestandgratifysomeofourreaders,ifwe give as a foot-note the pages we noted in carrying out this design.Theywill find in themabundantevidenceofCalvin’s strongandheartyaffection,andalsoofhismoderationandforbearance.

Every one knows that the favourite topic of declamation and invectivewith the enemies of Calvin, is the share which he had in the death ofServetus.Allwho, fromwhatevercause,hateCalvin,andareanxioustodamagehisreputation,areaccustomedtodwelluponthistransaction,asifitwereoneofthemostdisgracefulandatrociouswhichhistoryrecords;until,fromdisgustattheshamelessfalsehood,injustice,andabsurdityof

the commonmisrepresentations regarding it,we are in somedangerofbeing tempted to view it, andother transactionsof a similarkind,withlessdisapprobationthantheydeserve.

Gibbonsaid,thathewas“moredeeplyscandalizedatthesingleexecutionofServetus,thanatthehecatombswhichhaveblazedattheauto-da-fesofSpainandPortugal.”AndHallamhasimitatedtheunprincipledinfidelbysaying,“ThedeathofServetushasperhapsasmanycircumstancesofaggravationasanyexecution forheresy that ever occurred.”!The latestwriter we have seen upon this subject, Mr Wallace, - we presume aUnitarian minister, - in a work of very considerable research, entitled“Anti-Trinitarian Biography,” in three vols., published in 1850, writesaboutitinthefollowingoffensivestyle:-“AbloodierpagedoesnotstaintheannalsofmartyrdomthanthatinwhichinthishorribletransactionisrecordedhedescribesitasstampingthecharacterofCalvinasthat“ofapersecutorofthefirstclass,withoutonehumaneorredeemingqualitytodivest it of its criminality or to palliate its enormity,” as “one of thefoulestmurdersrecordedinthehistoryofpersecutionandhespeaks“ofthe odiumwhich hismalignant and cruel treatment of Servetus has sodeservedly brought upon him.” While men, who are the avowedopponentsofalmosteverythingthathasbeengenerallyreckonedpeculiaranddistinctive in theChristian revelation speakon this subject in suchterms,othermen,whomitwouldbeunfairtorankinthiscategory,dealwith this topic in amanner that is far from being satisfactory; andwecouldpointto indicationsof thisboth inDr.Stebbing, the translatorofHenry’s admirable Life of Calvin, and in Principal Tulloch. On theseaccountsitmaybepropertomakesomeobservationsuponthissubject,thoughwecannotgointomuchdetail.

It is common for thosewhodiscuss this subject under the influence ofdisliketoCalvin,toallegethatthosewhodonotsympathizewiththeminall their invectives against him, are to be regarded as defending orapologizing forhisconduct in thematter.Mr.Wallace, in thework justreferredto,says:-“AmongotherrecentapologistsofthesternGeneveseReformer,M.AlbertRillietandtheRev.W.K.Tweedie(nowDrTweedieof Edinburgh) stand conspicuous, but their arguments have been ablyand triumphantly refuted by a well-known writer in the Christian

ReformerforJanuary1847.”

Now it isnot true, inany fair senseof theword, thatM.Rilliet andDrTweedie are apologists for Calvin in this matter. They both decidedlycondemnhisconduct;andtheymerelyaimatbringingoutfullythewholefactsof the case, inorder that a fair estimatemaybe formedof it, andthat the amount of condemnation may be, upon a full and impartialexaminationofallitsfeaturesandcircumstances,dulyproportionedtoitsdemerits. Rilliet has evidently no sympathy with Calvin’s theologicalviews,orwithhisfirmanduncompromisingzealfortruth.Hehasactedonly the part of an impartial historian. He has brought out fully andaccurately thewholedocuments connectedwith the trial of Servetus atGeneva,andhehaspointedtosomeoftheinferenceswhichtheyclearlyestablish,-especiallythese,thatServetus’swholeconductduringthetrialwas characterized by recklessness and violence, or by cunning andfalsehood;that Calvinwas at this time at openwarwith the prevailingpartyamongthecivilauthoritiesofGeneva,ontheimportantsubjectofexcommunication;thattheytookthemanagementofthetrialverymuchinto their own hands, without consulting with him; that Calvin’sinterpositioninthematterwasmuchmorelikelytohavebroughtabouttheacquittalthanthecondemnationofServetus;thatServetusknewthis,and acted upon it; and that this was the explanation of the recklessviolencewithwhich,duringoneimportantstageinthetrial,hepubliclyassailedCalvin.Theonlyfairquestionis,Arethesepositionshistoricallytrue?Havetheybeensufficientlyestablished?M.RillietandDrTweedieanswerintheaffirmative,andareinconsequencesetdownasapologistsofCalvin.As toMr.Wallace’sallegation thatM.RillietandDrTweediehave been triumphantly refuted in the Christian Reformer for January1847, this is really little better than blustering. There is nothing in thearticle referred to that refutes the above-mentionedpositions ofRilliet,whichmust be regarded as now conclusively established. The article ismainlyoccupiedwithanattempttoprovethattheauthoritiesofGenevahadnojurisdictionoverServetus,sincetheoffenceforwhichhewastriedwasnotcommittedwithintheirterritory,andthattherewasnolawtheninforceinGenevaattachingtoheresythepenaltyofdeath.Thewriterhasfailedinestablishingthesetwopositions;butevenifhehadsucceededinproving them, this would not materially affect the question, so far as

concernsitsbearinguponCalvin,ortheestimatethatoughttobeformedoftheparthetookinit.ThereismoreplausiblegroundforMr.Wallace’sallegationthatDrHenry,inhisLifeofCalvin,defendshisconductinthismatter,althoughhere,too,thereisagreatwantoffairnessmanifestedbynotgivingafullviewofthebiographer’ssentiments.

NomaninmoderntimesdefendsCalvin’sconducttowardsServetus.Nooneindeedcandefendit,unlesshebepreparedtodefendthelawfulnessofputtinghereticstodeath,andthisdoctrinehasbeen longabandonedby all but Papists. There is no other ground on which Calvin can bedefended,forhehasdistinctlyandfullyassumedtheresponsibilityofthedeathofServetus, thoughheendeavouredunsuccessfully topreventhisbeing burned. Some injudicious admirers of Calvin have attempted toexempt him from the responsibility of Servetus’s death; and it is quitetruethatothercausescontributedtobringitabout,andthatitwouldinall probability have been effected,whether Calvin had interfered in thematterornot.Buttherecanbenodoubt thatCalvinbeforehand,at thetime, and after the event, explicitly approved and defended the puttinghimtodeath,andassumedtheresponsibilityofthetransaction.SomeofCalvin’sadmirerswereatonetimeanxioustofreehimfromthecharge,founded on the letter which hewas alleged to havewritten to Farel in1546, and inwhich this passage occurs: - “Servetuswrote tome lately,and added to his letter a large volume of his delirious fancies. Heintimatesthathewillcometothisplace,ifagreeabletome.ButIwillnotinterposemyassuranceofhissafety,forifheshallcome,ifmyauthorityisofanyavail,Iwillnotsufferhimtodepartalive.”Thereisnoreason,however,todoubtthegenuinenessofthisletter,whichispreservedintheImperialLibraryatParis.Andthereisnothinginitwhichisnotcoveredbythenotoriousfacts,thatCalvinfirmlybelievedandopenlymaintainedthatServetus,byhisheresyandblasphemy,haddeserveddeath,-thatitwasagoodandhonourableworktoinflictthepunishmentofdeathuponhim,andprofessedthathewasquitewillingtoaidinbringingaboutthisresult. Entertaining these views, he acted amanly and straightforwardpart ingivingexpressionto them.IfCalvinhadbeensuchamonsterofcrueltyandmalignityasheisrepresentedtohavebeenbyhisslanderers,fromBolsecandCastellio inhisown time, toAudinandWallace in thepresentday,hewouldhaveencouragedServetustocometoGeneva,and

thenhavegothimtriedandexecuted.Hisletter,then,toFarel, isreallynoaggravationofwhatisotherwiseknownandunquestionableinregardtoCalvin’sviewsuponthissubject.

The injustice usually exhibited by Calvin’s enemies upon this wholematter should just make his friends the more anxious to take up nountenablepositionregardingit,toadmitfullyandatonceeverythingthatcan be proved as a matter of fact, and to maintain no ground whichcannotbesuccessfullydefended.Hisenemieshavelittleornothingthatisplausibletobringforward,beyondwhatisinvolvedinthegeneralchargeof believing and acting on the lawfulness of putting heretics andblasphemers to death, except what is furnished to them sometimes byinjudicious friends of the Reformer - taking up ground that cannot bemaintained.

ButwhiletheconductofCalvininthecaseofServetusmustbejudgedofmainly and primarily by the truth or falsehood of the doctrine of thelawfulnessofputtinghereticsandblasphemerstodeath,andwhileeveryonenowconcedesthat,triedbythistest,itcannotbedefended,itisquitepossiblethattheremaybeothercollateralviewsofthematter,whichmaymateriallyaffectourestimateofthedifferentparties,andtellpowerfullyinthewayeitherofpalliationorofaggravation.Indeed,theonlyfairandhonestquestioninregardtothecaseofServetus,nowthatthelawfulnessof putting heretics to death has been long abandoned, is this - DoesCalvin’sconductinthematterfurnishevidencethathewasabadorcruelman?DoesitprovehimtohavebeeninanyrespectworsethantheotherReformers,-thatis,worsethanthebestmenofhisageThisistheonlyquestion which is now entitled to consideration, and this question, weventuretoassert,mustbeansweredinthenegativebyeveryonewhoisnot perverted by hatred of the truthwhichCalvin taught, by every onewhoispossessedofimpartialityandcandour.Theleadingconsiderationswhichprovethatthisistheonlyanswerthatcanbegiventothequestionweshallmerelystate,withoutenlarginguponthem.

1. The doctrine of the lawfulness and duty of putting heretics andblasphemerstodeath,wasthenalmostuniversallyheld,byProtestantsaswell as Papists, - by men of unquestionable piety and benevolence, ifthere were any such persons, - and those who were zealous for God’s

truth were then not only willing but anxious to act upon this doctrinewheneveranopportunityoccurred.Thereisnoneedtoproduceevidenceofthisposition;butitmaybepropertoadvertheretoastatementwhichseems to contradict it,made by Dr Stebbing, the translator of Henry’sLife of Calvin, and adopted from him by Mr. Wallace in his Anti-TrinitarianBiography.DrStebbingthinksthatHenryhasgonetoofarindefendingCalvin,andinhisanxietytorepudiateallconcurrenceinthis,hemakesthefollowingstatement inhispreface:-“HenryhasdefendedCalvin in the caseofServetuswithadmirableability;but the translatorbelieves still, as he has ever believed, that whenmen enjoy so large ashareoflightandwisdomasCalvinpossessed,theycannotbejustifiedifguiltyofpersecution,becausetheylivedintimeswhenwickedandvulgarminds warred against the rights of human conscience.” Now thisstatementobviouslyandnecessarily implies, that inCalvin’s timeitwasonly“wickedandvulgarminds”whocountenancedpersecution,andthatCalvin’s conduct is indefensible, because he agreed on this point onlywiththewickedandvulgar,anddifferedfromthebetterandhigherclassofmindsamonghiscontemporaries.This iswhatDrStebbinghassaid.Butofcoursehecouldnotmean.tosaythis;forhemusthaveknown,ifhe gave any attention to what he was saying, that the statement isunquestionablyfalse.Everyoneknowsthat inCalvin’s timethedefenceofpersecutingprincipleswasnotconfinedtothe“wickedandvulgar,”butwasalmostuniversal,evenamongthebestandhighestminds.ItistobepresumedthatMr.WallacedidnotperceivethefollyorthefalsehoodofthisstatementofDrStebbing’s,whenhequoted itwithsomuchgusto,andsetitforthasa“well-meritedcensurefromthepenofoneofCalvin’smostardentadmirers.”

2.Servetuswasnotonlyahereticandablasphemer,butoneaboutwhomthere was everything to provoke and nothing to conciliate. More thantwentyyearsbeforehisdeathhehadputforthviewswhichledBucer,oneof themostmoderate of theReformers, to declare that he ought to betorn in pieces. He continued thereafter to lead a life of deliberatehypocrisy, living for many years in the house of a Popish prelate,conformingoutwardlytotheChurchofRome,whileatthesametimeheembraced every safe opportunity of propagating his offensive heresiesandblasphemies against themost sacred and fundamental doctrines of

Christianity.Herepeatedlydenieduponoathallknowledgeofthebookswhichhehadpublished,andheconductedhimselfduringhis trialwithreckless violence andmendacity.We do notmention these things as iftheyexcusedorpalliatedhisbeingputtodeath,butmerelyasillustratingtheunreasonablenessandunfairnessofattemptingtorepresentthecaseas one of peculiar aggravation, or as specially entitled to sympathy.Chaufepie, whose article on Servetus in the fourth volume of hisContinuationofBayle’sDictionary isperhaps,upon thewhole, thebestandfairestviewofthesubjectthatexists,says:-uUnfortunatelyforthisgreatman(Calvin),heismoreodioustocertainpeoplethanServetusis.Theycannotresolvetorenderhimthejusticewhichnoimpartialpersoncanrefusetohim,withoutdoinganinjurytohisownjudgment.”

3. Servetus had been convicted of heresy and blasphemy by a PopishtribunalatVienne,andhadbeencondemnedtobeburnedbyaslowfire;and he escaped from prison and came to Geneva with that sentencehanging over him. During his trial at Geneva the Popish authoritiestransmitted the sentence they had pronounced against him, andreclaimedhim,thattheymightcarryitintoexecution.ItwasthenputtoServetus,whetherhewouldgobacktoVienneorgoonwithhistrialatGeneva.Hepreferredtoremainwherehewas;andthereisgoodreasonto believe that the determination of the civil authorities at Geneva topronounce and execute upon him a sentence of death, was in somemeasureproducedby the fear that thePapistswould charge themwithbeingindifferent,ifnotfavourable,toheresy,iftheysparedhim.Thereisabundantevidence that this considerationoperated to someextentasamotive upon the conduct of the Protestant churches at the time of theReformation. As a specimen of this we may refer to Bishop Jewel’s“ApologyoftheChurchofEngland,”aworkwhichwasapprovedofbytheConvocation,andthusclothedwithpublicauthority.Inthethirdchapterof theApology, sect. 2, Jewel boasts that Protestants not only detestedanddenouncedallthehereticswhohadbeencondemnedbytheancientchurch, but also that, when any of these heresies broke out amongstthem, “they seriously and severely coerced the broachers of themwithlawfulandcivilpunishments.”IfthiswasdistinctlysetforthandboastedofasanordinaryruleofprocedureinoppositiontoPopishallegations,wecannotdoubtthattheconsiderationwouldoperatemostpowerfullyinso

very peculiar, and indeed unexampled, a case as that of Servetus, inwhichnotonlyhadaPopishtribunalcondemnedhimtotheflames,buthadpubliclydemandedhisperson that theymightput that sentence inexecution. In these circumstances no Protestant tribunal could beexpected to do anything else but pronounce a similar sentence, unlesseithertheproofofthechargeofheresyandblasphemyhadfailed,ortheyhadbelievedittobeunlawfultoputhereticsandblasphemerstodeath.

4. Although Calvin, after having, notwithstanding extreme personalprovocation, done everything in his power to convince Servetus of hiserrors, approved of putting him to death as an incorrigible heretic andblasphemer,heexertedhisinfluence,butwithoutsuccess,topreventhisbeingburned, and to effect thathemightbeput todeathby some lesscruel and offensive process; so that to talk, as is often done, of CalvinburningServetus,issimplyandliterallyafalsehood.

5,TheReformersgenerally,andmoreespecially twoof themildestandmostmoderate of themall, both in their theological views and in theirgeneral character, - Melancthon representing the Lutherans, andBullinger representing the Zwinglians, - gave their full, formal, publicapprobationtotheproceedingswhichtookplaceinGenevainthecaseofServetus.

6.ArchbishopCranmerexertedallhis influencewithKingEdward,andsucceeded thereby, though not without great difficulty, in effecting theburningoftwoheretics,-oneofthemawomanandtheotheraforeigner,- whose offences were in every respect, and tried by any standardwhatever,farlessaggravatedthanServetus’s.

Asallthesesixpositionsarenotoriousandundeniable,itmustbequiteplain to every one who reflects for a moment on what these facts,individuallyandcollectively,involveorimply,thatthepeculiarfrequencyand the special virulence with which Calvin’s conduct in regard toServetus has been denounced, indicate, on the part of those who havedoneso,notonlyanutterwantofanythinglikeimpartialityandfairness,but a bitter dislike, to a most able and influential champion of God’struth.

Itmightbesupposed thatmostmen,knowing these facts,wouldadmitthattherearemanypalliationsattachingtothedeathofServetus,andtoCalvin’sconductinthematter;andyetMr.Wallace,aswehaveseen,asifdeterminedtooutstripinthevirulenceofhisinvectiveallthathadbeensaidbyPapistsandinfidels,describesitasbeing“withoutonehumaneorredeemingqualitytodivest itof itscriminalityorpalliate itsenormity.”ThegroundonwhichmenwhoarefondofrailingatCalvininthisstylecommonly excuse themselves, is an allegation to the effect that hewasmainly influenced in this matter by personal and vindictive feelings, -that, under the influence of these feelings, he had been long plottingServetus’sdeath,andseekinganopportunityofcuttinghimoff,-andthathegaveinformationagainsthimtothePopishauthoritiesatVienne,andwas thus the cause of his being tried and condemned there. Theseassertionsaretoalargeextentutterlydestituteofproof;andinsofarasthereisanyappearanceofevidenceinsupportofthemasmattersoffact,they furnish no foundation for the conclusions which have been basedupon them. The general allegation, that Calvin was mainly or largelyinfluenced by personal and vindictive feelings towards Servetus, isdestitute of all proof or even plausibility. There is no evidence of itwhatever, and there is no occasion whatever to have recourse to thistheory. All that Calvin ever said or did in the case of Servetus, is fullyexplainedbyhisconvictionofthelawfulnessanddutyofputtinghereticsandblasphemerstodeath;andbyhisuncompromisingdeterminationtomaintain, in everywayhe reckoned lawful, the interestsofGod’s truth,and to discharge his own obligations, combinedwith the too prevalenthabitoftheagetoindulgeinrailingandabuseagainstallwhoweredealtwithasopponents.TherewereveryconsiderabledifferencesincharacteranddispositionbetweenCranmerandCalvin,butitisinsubstancejustastrueofthelatterasoftheformer,thathisconduct“wastrulytheeffectofthose principles by which he governed himself.” Calvin, in his lastinterviewwithServetus,on thedaybeforehisdeath, solemnlydeclaredthat hehadnever sought to resent any personal injuries that had beenofferedtohim,-thatmanyyearsagohehadlaboured,attheriskofhisownlife,tobringServetusbacktothetruth,- that,notwithstandinghiswant of success, he long continued to correspondwith him on friendlyterms,-thathehadomittednoactofkindnesstowardshim,-untilatlastServetus,exasperatedbyhisexpostulations,assailedhimwithdownright

rage. To this solemn appeal Servetusmade no answer, and there is nogroundwhatevertowarrantanyhumanbeingtocallinquestionitstruthorsincerity.Thetruthis,thatthereisatleastasgoodevidencethatMr.WallacehatesCalvinasthatCalvinhatedServetus.

We have seen some specimens of the rancorous abuse with which heassailstheReformer.Butwehavenotexhaustedhisperformancesinthisway. He assures us that Calvin formed a plan for the destruction ofServetus,andthatheprosecuteditforthirteenyearsbeforehesucceededin accomplishing his object, - that he “came to the deliberatedeterminationofplottinghisdestruction,” - that “hewasalwayson thewatch for something by which hemight criminate Servetus,” - that he“wasonthewatchforhim,andcausedhimtobeapprehendedsoonafterhis arrival” inGeneva.These are statements forwhichno evidencehasbeenorcanbeproduced.Theycanberegardedinnootherlightthanasmere fabrications.Mr.Wallace also gives us to understand, that in hisjudgmenttheconductofCalvininthismattershowedhimtobe“amanwho,undertheguiseofreligion,couldviolateeveryprincipleofhonourand humanity.” Under the guise of religion! We could scarcely havebelieved itpossible thatanymanwouldhave insinuated adoubt of thesincerity of Calvin’s conviction, that he was doing God service anddischargingaduty incontributing tobringabout thedeathofServetus.Thesincerityandearnestnessofthisconvictiondonot,ofcourse,furnishany proof that he was right, or supply anymaterials for defending hisconduct. Still this conviction is an important feature in every case towhichitapplies,anditoughtalwaystobetakenintoaccount.Wedonotbelieve thatMr.Wallacewill getmuch countenance, even fromPapistsandinfidels,inhisinsinuation,thatCalvinisnotentitledtothebenefitofit.

Hisallegationabout“violatingeveryprincipleofhonourandhumanity,”isprobablyintendedtobearspecialreferencetowhathasbeenchargedagainstCalvininconnectionwiththeinformationagainstServetusgiventothePopishauthoritiesatVienne;andthisis,indeed,theonlyfeatureofthe case, the discussion of which is attended with any difficulty. Mr.Wallace’sstatementuponthepointisthis:-

“Calvin,whowasalwaysonthewatchforsomethingbywhichhemight

criminate Servetus, soon gave out that this work” (his last work, the“ChristianismiRestitutio,”whichhehadgotsecretlyprintedwithouthisnameatVienne,andthesubstanceofwhichhehadsenttoCalvinsomeyearsbefore)“waswrittenbyhim.AndavailinghimselfoftheassistanceofoneWilliamTrie,anativeofLyons,whowasat that timeresidingatGeneva,hecausedServetustobeapprehendedandthrownintoprisonona charge of heresy. Some of the friends and disciples of Calvin haveattempted to freehim from this odious imputation, andhehashimselfrepresenteditasacalumny;butthefactthatServetuswasimprisonedatthesole instigationofCalvin is toowellestablishedtoadmitofdispute.Abundant proofs of it may be found in the accounts of De la Roche,Allwoerden,Mosheim,Bock,andTrechsel.”

WewilladvertfirsttoMrWallace’sreferencestoauthorities.HesaysthatabundantproofsthatCalvinwastheauthorandoriginatorof thewholeproceedingsagainstServetusatVienne,maybefoundintheaccountsofDe la Roche, Allwoerden, Mosheim, Bock, and Trechsel. We have notreadMosheimandTrechsel, butweare confident that theproofs to befound in the other three authors are not abundant, and are not evensufficient. De la Roche and Allwoerden published before Trie’s threeletters tohis friendatLyons,whichCalvin is alleged tohave instigatedand dictated, were given to the public, and therefore were scarcely incircumstancestojudgefairlyonthisquestion.

De la Roche does not enter into anything like a full and formalinvestigation of thismatter. Themain evidence he adduces that CalvinwastheauthorororiginatorofTrie’sletters,isastatementtothateffectmadebyServetushimselfonhis trial, coupledwith the fact, that inhisjudgment Calvin’s denial did pot fullymeet the precise charge as laid.Allwoerden,whosework is inreality just the firsteditionofMosheim’s,goesmuchmore fully into thismatter, and produces additional proofs,though theyarenotvery “abundant”or satisfactory.HisauthoritiesareonlyBolsecinhisLifeofCalvin,andtheanonymousauthoroftheworkentitled,“ContraLibellumCalvini,”etc.,inreplytoCalvin’sRefutationoftheerrorsofServetus.Bolsec,indeed,saysthatCalvinwrotetoCardinalTournontogiveinformationagainstServetus,-thatTriewrotetomanypeople at Lyons and Vienne at the solicitation of Calvin, and that in

consequence Servetus was put in prison, t But Bolsec’s Lives both ofCalvin and Beza have always been regarded, except by Papists, whosechurchBolsechadjoinedbeforehepublishedthem,asinfamouslibels,towhich noweightwhatever is due. The otherwork referred to has beenascribedtoLaeliusSocinusandtoCastellio;anditisnotimprobablethatbothwereconcernedintheproductionof it,as issupposedalsotohavebeenthecasewithanotherworkbearinguponthissubject,andpublishedunder the fictitious name ofMartinas Beilins. The author of this worksays, that thosewhohad seenTrie’s letters to his Popish friend, “thinkthat theywerewrittenbyCalvin,becauseof the similarityof the style,”andthattheywereofahigherorderthanTriecouldhaveproduced.Thisisall theevidenceheadduces,and itplainlyshows thatat the time thereportrestedmerelyuponconjectureorsuspicion.Thisanonymousandunknown author says also, that “there are some who say that Calvinhimself wrote to Cardinal Tournon,” - a statement which shows howthoroughlythewholematterwasoneofmerehearsay.Itisproperalsotomention, that it is thisworkwhichcontains the report, given,however,merely as a hearsay (sunt qui affirmant), that Calvin laughedwhen hesaw Servetus carried along to the stake. This report evenDe la Roche,with all his prejudices against Calvin and Calvinism, denounces as an“execrablecalumny,”thoughitisreallyafairenoughspecimenofthewayinwhichCalvin has been often dealt with. De la Chapelle very happilyridiculedthemanifestandpalpableinsufficiencyofthisevidence,inthisway:-“ThecontemporaryenemiesofCalvinonlysuspectedthathewastheauthoroftheletter,andbeholdnow-a-days,170yearsaftertheevent,De laRoche andAllwoerden are quite certain of it. Perhaps in another100years,itwillbefoundoutthatitwasCalvinhimselfwhocarriedthelettertoLyons.”

ButTrie’sthreelettershavesincebeenpublished,andmaybeexpectedtothrowsomelightuponthissubject.TheywereprocuredfromVienne,andpublishedbyArtignyin1749,andtheyhavesincebeencommenteduponbyMosheim,Bock,andmanyothers.BockisoneofthosereferredtobyMrWallace,asexhibiting“abundantproofs”thatCalvinemployedTrietoeffecttheapprehensionofServetusatVienne.Butthetruthis,thatBock,thoughstronglyprejudicedagainstCalvin,andthoughunfairenoughtoallege that he was somewhat influenced by personal and vindictive

feelings in thismatter,didnotprofess toproduce “abundantproofs”ofthepointnowunderconsideration;nay,heexpresslyadmitsthatitcouldnotbeproved,thoughhewasstronglyinclinedtobelieveit.Thewholeofwhathe saysupon the subject is this: - “An.Gul. Trie homo, indoctus,propriomotu an Calvini instinctu et consilio hoc fecerit, certo quidemstatui nequit non tamen vanse videntur conjecturce hanc illi dictasseepistolam, qua Servetus tanquam hsereticus exurendus, accusabatur.”WeacceptBock’sconcessionthatthereisnoproofbutonlyconjectures,butwedonotadmitthattheconjecturesarepossessedofanyrealweightor probability. Mr Wallace could easily have found room, if he hadchosen,forasummaryofthe“abundantproofs”ofwhichheboasts.Butitwasmoreconvenient justtomakeaflourishbyareferencetoBockandothernames,whoseworksfewwerelikelytoexamine.

Trie’s letters not only afford no evidence, but do not even furnish anyplausiblegroundofsuspicion,thatCalvinwasinanywayconnectedwith,or cognizant of, the origin of this matter, - that is, that it was at hisinstigation that Trie conveyed information to his Popish friend aboutServetus,andthebookwhichhehadrecentlypublished.Sofarasappearsfromthecorrespondence,Trie’s statementabout Servetus andhis bookseemstohavecomeforthquitespontaneously,withoutbeingsuggestedorinstigatedbyanyone.Ithaseveryappearanceofhavingcomeupquitenaturallyandeasily, inthecourseofcorrespondencewitha friend,whowasurginghimto return to theChurchofHome,on thegroundof theunityandsoundnessofdoctrinethatprevailedthere,ascontrastedwiththe varieties and heresies that were found among Protestants. ThisnaturallyandobviouslyledTrie,as itwouldhaveledanyoneinsimilarcircumstanceswhohappenedtobecognizantofServetusandhisbook,totellhisfriendofwhathadbeengoingonoflate,inthewayofheresy,inhis own neighbourhood, and in a place where Popish authorities hadentirecontrol.Inshort,thereisnogroundtobelieve,oreventosuspect,thatCalvinwasconnectedwithoriginatingorinstigatingtheproceeding,whichultimatelyledtoServetus’sapprehensionbythePopishauthoritiesatVienne.IfmenaredeterminedtoputtheworstpossibleconstructionuponeverythingrelatingtoCalvin,theymayhavesomesuspicionthatheinstigated Trie to write to Vienne about Servetus. But Mr Wallace’s“abundant proofs” can really be regarded in no other light than as

downrightaudacity.

Andthenitmustnotbeforgotten,thatwehavefromCalvinhimselfwhatmust in all fairness be regarded as a denial of this charge. In hisRefutationoftheerrorsofServetus,heintimatesthatithadbeenallegedagainsthim,thatitwasthroughhisagency(meaopera)thatServetushadbeenseizedatVienne.Hescoutedthe ideaasabsurdandpreposterous,asifhehadbeeninfriendlycorrespondencewiththePopishauthorities;and then he concludes with saying, that if the allegationwere true, hewould not think of denying it, for he would not reckon it at alldishonourabletohim,ashehadneverconcealedthatitwasthroughhisagency that Servetus had been seized and brought to trial at Geneva.Calvinevidentlysawnomaterialdifferenceinpointofprinciple,betweendoingwhatwaspracticableandnecessarytobringhimtotrialatVienne,anddoingwhatwasrequisitewiththesameviewatGeneva.Hecertainlycouldnotmeanby thisstatement todenywhathediddo in thewayoffurnishingmaterials tobeusedas evidenceagainstServetus atVienne;for what he had done in this respect was quite well known, and wasdistinctly mentioned in the formal sentence of the Popish authorities,whichhadbeenpubliclyproducedinthesubsequenttrial.Henevercouldhavethoughtofdenyingthis,andthereforehemusthavemeantmerelytodenythathewastheauthorororiginatoroftheproceedings;inotherwords,todenythathehadwrittenhimself,orthathehadinstigatedTrietowrite,althoughevenofthisheindicatesthathewouldnothavebeenashamedifithadbeentrue.

ThisleadsustoadverttowhatitwasthatCalvindidin,connectionwiththe proceedings against Servetus at Vienne; and this topic may beproperly connected with a statement of Principal Tulloch’s on thissubject.Dr Tulloch, asmight be expected, seems disposed to press themoreunfavourableviewsof this transaction.Hedescribes it asa “greatcrime,” - he speaks of “the undying disgrace which, under allexplanations,mustforeverattachtotheevent,”-andassuresusthat"theactmustbearitsowndoomanddisgraceforever.”Ofhismorespecificstatements, the only one to which we think it needful to advert is thefollowing:-

“ThespecialblameofCalvininthewholematterisverymuchdependent

upontheviewwetakeofhispreviousrelationtotheaccusationandtrialofServetusby the InquisitionatVienne. If theevidence,ofwhichDyerhasmadethemost,wereperfectlyconclusive,thattheReformer,throughacreatureofhisownofthenameofTrie,wasreallytheinstigator,fromthebeginning,oftheproceedingsagainstServetus,-thatfromGeneva,inshort,heschemed,withdeep-laidpurpose,theruinofthelatter,whowasthenquietlyprosecutinghisprofessionatVienne,-and,fromMSS.thathad privately come into his possession, furnished the Inquisition withevidenceof theheretic’s opinions, - ifwewere compelled to believe allthis,thentheatrocityofCalvin’sconductwouldstandunrelievedbythesympathy of his fellow-reformers, and would not only not admit ofdefence,butwouldpresentoneoftheblackestpicturesoftreacherythateven the history of religion discloses. The evidence does not seemsatisfactory,althoughitisnotwithoutcertainfeaturesofsuspicion.Therecanbenodoubt,however, thatCalvinwassofarprivy, throughTrie, tothe proceedings of the Inquisition, and that he heartily approved ofthem.”

This isa curiousandsignificantpassage,andseems to indicate thatDrTulloch occupies the position of one who is “willing to wound, but yetafraidtostrike.”Dyer’sLifeofCalvin,theauthorityherereferredtobyDrTulloch,waspublishedin1850,andisgotupwithconsiderablecareandskill. Its general object manifestly is, to check and counteract thetendencytothinkmorefavourablyofCalvin,whichhadgrownupinthecommunity, in connection with the labours of the Calvin TranslationSocietyandothercauses. Itwas this too,probably, that called forth thespecial virulence ofMrWallace, whose Anti-Trinitarian Biography waspublishedinthesameyear.ButMrDyergoesabouthisworkmuchmorecautiouslythanMrWallace.Heabstainsgenerallyfromviolentinvectiveand gross misrepresentation, and labours to convey an unfavourableimpression by insinuation, supported by an elaborate and sustainedcourse of special pleading in the style of an Old Bailey practitioner,combined with a considerable show of moderation and fairness. ThereferencewhichDrTulloch,inthepassagewehavequoted,makestoMrDyer,isfittedtoconveytheimpression,thatthatauthorgoesasfarasMrWallace in ascribing the whole proceedings connected with Servetus’sapprehensionatViennetoCalvin’sagencyor instigation.Butthis isnot

thecase.MrDyerwas toocautious toassert this.Hesawandadmittedthat there is no evidence that Calvin had anything to do with theoriginationofthematter,-thatis,noevidencethatTrie’sfirstletterwaswrittenathisinstigationorwithhiscognizance.

“TheAbbed’Artignygoesfartherthantheevidencewarrants,inpositivelyassertingthatTrie’sletterwaswrittenatCalvin’sdictation,andincallingitCalvin’sletterinthenameofTrie.ItisjustpossiblethatTriemayhavewrittenitwithoutCalvin’sknowledge;andthelatteristhereforeentitledtothebenefitofthedoubt.HecannotbeabsolutelyprovedtohavetakenthefirststepindeliveringServetusintothefangsoftheRomanCatholicInquisition;butwhatweshallnowhavetorelatewillshowthatheatleastaidedandabettedit.”

It is true, as Dr Tulloch says, thatMr Dyer hasmade the most of theevidence about Calvin aiding and abetting in the matter. But there isreally no mystery or uncertainty about this. What Calvin did in thisrespectiswellknownandquiteascertained,thoughwedonotdenythatthere is room foradifferenceofopinion,or ratherof impression, as tohowfaritcanbethoroughlydefended.

The principal sentence in the quotation from Dr Tulloch is a piece ofrhetorical declamation, and is characterized by the inaccuracy andexaggerationwhichusuallyattachtosuchdisplays.ItisnotallegedbyMrDyer,orindeedevenbyMrWallace,thatCalvin’sconductcorresponded,withthedescriptionwhichDrTullochhasherepicturedofit;andyethisstatementplainlyimpliesthatMrDyerhasassertedallthistobetrueofCalvin,hasundertakentoproveit,andhasproducedevidenceinsupportofit,which,thoughnot,inDrTulloch’sjudgment,sufficienttoestablishit, is not destitute of weight We cannot understand what could havetempted Dr Tulloch to dash off such an inflated and exaggerateddescriptionofCalvin’sconduct,andtoascribeit,withoutwarrant,tothecoldandcautiousMrDyer.Hesurelycouldnotexpectthathisassertion,thatMrDyerhadundertakentoproveall this,andthought thathehadproved it,would be sufficient to induce some people to believe it or toregarditasprobable,eventhoughit“wouldpresentoneof theblackestpicturesoftreacherythateventhehistoryofreligiondiscloses.”

ThefirstchargeinthisindictmentagainstCalvin,givenhypothetically,sofar as Dr Tulloch is concerned, but alleged by him to be adduced andbelievedbyMrDyer,is,that“theReformer,throughacreatureofhisownofthenameofTrie,wasreallytheinstigator,fromthebeginning,oftheproceedingsagainstServetus.”NowMrDyer,aswehaveseen,expresslyadmitsthatthispositioncannotbeproved,andCalvinhimselfhasdeniedit,whiledeclaringatthesametimethathewouldnothavebeenashamedto acknowledge it if it had been true. The second charge is merely arhetorical expansion and amplification of the first, with a fine touchadded in the end by Dr Tulloch’s own hand, without any countenancefrom his authority, “that from Geneva he schemed, with deep-laidpurpose, the ruin of the latter, who was then quietly ‘prosecuting hisprofession(as a physician) atVienne.The clausewhichwehaveput initalics is fitted, and to all appearance was intended, to convey theimpression,thatServetushadabandonedtheworkofpropagatingheresyandblasphemy,inwhichhehadbeenengagedmoreorless,occasionally,forabout a quarter of a century, - that hehad retired from the field oftheology,andwasquietlyoccupiedwiththepracticeofmedicine,givingnogroundofoffencetoanyone,whenCalvindevisedandexecutedaplotforbringinghimtotrialanddeath.Nowallthisispalpablyinconsistentwiththebestknownandmost fundamental factsof thecase.Everyoneknows,thatthewholeproceedingsagainstServetus,bothatVienneandatGeneva,originatedin,andwerefoundedon,thefactofhishavingjustsucceededingettingsecretlyprintedatVienne,alargeeditionofhisworkentitled “Christianismi Restitutio,” in which all his old heresies andblasphemies were reproduced. Servetus had taken every precaution toguard against thiswork being known in his own neighbourhood, but alargenumberof copieshadbeensent toFrankfortandotherplaces forsale,andonecopyatleasthadreachedGeneva.Indeed,thesubstanceoftheinformationwhichTrie’sfirst letterconveyedtohisPopishfriendatLyons was just this, that this book had recently been produced andprinted in his neighbourhood, and that Servetus was the author andArnoullettheprinterofit.SofarisMrDyerfromgivinganycountenance,as Dr Tulloch insinuates, to this rhetorical flourish, about Servetus“quietlyprosecutinghisprofessionatVienne,” that for apurposeofhisown - intending to damage Calvin in another way - he calls specialattention to the consideration, that Servetus’s printing his book at this

time“wasanovertact,andfurnishedsomething tangible to theRomanCatholic authorities, who would have looked with suspicion on meremanuscriptevidence,furnishedbyamanwhomtheyconsideredtobeagreatheretichimself.”

Thisleadsustoadverttothethirdandlastchargeintheindictment,viz.that“fromMSS.thathadprivatelycomeintohispossession,hefurnishedthe Inquisitionwith evidenceof theheretic’s opinions.”This charge, asherestated,isnotputquiteaccurately,butweadmitthatinsubstanceitisnotonlyadducedbutestablishedbyMrDyer.Heputs it thus: - “Butthis(thatis,theadmissionthatthereisnoevidencethatTrie’sfirstletterwaswrittenwithCalvin’sknowledge)doesnotclearhimfromthechargeof having furnished the evidence by which alone Trie’s denunciationcouldberenderedeffectual;andofthushavingmadehimselfapartakerinwhateverguiltattachestosuchanact.”

Calvindidnotperceiveoradmitthattherewasanyguiltattachingeitherto Trie’s conduct or to his own in thismatter; but he certainly did thesubstanceofwhatishereascribedtohim.Thefactsarethese.Trie,inhisfirstlettertohisPopishfriend,-inwhichhetoldhimofthepublicationof Servetus’s work, and gave the name of the author and printer, -enclosedalsothefirst leafof thebook.His friendcommunicatedthistothePopishauthorities,whomadesomeinvestigationintothecase.Butsoeffectual hadbeen theprecautions takenby Servetus to secure secrecy,that they could get hold of nothing tangible. Trie’s friend was inconsequencerequestedtowritetohimagain,andtourgehimtofurnish,if possible, any additional materials that might throw light upon thematter. In answer to this application, Trie sent about twenty letters,which,agoodmanyyearsbefore,ServetushadaddressedtoCalvin,andwhich were to be used, not as Dr Tulloch says, “as evidence of theheretic’s opinions,” but asmaterials for establishing his identity. Trie’saccountofthewayinwhichheprocuredthelettersisthis,anditisallweknowofCalvin’sprocedureinthismatter:-

“ButImustconfessthatIhavehadgreattroubletogetwhatIsendyoufromMrCalvin.Notthatheisunwillingthatsuchexecrableblasphemiesshouldbepunished;but that it seemstohimtobehisduty,ashedoesnotwield the sword of justice, to refute heresy by his doctrines, rather

thantopursueitbysuchmethods.Ihave,however, importunedhimsomuch,representingtohimthatIshouldincurthereproachoflevity,ifhedidnothelpme,thathehasatlastconsentedtohandoverwhatIsend.”

Calvinhadgreathesitationingivinguptheseletterstobeemployedforthispurpose,anditwouldhavebeenbetter,perhaps, ifhehaddeclinedtocomplywiththeapplication.Notthatthematterisoneofanymaterialimportance, or that his conduct in this affair can affect injuriously hisgeneralcharacterintheestimationofintelligentandimpartialmen;butthat it is fittedtogiveahandletoenemies,andhasbeenregardedwithsomewhatdifferentfeelings,evenamongthosewhoseprepossessionsareallinhisfavour.CalvinhadnodoubtastothelawfulnessofhisgivinguptheselettersforthepurposeofestablishingServetus’sidentity.Hisviewsas to the way in which heretics ought to be dealt with, and theresponsibilitywhich,inconsequence,hewasquitewillingtoincurinsuchcases, prevented any doubt as to the warrantableness of the stepproposed.Hishesitationseemstohaveturnedonlyonitsbecomingnessor congruity, - on the propriety of aman in his position taking, in thecircumstances,anactivepartinacriminalprocess,whichmightresultinthesheddingofblood.HowfarCalvin’sconductinthismattershouldberegardedasaviolationoftheconfidencethatoughttoattachtofriendlyintercourse,mustdependverymuchuponthecircumstancesinwhichthecorrespondencewasbegun,andcarriedon,andended;andofallthisweknownothing,andcannotjudge.Takingeventhemostunfavourableviewwhich any reasonable man can form of the transaction, there is reallynothing in it - -apart, of course, from its assuming or implying thelawfulness of putting heretics to death - that can be considered veryheinous, or that is fitted to create any strongprejudice againstCalvin’sgeneral character. There is not one of the leading Reformers againstwhommoreseriouschargesthanthiscannotbeestablished.

It is satisfactory to know, that although these letters to Calvin arementioned among the pieces justificatives in the sentence pronouncedupon Servetus by the Popish authorities, they had got, before thesentencewaspassed,directandconclusiveevidencefromothersources,to prove, in the face of his deliberate perjury, that he was Servetus, -thoughhehadlivedforthirteenyearsinVienneunderadifferentname,-

and that he had printed and published the heretical and blasphemousbookwhichhadbeenascribedtohim.Dyerhasgivenafull,anduponthewholeafair,viewofthisbranchofthecase.

WedidnotintendtodwellsolongonthismatterofServetus.Butsincesomuchhasbeenputforthoflateyears,byWallaceandDyer,byStebbingand Tulloch, fitted to convey erroneous and unfair impressions uponsome features of the case, we do not regret that we have been led toenlargesomewhatupon it,althoughconfiningourselvesstrictly towhatseemed to require explanation. The impression which the moretemperate and reasonable opponents ofCalvin’s views chiefly labour toproducewith respect tohis character is this, - thathewasaproudandpresumptuous speculator upon divine things, very anxious to be wiseabovewhat iswritten,andeverdisposed to indulgehisown reasoningsupon the deepestmysteries of religion, instead of seeking humbly andcarefully to follow the guidance of God’s word, without pressing anyfurther than it ledhim.Now it is perhapsnot veryunnatural thatmenwho have never read Calvin s writings, and who are decidedly andzealously opposed to his doctrines, may have insensibly formed tothemselvessomesuchconceptionofhisgeneralcharacterandspirit,ormay have very readily believed all this when they saw it asserted byothers. This notion, however, has not only no foundation to rest upon,but it is contradicted by the whole spirit that breathes through thewritingsofCalvin.Wearenotatpresentspeakingof theactual truthofhisdoctrines,butmerelyofthegeneralspiritinwhichhisexaminationofGod’swordandhisinvestigationofdivinetruthisconducted;anduponthispointwehavenohesitationinsaying,thatthereisnothingwhichismorestrikinglyandpalpablycharacteristicofthegeneralspiritinwhichCalvin ordinarily conducts his investigations into divine truth, and hisspeculationsonthemysteriesofreligion,thanhisprofoundreverenceforthewordofGod, thecautionandsobrietywithwhichheadvances,andhisperfectreadinessatalltimestolayasideorabandoneverystatement,orevenmodeofexpression,thatdidnotclearlyappeartohimtohavethesanctionofthesacredScriptures.Andwethinkitquiteimpossibleforanyman of fairness and candour to read Calvin’s writings without beingconstrainedtofeelthatthiswasthestateofmindandthegeneralspiritwhichheatleastintendedandlabouredtocherishandtomanifest.Men

of general fairness and candour may continue, after reading Calvin’swritings, to think that he has brought out from the sacred Scriptures,doctrines upon some of the deepermysteries of religionwhich are nottaughtthere;andsomemayevenbedisposedtoallegethat,misledbythedeceitfulnessofthehumanheart,hedidnotalwaysknowwhatmannerofspirithewasof.Butnoperson,wethink,offairnessanddiscernmentcanfail to see and admit, that he had laid it down as a rule to himself, tofollowhumbly, implicitly,andreverentially theguidanceofGod’sword,thathecarefullylabouredtoactuponthisrule,andhonestlybelievedthathehadsucceededindoingso.

Fromthenatureofthecase,itisnoteasytoprovethisbyanadductionofevidence.Butthereareoneortwopointsofaprettydefinitedescription,whichmaybefairlyregardedasconfirmingit.ItwasnotCalvin’spracticeto attempt to strain the particular statements of Scripture, in order tobringoutmoreabundantevidenceofdoctrineswhichhebelieved tobetrue.Onthecontrary,hehasincurredthesuspicionofsomeofthemoreunintelligentfriendsoftruth,byoccasionallyadmittingthataparticulartext gave no support to a sound doctrine, in support of which it wascommonlyadduced.Heshowednodisposition,ingeneral,tosanctiontheuseofunscripturalphrasesandstatementsintheexpositionofscripturaldoctrines;andithasbeenthought that, insomecases, -as inregardtothe doctrine of the Trinity for instance, - Calvin, disgusted with theunwarrantedandpresumptuousspeculationsoftheschoolmenuponthissubject, even carried to an extreme his anxiety to adhere to merescriptural termsandstatements in theexpositionof thismystery.Now,whether he was right or wrong in the particular cases to which theseobservationsapply,hisconductinthisrespectindicatesastateofmind,ageneral spirit, and a habit of procedure, very different from what areoftenascribedtohim,andmaybe fairly regardedasaffordingevidencethat the great object of his desires and aims was just to ascertain andbringouttrulyandaccuratelythemindofGodinHisword;tosubmithisunderstanding and his opinions wholly to the control of the inspiredstandard; to go as far as Scripture led him, and no farther, in theexposition of divine mysteries. Whether he has in every instancesucceeded in this object which he proposed to himself, is, of course, adifferentquestion;butweconfesswedonotknowwheretofindafiner

model, ingeneral,of the spirit inwhich theexaminationofGod’swordandthe investigationofdivine truthought tobeconducted, than in thewritingsofCalvin; andwe are persuaded also, that themore fullymenimbibe his general spirit in this respect, and faithfully act upon it, - aspiritwhichwillleadthemequallytogowithoutfearorhesitationasfarasScripturegoes,andtostopwithoutreluctancewhereScripturestops,-the more firmly will they be convinced that, the great doctrines withwhichCalvin’snameiscommonlyassociatedareindeedtheverytruthofGod,anddomostfullyshowforththeperfectionsofHim“bywhomareallthings,andforwhomareallthings.”

Wedonotmeantoattemptanythingliketheologicaldiscussion;butwewould like to make a few observations on Calvin’s historical position,viewed in relation both to the system of doctrine usually called by hisname,andtohisprincipleswithrespecttotheworshipandgovernmentof the church. The sumand substance ofwhat Calvin aimed at, and tosomeextent effected,was to throw the churchback, for the cureof theevils by which she was polluted and disgraced at the era of theReformation, upon the Augustinianism (or Calvinism) in doctrine, andthePresbyterianisminworshipandgovernment,whichhebelievedtobetaughtintheNewTestament.Heofcourseadoptedtheseviews,becausehebelievedthatthewordofGodrequiredthis.Onthescripturalevidenceofhis viewswe arenot calleduponat present to enter.We canmerelyadvert to one or two features of the aspects which they presenthistorically, especially when contemplated in their bearing upon thecondition to which the church had sunk at the time when theReformation commenced. Doctrine (viewed more especially ascomprehending the exposition of the way of life, or themethod of thesalvationofsinfulmen),worship,andgovernment,-inshort,everythingaboutthechurchorprofessedlyChristiansociety,hadfallenintoastateofgrosscorruption.Theremightbedifficulties,fromwantofmaterials,inpointing out precisely at what times particular corruptions in doctrine,worship,andgovernmentwereinventedandintroduced.Butitmightbesupposedthatnoonecouldfailtoseeandacknowledge,thatthechurchofthefifteenthcentury,viewedbothinitsEasternandWesternbranches,-thoughitiswiththelatterthatwehavemoreimmediatelytodo,-wasvery different in all important respects from the church of the first

century,asbroughtbeforeusinthewaitingsoftheinspiredapostles.Thesystem,however,whichhadgrownup,andwhichoverspreadthechurchin the fifteenth century, was too firmly rooted in men’s passions,prejudices,andselfishinterests,toadmitofthelightoftruth,astowhatthechurchshouldbe,beingeasilyletin.TheReformationofthesixteenthcentury became, in consequence, a severe and protracted struggle,requiringandgivingscope for thehighestpowersandqualitiesonbothsides, both in choosing the ground to be taken, and in keeping ormaintainingit.Anditisherethatthepre-eminentgrandeurandmajestyofCalvinshineforth.Aprofoundandpenetratingsurveyof theexistingconditionandofthepasthistoryofthechurch,combinedwiththestudyofthewordofGod,inleadinghimtosee,thattheonlythoroughremedy,the only effectual cure, for the deplorable state of matters that nowprevailed,-theonlyprocessthatwouldgototherootoftheexistingevilsand produce a real and permanent reformation, was to reject allpalliativesandhalfmeasures,andtofallbackuponthethoroughnessandsimplicity of what was taught and sanctioned by our Lord and Hisapostles.

Perhaps theonemost indispensable thing inorder to the restorationoftrue Christianity in the world, was the bringing out from the sacredScriptures of the whole doctrine of the Apostle Paul in regard to thejustificationofsinners,andthiswasthespecialworkwhichGodqualifiedandenabledLuthertoeffect.Thehistoryofthisdoctrineofjustificationisremarkable.InconsequenceoftheparticularlyfullandformalexpositionofitwhichtheApostlePaulwasguidedbytheSpirittoputonrecordinhisEpistles to theRomans andGalatians, Satan seems to have felt thenecessity of carrying on his efforts to corrupt it in an indirect andinsidious way, - of proceeding by sapping and mining, rather than byopen assault. Accordingly, there was scarcely anything like direct andformalcontroversyonthesubjectofjustificationfromthetimeofPaultothatofLuther.Butyet thetruedoctrineofScriptureonthesubjecthadbeenverythoroughlycorrupted.AllthatistaughtinScriptureinregardtoithadbeenthrownintothebackgroundandexplainedaway,withoutbeingdirectlyandexplicitlydenied.Notionsofanadversetendencyhadbeen introduced, diffused, and mixed up with the general series ofecclesiasticalarrangements,connectedespeciallywiththeefficacyofthe

sacraments, the conditions and merits of good works, and theinterpositionofothercreaturesinprocuringthefavourofGod.Bytheseprocesses,quietlyandinsidiouslycarriedon,thedoctrineofjustificationhadbeengreatly corrupted in the churchevenbeforeAugustine’s time,andhedidnothing tocheck theprogressof corruption,or to introducesounderviewsuponthisimportantsubject.Indeed,hisownviewsuponitalwayscontinuedconfusedandtosomeextenterroneous.WhenLutherwas honoured to bring out fully the true scriptural doctrine ofjustification,whichhadbeenconcealedandburiedsolong,theChurchofHomerejectedit,whileallProtestantchurchesreceivedit.LutherappliedveryfullythetruescripturaldoctrineofjustificationtoallthecorruptionsofthePapalsystemwhichweredirectlyconnectedwithit,buthedidnotdomuch in theway of connecting thedoctrine of justificationwith theother great doctrines of the Christian system. It was reserved for thecomprehensive master-mind of Calvin to connect and combine theScripturedoctrineofjustificationastaughtbyLuther,withthelargemassof importantscriptural truthset forth inthewritingsofAugustine.Andthis combinationofLutheranismandAugustinianism is justCalvinism,whichisthusthefullest,mostcomplete,andcomprehensiveexpositionofthe whole scheme of Christian doctrine. It went to the root of theprevailing corruption of Christian truth, and overturned it from thefoundation.

Thegrandheresy,whichmightbesaidtohaveoverspreadthechurchformanycenturies,wasinsubstancethis,-thatthesalvationofsinfulmen,insofarastheymightneedsalvation,wastobeascribed,nottotheonetrueGod,theFather,theSon,andtheHolyGhost,buttomenthemselvesand towhat they coulddo, or towhat could be done for themby theirfellow-menandothercreatures.This,moreor less fullydeveloped,wasthegreatheresywhich layunderthewholeelaborateexternalismofthemediaeval and Romish religion. Almost everything that is distinctive,eitherinthespecifictenetsandpractices,orinthemoregeneralfeaturesandtendencies,ofthefull-blownPoperywithwhichtheReformershadtocontend, might be traced back, more or less directly, to this greatprinciple;while,ontheotherhand,almostall theparticular featuresofthe system tended to deepen and strengthen in men’s minds thecomprehensiveheresyinwhichtheyhadtheirrootandorigin.Calvinsaw

thattheonlyeffectualwayofdealingwiththisgreatperversionofthewayofsalvation,-sowellfittedtoleadmentobuilduponafalsefoundationtheirhopesofheaven, - theonlyway tooverturn it rootandbranch, todemolish at once thewhole height of the superstructure and thewholedepthofthefoundation,-wastobringoutfullyanddefinitelythewholedoctrineofScriptureconcerningtheplaceheldinthesalvationofsinnersbytheFather,by theSon,andby theHolyGhost.Hemade ithisgreatobjecttobringoutandtoembodythewholedoctrineofScriptureuponthese subjects, and accordingly Calvinism is just a full exposition anddevelopment of the sum and substance of what is represented inScriptureasdoneforthesalvationofsinnersbythethreepersonsoftheGodhead.ItrepresentstheFatherasarranging,inaccordancewithalltheperfectionsofHisnatureandalltheprinciplesofHismoralgovernment,and at the same time with due regard to the actual capacities andobligations ofmen, thewhole provisions of the scheme of redemption,choosingsomementograceandglory,andsendingHisSontoseekandto save them. It represents the Son as assuming human nature, andsufferinganddyingastheSuretyandSubstituteofHischosenpeople,-of those whom the Father had given Him in covenant, - of aninnumerablemultitudeoutofeverykindredandnationandtongue,-asbearing their sins inHis ownbody, andbearing themaway, - as doingandbearingeverythingnecessary for securing their eternal salvation. Itrepresents theHolySpiritas takingof the thingsofChristandshowingthemtomen’ssouls,astakingupHisabodeinallwhomChristredeemedwithHis precious blood, effectually and infallibly determining them tofaithandholiness; and thusapplying theblessingsof redemption toallforwhomChristpurchasedthem,andfinallypreparingthemfullyfortheinheritance of the saints. These are in substance the views given us inScriptureofthewayinwhichsinnersofthehumanracearesaved.Theyare views which, as experience fully proves, are most offensive to thenatural tendenciesand inclinationsofmen’shearts;andplainlyas theyare taught in Scripture, there is a constant and powerful disposition -especially when true religion is in a low or languishing condition - torejectthemorexplainthemaway,andtosubstituteintheirroomnotionswhich,moreor lessdirectly, excludeor contradict them.They certainlyhadbeenthoroughlyexcludedfromthepracticalteaching,and.fromthewhole plans and arrangements of the church, at the period of the

Reformation;whileitistrue,ontheotherhand,-anditisthiswithwhichatpresentwehavemoreimmediatelytodo,-thattheseviews,andthesealone,overturn fromthe foundation thewholesystemofnotionswhichthen generally prevailed, and which so fearfully perverted the way ofsalvation.

We believe that it is impossible to bring out accurately, fully, anddefinitely, the sum and substance of what is taught in ScriptureconcerningtheplacewhichtheFather,theSon,andtheHolyGhostholdin the salvation of sinners, without taking up Calvinistic ground, -without being in a manner necessitated to assert the fundamentalprinciples of the Calvinistic system of theology. It is, we believe,impossible otherwise to do full justice, and to give full effect to whatScripture teaches concerning the sovereign supremacy of the Father indetermining the everlasting destiny of His creatures, - concerning thedeathandrighteousnessofChrist,asofinfiniteworthandvalue,andasinfallibly efficacious for securing all the great objects towhich they aredirected,-andconcerningtheagencyoftheHolySpiritincertainlyandinfalliblyunitingtoChristthroughfaithallwhomtheFatherhadgiventoHim,andpreservingtheminsafetyuntoHiseternalkingdom.Thosewhorejectorputaside thepeculiardoctrinesofCalvinismcan,wethink,beshowntobepractically,andbyfairconstruction,withholdingfromGodtheFather, theSon, and theHolyGhost,more or less of theplace andinfluencewhichtheScriptureassignstotheminthesalvationofsinners;and tobe giving tomen themselves, or at least to creatures, a share ineffectingtheirsalvationwhichtheScripturedoesnotsanction.AndwhenCalvinistic principles are rejected or thrown into the background, notonlyissomething,moreorless,ofnecessitytakenfromtheCreatorandassignedtothecreature,butanopeningismade-anopportunityisleft-forcarryingonthisprocessoftransferringtomanwhatbelongstoGodtoalmostanyextent,until the scripturalmethodof salvation iswhollysetasideoroverturned.

Menwhoprofess to derive their opinions in any sense from the sacredScriptures,mustbesubstantially-whethertheywillornot,andwhethertheyareawareof itornot -Socinians,orArminians,orCalvinists.Thedistinctive characteristic of Socinianism is, that it virtually investsmen

withthepowerofsavingthemselves,ofdoingeverythingthatisneedfulforeffectingtheirownsalvation.Arminianismvirtuallydividestheworkof saving men between God and men, and is more or less PelagianaccordingtothecomparativeshareandinfluencewhichitassignstotheCreatorandthecreaturerespectively.Calvinism,andthatalone,givestoGodthewholehonourandgloryofsavingsinners,-makingmen,whileupheld and sustained in the possession and exercise of all that isnecessaryformoralagency,theunworthyandhelplessrecipientsatGod’shandofallspiritualblessings.Calvinismnotonlywithholds, inpointoffact,frommen,anyshareintheworkofeffectingtheirownsalvation,andascribes thiswholly toGod; butwhen rightly understood and faithfullyapplied, itprevents the possibility of any such perversion of the gospelscheme of redemption, of any such partition of the work of men’ssalvation.Andit isuponthisgroundthat itwasso thoroughlyadapted,notonlytooverturnfromthefoundationthewholesystemofdestructiveheresythathadoverspreadthechurchatthetimeoftheReformation,buttoprevent,insofarasitmightbeadoptedandcarriedout,thepossibilityof the reintroduction of such a dangerous perversion of scripturalprinciplesandarrangements.

Popery, if we view it in relation to the method of salvation, and haverespectmoretoitsgeneralspiritandtendencythantoitsspecifictenets,maybe said tobelong to theheadofArminianism.PapistsconcurwiththeArminiansinadmittingthedivinityandatonementofChristandtheagencyoftheSpirit;buttheyconcurwiththemalsoinnotgivingtotheSon and the Spirit the commanding and determining position andinfluenceinthesalvationofsinnerswhichtheScriptureassignstothem.PoperythusrealizesthegeneralideaaboveindicatedofArminianism,viz.that it divides the work of saving sinners between God and sinnersthemselves.WhatmaybecalledtheArminianismofPopery- inasensewhichwillbeeasilyunderstoodfromtheexplanationthathasnowbeengiven-was,beforetheReformation,ofaveryPelagiancast,-thatis,thework of saving sinners was practically taken almost entirely from theCreatorandassignedtothecreature;-not, indeed, thatmen ingeneralwere represented, according to the Socinian view, as able to savethemselves,but,whatisthespecialpeculiarityofPoperyinregardtothissubject,menwererepresentedasontheonehandabletodoagooddeal

for saving themselves, and then as dependent for the remainder, notmerely upon the Saviour and the Spirit, but also upon fellow-men andfellow-creatures,uponsaintsandangels.Andforthiscomplicatedsystemof anti-scriptural perversion of the way of salvation, the only effectualcure, theonlyradical remedy,was thegreatCalvinisticprinciple,whichdistinctly,consistently,andunequivocallyascribesthewholesalvationofsinners,fromfirsttolast,tothegraceandthepowerofGod,theFather,theSon,andtheHolyGhost.

This perversion of the way of salvation was most congenial to man’snatural inclinations and tendencies. Everything had been done whichhumanandSatanicskillcoulddevise,togiveitacommandinginfluenceover the whole current of men’s thoughts and feelings. It was firmlyestablishedover thewholeofChristendomat theReformation;andif itweretobedealtwithatall,itwouldrequirethestrongestappliances-themostpowerfulandthoroughgoinginfluences-tocounteractit,todriveitoutandtokeepitout.AndthiswaswhatCalvinism,andCalvinismalone,-lookingtothenaturalfitnessofthings,theordinaryoperationofmeans,-wasadequate toeffect.Calvinderivedhissystemofdoctrine fromthestudyofthesacredScriptures,accompaniedbytheteachingoftheDivineSpirit.Butthere isnothing in the fullest recognitionof this that shouldprevent us - especially when we are comparing Calvin with the otherReformerswhoenjoyedthesameprivileges-fromnoticingandadmiringthegraspandreachofintellect,thediscernmentandsagacity,whichGodhad given to Calvin in such large measure, and which fitted him sopeculiarly for the station and thework thatwere assigned to him.AndthisviewoftheadmirablesuitablenessofCalvinismtogototherootoftheevilsthatpollutedthechurchandendangeredthesoulsofmenatthetime of the Reformation, is confirmed by the consideration, that allsubsequent deviations from Calvinism in the Protestant churches -whetherleadinginthedirectionofrationalismortraditionalism,whetherpointingtowardsSocinianismorPopery-havetendedtobringback, insome form or degree, the great ante-Reformation heresy, - the greatheresy, indeed,ofall times, - thatof taking theworkofmen’ssalvationfromtheCreatorandassigningittothecreature.

WithrespecttoCalvin’sviewsinregardtotheworshipandgovernment

of the church,we had an opportunity, in discussing Principal Tulloch’s“Leaders of the Reformation,” to state briefly what they were, and topoint out theirmagnitude and importance, as throwing a flood of lightupon thewhole subject towhich they relate.His great principle of theunlawfulnessof introducinganything into theworship and governmentof thechurchwithoutpositivescripturalsanction,evidentlywent to theroot of the matter, and swept away at once the whole mass ofsacramentalismandceremonialism,ofritualismandhierarchism,whichhad grown up between the apostolic age and the Reformation, whichpollutedanddegradedtheworshipofGod,andwhich,inthemselvesandin their connection with unsound views on the subject of justification,were exerting so injurious an influence onmen’s spiritualwelfare. Anyotherprinciple,orrule,orstandardthatcouldhavebeenappliedtothiswholesubject,musthavebeendefectiveandinadequate,andmusthaveleftatleasttherootoftheevilstillsubsisting,tobeasourceofcontinuedand growing mischief. The fair and full application of Calvin’s greatprinciple,wouldatoncehavesweptaway thewholemassof corruptionand abuse which had been growing up for 1400 years; would haverestored the purity and simplicity of the apostolic church; and haveprevented the introduction of unauthorized and injurious innovationsinto the Protestant churches, and saved a fearful amount of mischief,occasionedbytheeffortsmadetoretainorreintroducesuchthings.

AfactortwowillillustratetheelevationofCalvin’spositioninregardtothisclassoftopics.Augustinebitterlydeploredtheprevalenceofritesandceremonies inhistime,anddeclaredthattheconditionof theChristianchurchinthisrespecthadbecomemore intolerablethanthatof theolddispensation. But having, to some extent at least, abandoned theprincipleoftheexclusiveauthorityofthewrittenwordinregardtoritesand ceremonies, - though he still held it fast in regard to matters ofdoctrine,-hehadnomeansofgrapplingwiththisgiantevil,-hedidnotventuretoattempttodoso;andmatterscontinuedat leastwithoutanyimprovementinthisrespectfor1000years.LutherobjectedtothemassofritesandceremonieswithwhichhefoundtheworshipoftheChristianchurchoverspread,mainlyupon twogrounds: - lst,That theyhad fromtheirnumberbecomeburdensomeanddistracting,tendingtosupersedeandexclude other things ofmore importance; and2d,That the idea of

meritoriousness, which was commonly attached to them, more or lessdefinitely, tended to pervert and undermine the great doctrine ofjustification. But these principles, though undeniably true, still left thewholesubjectonaveryvagueandunsatisfactoryfooting.Calvingrappledwithit inall itsmagnitudeanddifficulty,bymaintaining,1st,Thattheywere in themassunlawful,simplybecauseof theirwantof anypositivescriptural sanction;and2d,Thatmanyof them, independentlyofmeretendencies, were positively idolatrous, and were therefore directly andimmediately sinful, as being violations of the first and secondcommandmentsoftheDecalogue.

Somuchforworship;andtheninregardtogovernment,Calvintookthebestpracticablemeansbothforputtinganendtoallexistingcorruptionsandabuses,andpreventingtheirrecurrence:-1st,Byputtinganendtoanything like the exercise of monarchical authority in the church, orindependentpowervestedofficiallyinanyoneman,whichwastheoriginand root of the Papacy; 2d, By falling back upon the combination ofaristocracy and democracy, which prevailed for at least the first twocenturiesof theChristianera,when thechurchesweregovernedby thecommoncouncilofpresbyters,andthesepresbyterswerechosenbythechurchesthemselves, thoughtriedandordainedbythosewhohadbeenpreviouslyadmitted tooffice;3d,Byprovidingagainst the formationofthespiritofamerepriestlycaste,byassociatingwiththeministersintheadministration of ecclesiastical affairs, a class of men who, thoughordainedpresbyters,wereusuallyengagedintheordinaryoccupationsofsociety;and4th,BytryingtopreventarepetitionofthehistoryoftheriseandgrowthofthePrelacyandthePapacy,throughtheperversionoftheone-manpower,byfasteningthesubstanceofthesegreatprinciplesuponthe conscience of the church, as binding jure divino. These greatprinciples, sowell fitted to sweepawayall the existing corruptions andabusesinthegovernmentofthechurch,andtopreventtheirrecurrence,are evidently in accordance with the fundamental ideas oil which themodern theory of representative government is based, and with theleadingfeaturesoftheprovision,whichhascommendeditselftoallourbest and wisest men,4 for the management of those religious andphilanthropicassociationswhichformoneofthegreatgloriesofourage.

In looking back upon the last three centuries, whether we survey thehistoryofspeculativediscussionorofthepracticalinfluenceofChristianchurches, we have no reason to be ashamed of our Calvinism or ourPresbyterianism; but, on the contrary, are just confirmed in ouradmiration and veneration for Calvin, or rather in our gratitude to thegreatHeadofthechurchforallthegiftsandgraceswhichHebestowedupon that great man, and for all that He did through Calvin’sinstrumentality.

CalvinandBeza

We have given some account of the doctrine promulgated, and of theinfluence exerted upon important theological questions, by the leadingReformers, - Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, - keeping in view chiefly theobject of furnishing materials for the formation of correct opinions inregardtothoseaspectsoftheirdoctrines,character,andinfluence,whichhave been made subjects of controversial discussion in more moderntimes.WehavealsogivenaviewofthecharacterandtheologicalpositionofMelancthon,chieflybecauseoftheinfluenceheseemstohaveexertedin leading the Lutheran churches to abandon the Calvinism of theirmaster, and even contributing eventually to the spread ofArminianismamongtheReformedchurches,-andbecauseoftheconnectionallegedtoexist, historically and argumentatively, between his views and those oftheChurchofEngland.TheonlyothermanamongtheReformerswhomweproposetobringunderthenoticeofourreadersisBeza.Bezastoodina relation to Calvin very similar in some respects to that in whichMelancthon stood to Luther; and there is this further point ofresemblancebetweenhimandthePreceptorofGermany,thattheywerethe twogreat scholarsof theReformation, in themore limitedsense inwhich that word is commonly employed, - that is, they possessed athorough and critical knowledge of the classical writers of Greece andRome, they had a great talent and predilection for philologicalexpositions and discussions, and they exhibited, in an eminent degree,that cultivation and refinement both of thought and style, which athorough acquaintance with classical literature is so well fitted toproduce.

Beza was, during the latter years of Calvin’s life, most intimatelyassociatedwithhim.HewasoneoftheveryablestdefendersofCalvin’ssystemoftheology.HesucceededtothehighpositionwhichCalvinhadlongheld,notonlyinGeneva,butintheProtestantworld;andwas,foraperiodofabovefortyyearsafterCalvin’sdeath,themostprominentandinfluential theologian in the Reformed, as distinguished from theLutheran, church. He was thirty years of age before he openly and

thoroughly abjured the Church of Home, - a step which involved exilefrom his native country, and the sacrifice both of a handsome privatepatrimony and lucrative ecclesiastical benefices. But after joining theReformedchurch,andsettlinginSwitzerland,firstatLausanneandthenatGeneva,hewasspared,inprovidence,forconsiderablymorethanhalfacenturyinthefullvigourofhispowers;andduringthislongperiodhewas enabled, by the excellence of his character, the strength of hisintellect,theextentofhiseruditionandliteraryacquirements,andbyhisstrenuousandunweariedexertions,toconferthemostimportantbenefitsuponthechurchofChristandthecauseofProtestanttruth.

HeexertedgreatinfluenceforaverylongperiodinmostoftheReformedchurches, and in nonemore than in that of Scotland. He advised andencouragedourowngreatReformer,JohnKnox, inthewholecourseofhisarduousstrugglewiththeChurchofHome,andstrenuouslyexhortedhimtotakecarethatScotlandshouldbedeliveredfromPrelacyaswellasPopery. He didmuch to form the character and to direct the views ofAndrewMelville,whowenttoGenevawhenaveryyoungman,whowasforsomeyearsaprofessorintheuniversityofthatcityoverwhichBezapresided, and who continued to carry on an intimate correspondencewithBezaduringthewholeofhisnoblestruggleinhisnativelandagainstPrelaticandErastianusurpation.

Beza’s character, asmighthavebeen expected,hasbeen subjected, likethatofhisgreatcoadjutors intheworkof theReformation, to themostunscrupulous Popish slanders. The grosser charges which have beenadduced against him are unsupported by any appearance of evidence,andareutterlyunworthyofnotice.Theyarestilloccasionallyadvertedto,aswellasthoseofasimilarkindagainstCalvin,bysomeoftheobscurerclassofPopishcontroversialists,thoughwearenotawarethatsincethepublicationofBayle’sDictionary,anyPapist,whowishedtoputoneventheappearanceofaregardforcandourorfairness,hasventuredtorepeatthem. There is, indeed, one charge against Beza’s character of a lessheinousdescription,whichhasafoundationintruth,andofwhicheventhemorerespectableRomanistshaveendeavouredtomakethemost.Itis, that in early life he published a volume of poetical pieces, some ofwhich were of a licentious description. The fact is true; but the

circumstances of the case, which Popish writers, of course, usuallyconceal,werethese:-Thepoemswerewrittenbeforehewastwentyyearsofage,andbeforehejoinedtheProtestantChurch,thoughitappearsthatevenasearlyashissixteenthyearhehadsomereligiousconvictions,andsome impression of the falsehood of Popery. He afterwards repeatedlyand publicly expressed his contrition for the offence. He did what hecouldtosuppressthecirculationofthework,andheatlengthpublished,by the advice of his friends, another edition of the poems, inwhich allthat was unbecoming and offensive was omitted. He always, indeed,deniedanddefiedhisenemiestoprove,thatatanytimehisconductwassuch as his poemsmight have ledmen to suspect. And it is certain, inpoint of fact, that some measure of looseness and coarseness inconversation and in writing was not uncommon then, among personswhose general character and conduct were in other respectsunobjectionable.

Itmaybeworthwhiletoquoteoneortwoofhisexpressionsofcontritionforthisjuvenileoffence,whichwasatonceasinagainstthelawofGod,and at the same time, by furnishing a handle to his enemies, anobstruction,tosomeextent,tohisfutureusefulness.In1560,soonafterhissettlementatGeneva,hepublishedoneofthemostimportantofhissmallerworks, entitled “ConfessioChristianse fidei.”Hededicated it tohisearlyinstructor,MelchiorWolmar,whohadbeenprofessorofGreekintheuniversitiesofOrleansandBourges,whohadthesingularhonourofbeingalsoforatimethepreceptorofCalvin,whoexertedanimportantandwholesomeinfluenceintheformationofthecharacterandviewsofhis two illustrious pupils, and who has been immortalized by theirgrateful and affectionate eulogies. In this dedication to Wolmar, Bezagivesabriefbutveryinterestingsummaryofhispasthistory,andrefersto the publication of his poems in the following terms: - “As to thesepoems,noonecondemnedthemearlier,ornowdeteststhemmore,thanI, their unhappy author. Iwish theywere buried in perpetual oblivion,and that Godwould grantme that, since what is done cannot becomeundone,thosewhoreadmyotherwritings,sodifferentfromthese,wouldrather congratulateme on the Lord’s kindness tome, than continue toaccuseonewho,ofhisownaccord,confessesanddeploresthissinofhisyouth.”Again,inhisnoteuponMatthewi.19,havingoccasiontoreferto

a statement of an ancient author, about some one who had exposedhimselftodisgracebypublishing“versusparumhonestos,”heintroducesthis reference to his own case, - “Quod et mihi juveni, necdum inecclesiamDeiadscito,evenit,quamtamenmaculamsperometurndictisturnfactiseluisse.”Allthisoughtinfairnesstohaveshutthemouthsofhisenemies.But ithadnosucheffect,andPapistshavecontinuedeversince to dilate upon the “Juvenilia,” as the poems were called, and tomake them much worse than they are, by perverting some of theirstatements,whichmeannosuchthing,intoactualconfessionsofheinouscrimes.This is theonly charge that canbe substantiated againstBeza’scharacter.ItdoesnotaffecthispositionorinfluenceasaReformer,asitwas not till about ten years after the publication of his poems that hejoinedthecauseoftheReformation.Andafterhedidtakethisimportantstep,hewas enabled,byGod’s grace, formore thanhalf a century,notonlytomaintainanunblemishedpublicreputation,buttoafford,likehisfellow-reformers, the most satisfactory evidences of personal piety, ofzeal for God’s glory, and of devotedness to the cause of truth andrighteousness.

Beza’sworksare,toalargeextent,controversialandoccasional,-thatis,theyaroseverymuchoutoftheparticularcontroversieswhichatthetimeengaged the attention of theReformers, - and on this account perhapstheyhavebeen less read in subsequent times than theydeserved.Theycomprehend, however, full discussions of all the various topics whichengaged the attention of the Reformers, and affected the cause of theReformationandtheinterestsofProtestanttruth,duringthewholeofthelatter half of the sixteenth century. They thus occupy a very importantplace in a survey of the history of theological speculation at thatimportant era; and inall of themcertainlyBezahas afforded abundantproof,thathewaspossessedofgreattalentsandextensiveerudition,andthathewasfullyqualifiedinallrespectstoexpoundanddiscussthemostprofound and difficult questions in theology. The Church of Romewasstill a formidable opponent; and Beza has made some valuablecontributions to the Popish controversy, especially in his “AntithesisPapatus et Christianismi,” subjoined to his Confession of Faith, in his“ApologiadeJusti-ficatione,”andinhistreatiseon“theNotesorMarksof the True Church.” The controversy between the Lutheran and the

Reformed churches, which had been much embittered in the intervalbetween the death of Melancthon in 1560 and that of Calvin in 1564,continuedduringtheremainderofthecentury;andBezawasthusunderthenecessity,asZwinglihadbeen,ofspendingagreatdealof timeandpainsinexposingtheabsurditiesofconsubstantiation,andofthestrangenotion invented to explain and defend it, known by the name of theubiquityoromnipresenceofChrist’sbody.TheLutheransbecamemuchmoreunsoundin theirgeneral theologicalviewsafter thedeathof theirmaster; and they proceeded so far at length as to reject what arecommonly reckoned the peculiarities of Calvinism, while they stillcontinued,thoughveryinconsistently,torepudiate,eveninthe“FormulaConcordiae,”thesemi-PelagianorArminianviewsaboutsynergismorco-operation, to which Melancthon had given some countenance. Thischange, of course, widened the subjects of controversy between theLutheranandReformed churches; andBeza in consequencewas led towrite much, and he did it with great ability, on predestination andcognate topics. The fuller discussion which this important subjectunderwent after Calvin’s death, led, as controversy usually does whenconductedbymenofability,toamoreminuteandpreciseexpositionofsomeofthetopicsinvolvedinit.AndithasbeenoftenallegedthatBeza,inhisveryablediscussionsof thissubject,carriedhisviewsuponsomepoints furtherthanCalvinhimselfdid,sothathehasbeendescribedasbeingCalvinoCalvinior.Wearenotpreparedtodenyaltogetherthetruthof this allegation; butwe are persuaded that there is less ground for itthan is sometimes supposed, and that the points of alleged differencebetween them in matters of doctrine, respect chiefly topics on whichCalvinwasnotledtogiveanyveryformalorexplicitdeliverance,becausetheywerenotatthetimesubjectsofdiscussion,orindeedeverpresenttohisthoughts.

The principal subjects in regard towhich the allegation referred tohasbeenmade,arethequestioncontrovertedbetweentheSublapsariansandtheSupralapsariansabouttheorderofthedivinedecreesintheirbearinguponthefallofthehumanrace,-theimputationofAdam’sfirstsintohisposterity, - theextentof theatonement, -andthenatureand importofjustification.Itmaynotbeuninterestingtoexplainhowthematterstandsas to the views of Calvin and Beza respectively upon these important

subjects.Wemean todevote to thismatter theprincipalportionofourpresent discussion; and we think it will appear, from the survey, thatthereisreallynoverymaterialdifferencebetweenthetheologyofCalvinand of Beza, any apparent discrepancy arising chiefly from the usualtendency of enlarged controversial discussion to produce a greateramount of exactness and precision in details; while itmay also appearthat Beza, by his very able exposition and defence of the doctrines ofCalvin, has rendered important services to the cause of scripturaltheology andProtestant truth, and has to some extent anticipated thatexactness and precision with respect to definitions and distinctions,which are characteristic of the great systematic divines, especially theDutchandSwiss theologicalprofessors,of theseventeenthcentury.Butwemust firstnotice the services of Beza in some other departments oftheologicalliterature.

Aclassofsubjectscametobediscussedinthelatterpartofthesixteenthcenturywhich had not engaged somuch of the attention of the earlierReformers,-especiallytheErastianandthePrelaticcontroversies,-andinthediscussionofthesemattersBezaborehispartnoblyasanableandfaithful champion of the truth. The Erastian controversy, indeed, asconductedbetweenErastusandBeza,turnedmainlyupontheparticularsubject of the excommunicationof churchmembers; and itwasnot tillthefollowingcentury,thatthewholeoftheprinciplesusuallyregardedbyPresbyteriandivinesascomprehendedintheErastiancontroversy,weresubjectedtoafullandthoroughdiscussion.Still,evenatthatearlystage,thequestionwasmooted,onwhichtheentireprogressofthesubsequentdiscussion, down even to our own day, has made it more and moremanifest thatthewholecontroversyhinges, -viz.whetherornotChristhasappointedinHischurchagovernment,distinctfrom,independentof,andinitsownprovincenotsubordinateto,civilmagistracy.Andonthisgreat question, as well as on the particular topic of excommunicationcomprehended under it, Erastus took the side which has always beensupported by politicians, sycophants, and worldlings, while Beza ablydefended that which has been adhered to by all intelligent andconscientiousPresbyterians.

ThesubjectofPrelacywasmore fullydiscussedduringthisperiodthan

thatofErastianism,mainlybecause theChurchofEngland,differing inthis from almost all the Reformed churches, adopted a prelaticconstitution. Beza entertained very strong and decided views upon thissubject, and his two books, the one, “De Triplici Episcopatu,” and theotherareplytoSaravia’s“TreatisedeMinistrorumEvangeliiGradibus,”arestillimportantandvaluableworksinthecontestbetweenPresbyteryand Prelacy; although Episcopalian controversialists have continued,downeventothepresentday,toproducegarbledandmutilatedextractsfrom Beza as well as from Calvin, to prove that these great men werefavourable to theprelatic formof churchgovernment.HadrianSaravia,hisprincipalopponentuponthissubject,hadbeenaministerintheLowCountries,andwasultimatelysettledasaprebendofCanterbury,wherehebecameintimatewithHooker.He,ofcourse,knewwellthatBezawasadecidedPresbyterian, and indeedhe giveshim the exclusive credit ofpreventingPrelacyfrombeingadoptedintheReformedchurches.“Namhoc audeo affirmare, si unus D. Beza episcopos retineri ecclesisejudicasset utile, nullae ab us abhorrerent Reformatse ecclesise, quashodieepiscoposnullosadmittereprimumreformationisessecaputsesti-mant.”ThisisreallydoingBezatoomuchhonour;forwemayconfidentlyassert, thatAndrewMelvillewouldhavekeptPrelacyoutofScotlandatleast,evenifBezahadbeentemptedtoabandonthecauseofPresbytery.Itis,however,afinetestimonytotheimportantandextensiveinfluencewhichBezaexerted,inmaintainingintheProtestantchurchesthatformof government which has the full sanction of apostolic practice as setbeforeusintheNewTestament,-confirmedbythetestimonyoftheonlygenuineandauthenticremainsofapostolicmen,theEpistlesofClementandPolycarp,-andwhichwasdecidedlyapprovedofbythegreatbodyoftheReformers.

Bezawasoneof thevery firstwhoattemptedanything inan importantdepartmentoftheological literature,whichhassincehistimereceivedagreat deal of attention. We mean what is now usually comprehendedunder the two heads of criticism and exegesis, - the former includingeverythingbearinguponthesettlementofthetruetextoftheGreekNewTestament,orof theactualwordswhichshouldbeheldtoconstitute it;and the latter includingeverythingbearingupon theexactgrammaticalinterpretationofall thewordsandphraseswhicharefoundtocompose

it. And Beza’s labours in these departments, including his differenteditionsoftheGreektextfromMSS.,andhistranslationandannotationsorcommentary,weresuchas-consideringthecircumstancesinwhichhewasplaced, and themeans andopportunitieshe enjoyed - reflect greatcredituponhisscholarshipandcriticalacumen.Averyunjustandunfairattack has been made upon Beza’s character and labours, through themedium of his translation of the New Testament into Latin, and hisannotationsorcommentaryuponit,byDr.CampbellofAberdeen,inthetenthofhis“PreliminaryDissertationstohisTranslationoftheGospels;”andaswerememberreceivingfromtheperusalofthisDissertationinourstudent days an unfavourable impression of Beza, whichwe have beenlong satisfiedwas thoroughly unjust, we think it proper tomake someobservationsuponit.

Dr.Campbell’sPreliminaryDissertations formaworkwhich is inmanyrespectsveryvaluable,-oneofthemostimportantcontributions,indeed,whichhavebeenmadebyScotlandtoadepartmentof theologicalstudyfar too little cultivated among us - the critical exposition of the NewTestament. It is a work, however, which ought to be read with muchcaution, as there is not a little about it that is very defective andobjectionable,andfittedtoexertaninjuriousinfluenceuponthemindsofstudents of theology. Dr. Campbell was a very great pretender toimpartialityandcandour.Butitisveryplain,thathehadhisblindingandpervertingprejudiceslikeothermen,andthatthesewerenotinfavourofwhatwehavebeen accustomed to regard as themost important truthsrevealed in God’s word, or of the men who were most zealous indefending them.We had formerly an opportunity of pointing out howdestitute Dr. Campbell was of all adequate sense of the importance ofsound doctrine, and how incompetent, in consequence, he was toappreciate aright themost important service rendered to the churchbytheReformers.Suchamanwasnottobeexpectedtohaveanylikingtosoable,faithful,andzealousachampionofScripturetruthasBezawas.Andaccordingly, in the Dissertation formerly referred to, he has made anattackuponBeza’sLatintranslationoftheNewTestament,anduponhischaracter generally, which we think belies all his loud and frequentprofessionsoffairnessandcandour.

The general charge which he adduces against Beza, and which heillustrates by a detail of instances, is that - under the influence oftheological prejudice and partisanship- - hemistranslates a number ofpassages, and even acknowledges that he had done this in order topromotehisowntheologicalviews,ortodeprivethoseofhisopponentsofsomeappearanceofscripturalsupport.ThecaseisputbyDr.Campbellinaveryunfairandexaggeratedform,andinsuchawayasevidentlytoinsinuate a charge against Beza’s integrity in dealing with the word ofGod.Hehasadducednothing,however,which-evenwereitalltrueandcorrect-wouldamounttoaproofofanythinglikeawantofintegrity.Forthereisnottheslightestgroundtoallege,thatBezaeitherintroducedintohistranslation,orbroughtout inhisannotations,anythingbutwhathehonestlybelievedtobe the trueandrealmindofGod inHisword.Thecharge derives its whole plausibility from these two things: - 1st, ThatBezawasnotalwayssufficientlycarefultokeepdistinctthefunctionsofthe mere translator and those of the commentator, and did inconsequence sometimes deviate in his translation from the literalmeaning of themerewords, that hemight bring outmore plainly anddistinctlywhathebelievedtobethetruescripturalsenseofthepassage;and2nd, That he sometimes assigned, as the reason for this deviation,that a more literal translation of the mere words would seem tocontradict some other portion of Scripture, or some truth which hebelieved tobe taught there, -a statementonwhich,wherever it occurs,Dr. Campbell puts an unfair and offensive construction, as if it were aconfessionofadishonourableorfraudulentmotiveorpurpose.Now,thisconduct of Beza indicates, no doubt, a defective and erroneousconceptionofthepreciseandproperfunctionsofthemeretranslator,asdistinguished from the commentator; but it should not be regarded asinconsistent with integrity, especially when we take into account thecircumstances in which the translation was put forth, and the relationbetweenitandthecommentary.Beza’stranslationoftheNewTestamentinto Latinwas not published, or intended to be used, separately or byitself,butwasprintedalongsideoftheoriginalGreek,whiletheVulgateLatin version was also inserted in a third parallel column; and theannotations subjoined at the foot of the page, were intended chiefly toexplainthereasonsofthetranslation,whichwasthusvirtuallyembodiedinthecommentaryasapartofit.

The true state of the casewill bebetterunderstoodbyadverting to theinstances which Dr. Campbell founds upon; some of which indeed arebaseduponmisrepresentation, andothers aremere specimens ofwire-drawn criticism and special pleading, illustrating nothing but hisunfairness andanxiety tomakeout a case.One is, that inActs xvi. 23,Bezahastranslatedthewordsχειροτονησαντεςδεαὐτοιςπρεσβυτερους,“quumque ipsis per suffragia creassent presbyteros;” - and this Dr.Campbellrepresentsasanunfair translationof thewordχειρετονεω, inordertosanctionthedoctrineof thepopularelectionofministers.ThatBezabelieved in thedoctrineof the right of theChristianpeople to thesubstantialchoiceoftheirpastors,andthatheregardedthispassageasaproof of it, is certain; and noman of good sense and sound judgment,whohasdeliberatelyandimpartiallyexaminedhiswritings,canentertainanydoubtofthis.Buttheunfairnessoftheversioncannotbeestablished;forBezacertainly thought,whether rightly orwrongly, andmanyothercompetentjudgeshaveagreedwithhim,thathegaveherethemostliteralandexactrenderingofthewordχβφοτονβω,andthatanyotherversionwouldhave comeshortofbringingout thewholemeaningofwhatwasimplied in it. On several occasions Beza has translated ηταντες'άνθρωποι,notbyomneshomines,butbyquivishomines,-thatis,menof all sorts and in all varieties of circumstances, without distinction orexception;andDr.Campbellrepresentseveryinstanceofthissortasanunfair perversion of Scripture to serve Calvinistic purposes. Beza, ofcourse,honestlybelievedthatquivisbroughtoutmoreaccuratelytherealmindoftheinspiredwriterinthesepassagesthanomnesdid,asitwouldhavebeengenerallyunderstood;andinthiswehavenodoubtthathewasright.Itwouldhavebeenmoreaccordant,however,withcorrectviewsofthe precise functions of a translator, to have retained theword omnes,andexplained its sense in thenotesasa commentator.But consideringthecircumstancesformerlyadvertedto,astotheobjectofhistranslation,andtherelationinwhichitstoodtohisannotations,itisquiteunfair torepresentthisasaviolationofintegrity.PerhapstheworstcaseforBezawhichDr.CampbellhasadducedishistranslationofHeb.x.38,andinthishehasbeenfollowedbytheauthorsofourauthorizedversion.InthispassageBezahas,withoutwarrant from theoriginal, inserted thewordquis, - in our version anyman, - to prevent the text from appearing todiscountenance thedoctrineof theperseveranceof the saints.Thiswas

certainly an unwarrantable deviation from the proper functions of atranslator; though it ought to bementioned, in justice to Beza and ourtranslators, thatGrotius (in loc.),whodidnotbelieve in theCalvinisticdoctrine of perseverance, agreed with Beza in thinking that somecountenance isgiven to the insertionby thepassage inHabakkuk,herequoted by the apostle; and that - as is noticed byDean Trench, in hisadmirable work “On the Authorized Version of the New Testament, inconnection with recent Proposals for its Revision” - the same sense isassigned to the passage upon purely philological grounds by DeWetteandWiner,whohadnoCalvinisticpredilections.

ThemostunwarrantedandunjustofDr.Campbell’s instancesofBeza’sallegedunfairness, is that foundedon,andsuggestedby,histranslationof1Johniii.9,-παςὁγεγεννημενοςἐκΘεουἁμαρτιανοὐποιει,whichhetranslated-quisquisnatusestexDeopeccatonondatoperam.OfcourseBeza’sreasonfor,andobjectin,translatingthelastwordsoftheclause,peccatonondatoperam,- insteadofpeccatumnonfacit,astheVulgatehasit,-was,ashestatesexplicitly,toavoidtheappearanceofthepassageteaching the doctrine of the sinless perfection of regenerate persons inthislife,andthuscontradictingmanyexplicitdeclarationsofScripture.

So far this instance is exactly similar to those already adverted to, inwhichtheproperfunctionsofthetranslatorandthecommentatorarenotkept sufficiently distinct. But Dr. Campbell farther makes Beza’stranslation of this passage, combined with his annotations orcommentary on two other passages, - Matt. v. 20 and vii. 23, - thefoundation of a more general and more serious charge against hischaracterandteaching.Hedistinctlyaccuseshimofhavingforhisobjectinthesepassages,“kindlytofavoursinners,notexorbitantlyprofligate,sofar as to dispel all fear about their admission into the kingdom ofheaven,” and of endeavouring with this view to elude the force of ourLord’sdeclaration,!and“reconcile it tohisown licentiousmaxims.”HesupportsthisveryheavychargebypervertingBeza’sstatementsinthesepassages, in order to extract from them the sentiment, that men needhavenodoubtofgettingtoheavenunlesstheywere,andcontinuedtobe,gross and heinous sinners, Now, this is really, in plain terms, amisrepresentation and a calumny. The passages adduced manifestly

affordnogroundwhateverfortheallegation,thatBezaintendedtoteachthedoctrineascribedtohim;andwecanscarcelypersuadeourselvesthatDr. Campbell himself believed that the proof which he adduced wassufficient to establish his charge. It is perfectly plain that Beza, in thepassages quoted or referred to, intended to teach and did teach thisdoctrine,andnoother,viz.thatthefactthatmenarestillsinnersinGod’ssight-sinningeverydayinthought,word,anddeed-wasnotofitselfasufficientreasonwhytheyshouldconclude,thattheyhadnotbeenunitedtoChristbyfaith,andwhytheymightnotenjoygoodhopethroughgrace;while he has never said anything fitted, andmuch less intended, as isalleged, to lead men to remain at ease in their sins, because sure ofheaven,ifonlytheyare“notexorbitantlyprofligate.”Dr.CampbellquotesintheoriginalLatin,asentencefromthemiddleofBeza’snoteon1Johniii. 4, where this matter is most fully explained, and does so for thepurposeofshowingthatBezaacknowledged,thathisobjectingivingthetranslationpeccatonondatoperaminsteadofpeccatumnonfacit,wastoshutouttheappearanceofthisstatementcountenancingthedoctrineofsinless perfection in this life. But in the sentence almost immediatelyprecedingthatwhichhequotesforthispurpose,Bezaexpresslydescribesthekindofperson towhomhis statementapplies,whomhe regards asunregenerate,andthereforeinadmissibleintoheaven,andshutoutfromthe present hope of it, - not as one who is merely “not exorbitantlyprofligate,” but as one “who does not strive after holiness, that is, inwhom sin reigns,” - qui sanctitati non studet, id est, in quo regnatpeccatum, - referring, of course, to the apostle’s description of thedistinctionbetweentheregenerateandtheunregenerate,sinreigninginthe latter, and still present and very manifest at least to themselves,though not reigning, in the former. And whatmakes themattermuchworseis,thatinthewordsimmediatelysucceedingtheextractquotedbyDrCampbell,Bezahasexpresslyandsolemnlyprotestedagainstthisverymisinterpretation of his meaning, in the following scriptural andmoststrikingandedifyingstatement:-

“Why do we say this? Is it to discountenance the earnest pursuit ofholiness?isittoshowthatmenshouldnoteverydaybegrowingingrace?By nomeans; forwe teach that a perpetual progress in holiness is thecertainandperpetualeffectof faith.Why thendowesay this? It is lest

Satanshoulddepriveusofourcomfort.For ifwecanconclude thatweare in Christ, only when we shall no longer need to offer the prayer,‘Forgiveusourdebts,’whodoesnotsee,whodoesnotfeel,whodoesnotexperiencea thousand times everyday, that it is quite in vain that thisconsolationisofferedtous?”

Dr Campbell had no right to distort and pervert the plain meaning ofBeza’s statements, and to ascribe tohim “licentiousmaxims,”whichhehad not only never countenanced, but had expressly and solemnlydisclaimed. Dr Campbell, it is to be feared, disliked Beza’s Calvinisticdoctrine, and probably disliked stillmore his strict Calvinisticmoralityand experimental godliness; and thewhole of his remarks upon Beza’stranslation of the New Testament are characterized by uncandidmisrepresentation. It is quite unwarranted to represent Beza’s generalcharacter as a controversialist, as marked by a want of fairness andcandour. There are some controversialists who - from strong prejudiceandimpetuosity,fromrashnessandrecklessness,orfromsomethinglikeasortofnaturalobliquityofunderstandingandadeficiencyofsenseandjudgment - manage their disputes in such a way, that we find somedifficulty indeterminingwhether awantof fairness and candour is theworstchargethatcanbejustlyadducedagainstthem,andwhetherwearenotwarrantedinaccusingthemofapositivewantof integrity.ButmenwhoareacquaintedwithBeza’swritings,andwhocanjudgeofthemwithanything like impartiality, will have no such difficulty in forming theirestimateofhischaracter.TheywillnotonlyrejectthesuspicionwhichDrCampbellhaslabouredtoraiseagainsthisgeneralintegrity,buttheywillbeconvincedthat,thoughhesometimesindulgedmostunwarrantablyintheseverityofinvectiveagainstopponents,whichwasthensocommon,he showed no disposition to take unfair advantages, Or to practise themere artifices of controversy, but manifested habitually no ordinarymeasure of impartiality and candour; in short, they will probablyconclude, that Beza possessed a much larger amount of integrity andfairnessthanDrCampbelldid,thoughhedidnotmakesoostentatiousaparadeofthesequalities.

Thechiefpoints,aswehavementioned,onwhichithasbeenallegedthatCalvin andBeza differed in their theological sentiments, and that Beza

wasmoreCalvinistic thanCalvin,are theorderof thedivinedecrees intheir bearing upon the fall as controverted between the Sublapsariansand the Supralapsarians, - the imputation of Adam’s first sin to hisposterity, - theextentof theatonement, -andthenatureand importofjustification;andtoeachofthesefourpointswenowproposetoadvertinsuccession,contemplatingthemchieflyintheirhistoricalaspects.

I.ThecontroversybeentheSublapsariansandtheSupralapsariansisoneof no great intrinsic importance, though it has occasionally beendiscussed with considerable keenness. In modern times, indeed, it ismuch more frequently and fully dwelt upon by Arminians than byCalvinists.Theyusuallylabourtogiveprominencetothismatter,asifitwere a topic of great importance, about which Calvinists were atirreconcilablevarianceamong themselves; insinuatingat thesame timethat Supralapsarianism - which is more likely to appear harsh andoffensive to man’s natural feelings - is the truest and most consistentCalvinism,thoughinpointoffactithasbeenheldbycomparatively fewCalvinistic theologians. This artifice seems to have been first tried byBaro, the Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, who wascompelledbytheacademicalauthoritiestoresignhisofficebecauseofhisanti-Calvinisticnotions.ItwasadoptedbyArminiushimself;andhehasbeen followed in this by most of those who have been called after hisname, includingeven, though ina lessoffensive form,RichardWatson,whose“.TheologicalInstitutes”istheleadingtext-bookoftheevangelicalArminianismoftheWesleyanMethodists.

Wedonot intend todwellat lengthupon the topicsusually introducedinto this controversy, because they scarcely he within the line oflegitimate discussion, and because to give them much prominence isreallytocountenancetheunfairusewhichtheArminianshavecommonlymade of this subject. It is usually discussed in the works of the greatsystematic divines of the seventeenth century, under the heads of “TheObject of Predestination,” and “The Order of the Divine Decrees.” Thequestion isusuallyput in this form,whether theobjectof thedecreeofpredestination, electing somemen to eternal life and leaving others toperish, beman unfallen orman fallen; or, in otherwords,whetherweshould conceive of God as in the act of electing somemen to life and

passingby the rest, contemplatingmen, orhaving thempresent toHismind,simplyasrationalandresponsiblebeingswhomHewastocreate,orasregardingthemasfallenintoastateofsinandmisery,fromwhichHe resolved to save someof them,and to abstain fromsaving the rest.Those who go above and beyond the fall, and regard the object of thedecree of predestination asman or the human race, viewed as not yetcreatedandfallenbutsimplyastobecreated,arecalledSupralapsarians;while thosewhostopas itwerebefore the fall,andregard theobjectofthedecreeofpredestinationasmanorthehumanrace,viewedasalreadyfallenintoastateofsinandmisery,arecalledSublapsarians.Itisevidentthat this question virtually resolves into that of the order of the divinedecrees,-ortheinvestigationofthistopic,howweshouldconceiveoftherelationinpointoftimebetweenthedifferentdecrees,ordepartmentsofthe one decree, of God in regard to the human race. The fundamentalSupralapsarian position, as above stated, is virtually identicalwith thisone,-thatweoughttoconceiveofGodasfirstdecreeingtomanifestHischaracterinsavingsomemenandinconsigningtheresttomisery;then,in sequence and subordination to this decree, resolving to create man,and to permit him to fall into a state of sin; while the fundamentalSublapsarian position is, that we ought to conceive of God as firstdecreeingtocreatemanandtopermithimtofall,andthenasresolvingto save somemenout of this fallen and corruptmass, and to leavetheresttoperish.Thewholehistoryofthediscussionwhichhastakenplacebetween Supralapsarians and Sublapsarians shows, that this reallyembodies the true state of the question; and this again shows, that thequestionrunsupintotopicswhichhebeyondthereachofourfaculties,and which are not made known to us in Scripture. And this generalpositionisconfirmedbythefact,thatbothpartiesadmitthatthereisnotanyrealsuccessionoftimeinthedivinemind,andthatthewholeofthedecreeordecreesofGodwithrespecttothehumanraceareintruthonesimple undivided act of the divine intelligence, exercised in accordancewithalltheperfectionsofthedivinenature.

The views which most naturally and obviously occur in surveying thediscussionswhichhavetakenplaceonthissubject,aresuchasthese.Itseems plainly enough to have been made the principal design of therevelationwhichGodhasput intoourhands, to informusof thefallof

man from the estate inwhich hewas created into an estate of sin andmisery; and especially of the great and glorious schemewhichGodhasdevisedandexecuted for saving somemen from this conditionof guilt,depravity, and wretchedness, and bringing them into an estate ofsalvationbyaRedeemer.AccordinglyScripture tellsus littleornothingthatdoesnotbearmoreorlessdirectlyupontheseobjects.Ittellsusverylittle of God’s plans and purposes, except what we see actually beingexecuted or carried into effect, in the process by which somemen aresavedfromthedeathinsinsandtrespassesinwhichallmenhe,andarepreparedforeverlastingblessedness.ThisisthesubstanceofwhatGodisnowdoingwiththeraceofman,andthisisthesubstanceofwhatHehasrepresentedhimselfinHisword,asfrometernitydecreeingorpurposingtodo.Intheabsenceofanydefinitescriptural information,wehavenosatisfactory materials for ascertaining more than this concerning thedivine counsels and plans, and we should carefully abstain fromprecarious and conjectural speculations upon topics which he so farbeyondthereachofourcapacities.Wecanscarcelyframeaconceptionofany plans or purposes which God could have formed concerning theeternalsalvationofmen,whichdidnotassumeorimply,thattheywereregarded or contemplated as having all fallen into a state of sin andmisery,fromwhichsomeofthemweretoberescued.Andthusitappearsthat, practically, any conception we can form of God’s act inpredestinatingsomementolifeandinpassingbytherest,mustproceedsubstantiallyuponSublapsarianprinciples.TheSupralapsariantheoryisfounded rather upon abstract reasonings, by which we follow out theconnectionofdoctrines in thewayof speculation, thanuponanydirectinformationthatisgivenusinScripture.Andhoweverplausible,orevenconclusive, someof thesereasoningsmayappear tobe,wecanscarcelyfailtofeelthatinprosecutingthemweareinvolvedinmatterswhicharetoohighforus,andwithrespecttowhichitisimpossibleforustoattaintoanythinglikefirmandcertainfooting.

Itmay be said that all Calvinists agree in everythingwhich almost anyCalvinistregardsastaughtuponthissubject inScripturewithclearnessandcertainty.TheyallbelievethatGod,accordingtotheeternalcounselof His own will, hath unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes topass;andtheyincludethefallofAdaminGod’seternalpurpose,andin

Hissovereignexecutionofthatpurposeinprovidence.Andthisofcourseis the great difficulty, fromwhich Sublapsarians cannot indeed escape,but which seems to be somewhat aggravated upon the Supralapsariantheory. For by that theory, God appears to be represented as moredirectly and positively decreeing and appointing the fall, - as a meannecessary for carrying into effect a purpose, - conceived of as alreadyformed,of saving somemen, and leavingothers toperish.AlthoughallCalvinistsbelieveandadmitthatGodforeordainedthefallofAdam,andthat He decreed to exercise, and did exercise, the same providence oragencyinregardtothatevent,asinregardtotheothersubsequentsinfulactions ofmen, - “having purposed to order it toHis own glory,” - yetmost Calvinists have thought it more in accordance with the generalrepresentations of Scripture, and with the caution and reverence withwhichweought tocontemplate thecounselsandactingsofHimwho isincomprehensible, but of whom we know certainly that He is not theauthorofsin,toconceiveofHimasregardingmenasalreadyfallenintoastateofsinandmisery,whenHeformedthepurposeofsavingsomemenandofleavingotherstoperish.

Thedifference, then, betweenCalvinists upon this subject is not of anymaterial importance. It does not affect the substance of the doctrinewhichallCalvinistsmaintaininoppositiontotheArminians.Itisapointratherofabstractspeculationuponthelogicalconsequencesofdoctrines,thanamatterofdirectrevelation;anditisoneonwhichmanyjudiciousCalvinists, in modern times, have thought it unnecessary, if notunwarrantable,togiveanyformalorexplicitdeliverance,whiletheyhaveusually adhered to the ordinary representations of Scripture upon thesubject, which are at least practically Sublapsarian. Sublapsarians alladmit thatGodunchangeably foreordained the fall ofAdam, aswell asevery other event that has come to pass; while they deny that thisdoctrinecanbeprovednecessarilytoinvolvetheconclusion,that,tousethewordofourConfessionofFaith,“Godis theauthorofsin,”or“thatviolence is offered to the will of the creatures,” or that “the liberty orcontingency of second causes is taken away.” And Supralapsarians alladmitthatGod’seternalpurposeswereformedintheexerciseofallHisperfections,anduponafullandcertainknowledgeofallthingspossibleas well as actual, - that is, certainly future; andmore especially that a

respect to sin does come into consideration in predestination, or, asTurretineexpressesit,insettingforththetruestateofthequestionuponthat point, “in praedestinatione rationem peccatiin» considerationemvenire, utnemodamneturnisi propterpeccatum, et nemo salveturnisiqui miser fuerit et perditus.” Even when this question used to bediscussed amongCalvinists, bothparties, .though occasionally betrayedintostrongstatementsintheexcitementofcontroversy,admittedthatthedifference involved nothing of material importance, and did not reallyaffect the substance of any doctrine revealed in Scripture. TheSupralapsarians have always been a small minority among Calvinisticdivines,andhavehadtodefendtheirviewsagainstthegreatbodyoftheirbrethren.Theyhaveusuallybeenmenofhightalent,withagreatcapacityand inclination forabstract speculation, andconsiderable confidence intheirownpowers.Inthesecircumstances, it isquite inaccordancewiththewell-knownprinciplesofhumannature, that theyshouldhavebeenspecially disposed to overrate the importance of their peculiar notions.AndyetwefindthattheygenerallyconcurredwiththeSublapsariansinrepresentingthedifferenceasoneofnogreatmoment.Thereneverwasamore able ormore zealousSupralapsarian thanDrWilliamTwisse, theprolocutorof theWestminsterAssembly.NoonehaswritteninsupportofSupralapsarianviewsat greater lengthorwithgreaterkeenness, andyethe,tohishonour,hasmadethefollowingcandidadmissionastothegreatimportanceofthepointsinwhichtheoppositepartiesagreed,andthesmallimportanceoftheonepointinwhichtheydiffered:-

“Itistruethereisnocauseofbreacheitherofunityoramitybetweenourdivines upon this difference, as I showed in my digressions (DePraedestinatione, Digress. 1), seeing neither of them derogates eitherfrom the prerogative of God’s grace, or of His sovereignty over HiscreaturestogivegracetowhomHewill,andtodenyittowhomHewill;andconsequentlytomakewhomHewillvesselsofmercy,andwhomHewillvesselsofwrath;butequallytheystandforthedivineprerogativeineach.AndasfortheorderingofGod'sdecreesofcreation,permissionofthe fall of Adam, giving grace of faith and repentance unto some anddenying it to others, and finally saving some and damning others,whereupon only arise the different opinions as touching the object ofpredestinationandreprobation,itismerelyapexlogicus,apointoflogic.

AndwereitnotameremadnesstomakeabreachofunityorcharityinthechurchofGodmerelyuponapointoflogic?”

Onthisunnecessaryandnowobsoletesubjectofcontroversy,ithasbeenallegedthatCalvinandBezatookoppositesides,-thattheformerwasaSublapsarian, and the latter a Supralapsarian. There is no doubt thatBeza, in defending the doctrine of predestination, was led to assertSupralapsarianviews;thoughhewasnot,ashasbeensometimesalleged,thefirstwhobroachedthem,fortheyhadbeenheldbysomeofthemoreorthodox schoolmen, as has been shown by Twisse andDavenant. But,whileBeza’s opinion is clear enough, it is not by anymeans certain onwhichsideCalvinistoberanked,andthisquestion-viz.whetherCalvinistoberegardedasaSublapsarianoraSupralapsarian-hasbeenmadethesubjectofformalandelaboratecontroversy.TheSublapsarianshaveendeavouredtoshowthattheyareentitledtoclaimCalvin’sauthorityinsupport of their views, while Supralapsarians and Arminians havegenerallydeniedthis, - the formerof these twoclasses, that theymightclaimhis testimony in theirown favour, and the latter, that theymightexciteodiumagainsthim,bygivingprominencetoall thestrongestandharshest statements that ever dropped from him on the subject ofpredestination.Aspecimenofthewayinwhichthisquestion,astowhatCalvin’sviewswere,hasbeenhandledbySublapsarians,willbefoundinTurretine. The case of the Supralapsarians is elaborately pleaded byTwisse,inhis“VindiciseGratiae,potestatis,acprovidentiaeDeiwhiletheArminianviewisbroughtoutbyCurcellseus,inreplytoAmyraldus,inhistreatise“DejureDeiincreaturasinnocentes.”

All this, of course, implies that there is real ground for doubt and fordifference of opinion as to what Calvin’s sentiments upon this subjectwere;andthecauseofthisis,thatthequestionwasnotdiscussedinhistime, - that itdoesnot seem tohavebeeneverdistinctlypresent tohisthoughtsasapointtobeinvestigated,-andthat,inconsequence,hehasnotbeenledtogiveaformalandexplicitdeliveranceregardingit.ThisisthecauseofthedifficultyofascertainingwhatCalvin’sopinionuponthispointwas;andifitbeindeedtruethatthisprecisequestionhewasneverledformallyanddeliberatelytoconsideranddecide,it isscarcelyworthwhiletospendtimeinexaminingtheexactmeaningofstatementswhich

bearuponitonlyindirectlyandincidentally.Atthesametime,weareofopinion that the preponderance of evidence here is in favour of theSublapsarians,-thatis,wethinkthat,ontakingafairandimpartialviewofCalvin’sgeneralcharacterandprinciples,andofallthathehaswrittenconnectedwiththismatter,itappearsmoreprobablethat,ifthequestionhadbeendirectlyandformallyproposedtohim,andhehadbeencalledupontogiveanexplicitdeliveranceregardingit,hewouldhavedecidedin favour of Sublapsarian views.But asmatters stand,wedonot thinkthateitherpartyisentitledtoclaimhimasanactualadherent.Thereisaremarkable passage in Calvin’s “Tractatus de Eterna DeiPraedestinatione,” - which is published in Niemeyer’s “CollectioConfessionum,”under the titleof “ConsensusGenevensis,” - containingperhapsaboutasnearanapproximationasanythinghehaswrittentoadeliverance upon this question. It cannot be reconciled with theSupralapsarianview;whileatthesametimethatview,orsomethingverylike it, is set aside rather as unwarrantable and presumptuous, than aspositivelyerroneous.Wethink itworthwhile toquote thispassage,notonlybecauseofitsbearinguponthematterunderconsideration,butalsobecause it furnishes a good illustration of the injustice often done toCalvinbymenwhohaveneverreadhiswritings,andaspecimenoftheabundantevidencethatmightbeadducedofhisgenuinemoderation,histhoroughgoodsense,hismaturewisdom,andoftheprofoundreverenceand caution with which he usually conducted his investigations intodivinethings.HavingoccasiontorefertothedifferencebetweenthetwotopicsofthebearingofGod’sforeordinationandprovidenceuponthefallof Adam on the one hand, and the bearing of foreordination andprovidence upon the election and reprobation, the salvation and finalmisery, of fallen men individually on the other, - and this virtuallyinvolves the point controverted between the Supralapsarians and theSublapsarians,-heexpresseshimselfinthefollowingwords:-“Ceterumqugestionem hanc (i.e. the bearing of divine foreordination andprovidence upon Adam’s fall) non ideo tantum parcius attingereconvenit, quod abstrusa est ac in penitiore sanc-tuarii Dei adytorecondita,sedquiaotoisacuriositasalendanonest,cujusilianimisaltaspeculatio alumna est simul ac nutrix. Quamquam interim quaeAugustinusLibrodeGenesiad literamundecimodisserit,quumadDeitimoremetreverentiamomniatemperet,minimeimprobo.Alteraautem

pars(i.e. the bearing of divine foreordination and providence upon thefate and destiny of fallen men individually), e quod ex damnata Adaesobole Deus quos visum est eligit, quos vult reprobat, sicuti ad fidemexercen-dam longe aptior est, itamajore fructu tractatur. In hac igiturdoctrina, quae humanse naturse et corruptionem et reatum in secontinet, libentius insisto, sicufci non solum ad pietatem propiusconducit sed magis mihi videtur theologica (i.e. more intimatelyconnected with a full exposition of the scheme of Christian theology).Meminerimustamenineaquoquesobriemodestequephilosophandum,nealteriusprogrechtentemusquamDominusnosverbosuodeducit.”Inthis noble passage Calvin virtually puts aside Supralapsarianspeculations,andinsistsonlyonthatgreatdoctrineofpredestination,inthe maintenance of which all Calvinists are agreed. Beza, then, in hisexplicitadvocacyofSupralapsarianism,wentbeyondhismaster.Wedonotregardthisamongtheserviceswhichherenderedtoscripturaltruth;especiallyasweareboundincandourtoadmitthatthereissomegroundto believe that his high views upon this subject exerted a repellinginfluenceuponthemindofArminius,whostudiedunderhimforatimeatGeneva.

We may add some historical notices of the subsequent discussionsconnectedwiththissubject,especiallyasthereferenceswehavemadetoDrTwissewill naturally suggest the inquiry, how thismatterwasdealtwithbytheWestminsterAssembly.InadditiontoBeza,themosteminentmenwho defended Supralapsarian views in the sixteenth century wereWhittakerandPerkins.ThesewerethegreatestdivinesintheChurchofEngland during the latter part of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, -men quiteentitled torankwithJewelandHooker inpointofabilityand learning,and superior to them in knowledge of the sacred Scriptures, and inacquaintance with the system of doctrinal theology. But in the nextgeneration the Sublapsarian view was advocated by Dr Robert Abbot,BishopofSalisbury,brotherofArchbishopAbbot,averyabledivineandathoroughCalvinist.HisopinionuponthispointwasadoptedbyBishopDavenant, and the other English delegates to the Synod of Dort; andSupralapsarianism has not again been advocated by any very eminenttheologian in England except Twisse. The eminent men who mostelaboratelyandzealouslydefendedSupralapsarianismintheseventeenth

centurywereGomarus,Twisse,andVoetins,-allofthemperhapsmoredistinguished by their erudition, subtlety, and pugnacity, than by theircomprehensive ability, judgment, and discretion; though they have allrendered very important services to theological literature.Gomar,who,when a youngman, had. visited. England and. studied, theology underWhittakeratCambridge,wasthezealousopponentoftheviewswhichhiscolleague Arminius laboured, at first secretly, and. afterwards morepublicly,tointroduceintotheuniversityofLeyden.HeresignedhischairwhenVorstiuswaschosenashiscolleagueupon thedeathofArminius;and after officiating for a few years at Saumur, he was settled atGroningen, and laboured there as professor of theology and Hebrewduringtheremainderofhislife.HewasamemberoftheSynodofDortasone of the Belgic professors, and there he openly and strenuouslymaintainedhisSupralapsarianviews;andthoughhestoodalmostalone,he gave a great deal of annoyance to the Synod by his vehemence andpertinacity.TherewerefiveBelgictheologicalprofessorsmembersoftheSynod, and they formed one collegium. Three of them - Polyander,Thysius,andWalaeus-entirelyconcurredintheirJudiciaonallthefivepoints on which the Synod gave a deliverance. The fourth - SibrandusLubbertus, who, from Dr Balcanquhall’s Letters, appears to haveexhibited a good deal of the temper and spirit of Gomar - gave in aseparate Judicium of his own, but subscribed also that of his threecolleagues.Gomar gave in a separate Judicium, differing from those ofhiscolleaguesandofthegreatbodyofthemembersoftheSynod,intheone point of asserting the Supralapsarian theory as to the object ofpredestination.

Butthegreatquestionis,whethertheSynodofDortgaveanydeliveranceuponthispoint,andifso,whatthatdeliverancewas.TheSynodofDort,representingasitdidalmostalltheReformedchurches,andcontainingagreat proportion of theologians of the highest talents, learning, andcharacter, is entitled to a largermeasure of respect anddeference thanany other council recorded in the history of the church. That the greatbody of themembers of the Synod were Sublapsarians is certain. Thisappears clearly from the Judicia of the different colleges, as they werecalled, of the divines who composed it. The collection of these Judiciaforms the second part of the important work, entitled, “Acta Synoch

NationalisDordrechtihabitse,”andconstitutesthemost interestingandvaluable discussion that exists of all the leading points involved in thecontroversy between Calvinists and Arminians. These Judicia all take,moreor lessexplicitly,Sublapsarianground;except thatofGomar,andthat of thedivines of SouthHolland,who leaned to theSupralapsarianside,but thought that itwasnotnecessary for theSynod todecide thisquestion,asthedifferencewasnotveryimportantinitself,andadmittedof being reconciled by explanations. The Synod seems to have adoptedthis suggestion, and to have abstained from giving a formal or explicitdeliveranceupon thepoint indispute, though in the general scope andsubstanceofitscanonsitcertainlytakesSublapsarianground.Ithasbeencontended, however, that the Synod condemned Supralapsarian views;andthisquestiongaverisetoaverykeencontroversy,whichwascarriedonforalongtimebyGomarandVoetontheoneside,andontheotherby Maresius or Des Marets, who succeeded Gomar as professor oftheology at Groningen. Voet, then a youngman, was amember of theSynod, indeed one of the delegates from SouthHolland. He lived to agreatage,survivingalltheothermembersoftheSynod,andhavingbeenfor many years professor of theology at Utrecht. He became a man ofprodigiouslearning,publishedmanyvaluableworks,andwaswellknownbeyond the bounds of theological literature by the controversies hecarried on with Des Cartes. Gomar and Voet, who had subscribed thecanons of the Synod, held their Supralapsarian views to the last; andwhile they did not deny that the greatmajority of themembers of theSynodwereSublapsarians,theymaintainedthattheSynod,initspubliccollective capacity, had done nothing to condemn the opposite theory,whileMaresiusandothersassertedthat ithad.Wearesatisfiedthatonthis point Gomar and Voet have the superiority in the argument, andhave succeeded inproving that theSynoddidnot intend to frame, anddid not frame, their canons so as to make it impossible forSupralapsarianshonestlyandintelligentlytosubscribethem,-thattheydidnotintendtomake,anddidnotmake,anydefiniteopinionuponthispointatermofcommunion,oragroundofexclusion.Thegroundtakenin the canons of the Synod is indeed practically and substantiallySublapsarian;but thematter isnotput insucha formasnecessarily toexcludeSupralapsarians,who,withoutstraining,canassenttoallthatisinthecanonsasbeingtruesofarasitgoes,thoughtheydonotregardit

ascontainingafullstatementofthewholetruthuponthesubject.

ThecoursepursuedbytheSynodofDortuponthisquestionwasjustthatfollowedbytheWestminsterAssemblyintheConfessionofFaithwhichtheyprepared;andthemodeofdealingwiththismatteradoptedbythesetwomostauthoritativerepresentativesofCalvinistictheologywas,wearepersuaded,markedbygreatChristianwisdom.DrTwisse,theprolocutoror president of the Westminster Assembly, died before they had donemuch,ifanything,inthewayofpreparingtheirConfession.Buttherecanbe little doubt that his writings must have exerted a considerableinfluence upon theminds of many, in regard to a point which he hadelaboratedsozealously.BaillietellsusthattheyhadsometoughdebatesintheAssemblyuponthesubjectofelection,butthatthismatterwasatlength harmoniously adjusted. As the members were all decidedCalvinists, thesedebatesmusthave turned only upon suchminute andunimportant points as those involved in the controversy between theSupralapsariansandtheSublapsariansabouttheobjectof thedecreeofpredestination;andtheadjustmentwaseffected,astheresultproves,bytheomissionintheConfessionofanystatementthatmightbefairlyheldto contain or to imply a denial of Supralapsarianism. There are two orthree expressions in the canons of the Synod of Dort, whichSupralapsarians may require to explain, if not to qualify. But there isnothingintheWestminsterConfessiontowhichtheywouldobject,whileit is also true that there is nothing in it that sanctions their peculiarposition;andwhileitisequallytrueofitasofthecanonsofDort,thatindevelopingtheschemeofsalvation,itadoptspracticallyandsubstantiallySublapsarianground.Wehavenodoubtthat,asinthecaseoftheSynodofDort,thegreatmajorityofthemembersoftheWestminsterAssemblywere Sublapsarians in their own convictions; while, at the same time,theyintendedtoleavethisanopenquestion,andframedtheirstatementsinsuchawayastoexcludeneitherparty.Andthis,wehavenodoubt,wasthe course of true Christian wisdom; because, while, on the one hand,Supralapsarians can adduce in support of their theory processes ofargumentation which do not perhaps easily admit of being directlyanswered, so that some men of speculative capacities and tendencieswould shrink frommeeting the leading Supralapsarian position with adirectnegation;yet,on theotherhand, it isplain thatScripture, inthe

ordinarycurrentandcomplexionofitsrepresentations,assumesthefallofman, starts as itwere from that point, and is chiefly directed to theobject ofunfolding theprovisionmade for remedying the effects of thefall, and the way in which this provision is brought into full practicaloperation.

Therehasbeennodiscussionuponthissubjectofanygreat importancesince the controversy which was carried on so long and so angrilybetween Voet and Des Marets, about the middle of the seventeenthcentury. The “Formula Consensus Helvetica,” adopted as a test oforthodoxy by the Swiss churches in 1675, the chief authors of which -HeideggerandTurretine-weredecidedSublapsarians,containsaformaland explicit repudiation of Supralapsarianism, thus contrastingunfavourably inpointofwisdomandgoodsensewiththecanonsof theSynod of Dort and the Confession of the Westminster Assembly. Thisinjudicious procedure was the more inexcusable, because thoseCalvinistic divines who would have been most likely to shrink from aformal repudiation of Supralapsarianism, would have been the moststrenuousopponentsofthelooseviewsoftheSaumurdivinesabouttheimputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity and the extent of Christ’satonement, against which principally the “Formula Consensus” wasdirected. Some attentionwas called to this subject by a dissertation ofMosheim published in 1724, “De Auctoritate Concilii Dordraceni pacisacrse noxia,” in which he adduced it as a serious charge against theSynodthattheyhadnotcondemnedSupralapsarianviews.Anelaborateanswer to this dissertation was published in 1726 by Stephanus Vitus,professorintheGermanReformedChurchatCassel,entitled,“ApologiaproSynodoDordracena,”andcontainingagreatdealofcuriousmatter.Themostimportantthing,however,inVitus’s“Apologia”isaproof-themost full and elaboratewithwhichwe are acquainted - that Luther, ofwhom Mosheim professed to be a follower, held as high Calvinisticdoctrine as the Supralapsarians; that his followers, in renouncing hisCalvinism,hadsunkverymuch to the leveloccupiedbyErasmus inhiscontroversywiththeirmaster;andthatalltheattemptswhichhavebeenmadebyLutheranwriterstodisprovethesepositionshaveutterlyfailed.The question that had been agitated about the object of the decree ofpredestinationcontinuedtobediscussedinsystemsoftheology,though

ratherasamatterconnectedwiththehistoryofthepast,thanasaliving,subsisting,subjectofcontroversy;andformorethanacenturyandahalfitmayberegardedashavingbecomepracticallyobsolete.

II.Thesecondtopictowhichweproposedtoadvert,isthedoctrineoftheimputationofAdam’s first sin tohisposterity. Ithasbeenalleged that,while Beza’s views upon this subject were distinct and explicit, in fullaccordancewiththehigherandstrictertenetswhichhavebeengenerallyheld by Calvinistic divines, Calvin’s were much more vague andindefinite. Ithasbeencontended thatCalvin’s viewsupon thisdoctrinewereinsubstancethesameasthosewhichwereputforthbyPlaeseusorLa Place at Saumur, and condemned by the National Synod of theReformedChurchofFrance in 1644-45, andwhichhavebeengenerallyregarded by Calvinistic divines as amounting to a virtual denial ofimputation in the fair and legitimate sense of the word. Almost allprofessingChristians,RomanistsandArminiansadmitwhatmayinsomesenseorotherbecalled the imputationofAdam’ssin tohisposterity, -thatis,theyalladmitthatmankind,thehumanrace,sufferonaccountofAdam’s sin, or are placed in a worse position, both with respect tocharacter and circumstances, as the result or consequence of that, sin,and of the relation in which they stand to him who committed it. Buttherehavebeengreatdifferencesofopinionamongthosewhoprofessedto believe in divine revelation, both with respect to the nature andamountofthedeteriorationthathastakenplaceinmen’smoralcharacterandspiritualcapacitiesthroughthefall;andwithrespecttothenatureoftherelationsubsistingbetweenAdamandhisposterity,withwhichthisdeterioration is admitted to be in some way connected. As we have atpresent to do only with differences among men who are substantiallyCalvinists,wemayassumeuponthefirstofthesepoints-thenatureandamountofthedeterioration-thetruthofthedoctrinewhichisheldbyallCalvinists,andevenbythemoreevangelicalArminians,viz.thatallmenbringwiththemintotheworldathoroughlydepravedmoralnature,-auniversalandpervadingpronenessor tendencytosin, -whichcertainlyleads, in the case of every individual, to many actual violations of thedivine law, which cannot be subdued or taken away by any human orcreated power, and which, but for some special extraordinary divineinterposition, must issue in consigning men to everlasting destruction

from God’s presence. This is the great fundamental doctrine in thatdepartment of theological science which is now commonly calledanthropology, or the investigation ofwhatman is. This doctrine is justthe assertion of a fact with respect to the moral character of humannature,orthemoralqualities,capacities,andtendenciesofmenastheycomeintotheworld.Itstruthorfalsehoodoughttobeinvestigatedasamatteroffact,bytheexaminationofalltheevidence,fromanyquarter,that legitimately bears upon it. This great doctrine or fact is clearlyrevealed to us in the sacred Scriptures, but it is not a matter of purerevelation.Somethingmaybelearnedconcerningitfromanexaminationofman’sconstitution,andfromasurveyofthedoingsofmencollectivelyand individually; andall that canbe learned from these sources - frompsychologyandhistory, fromobservationandexperience- fullyaccordswith,anddecidedlyconfirms,theinformationgivenusuponthesubjectinScripture.JonathanEdwards’workon“OriginalSin”isdevotedtotheinvestigationofthisgreatdoctrineorfact;anditcertainlyestablishesitstruthorreality,byevidencefromScripture,observation,andexperience,whichneverhasbeen,andnevercanbe,successfullyassailed.

Now this great doctrine as to what man is, or as to the actual moralcharacterofhumannature,isevidently,fromthenatureofthecase,thefundamentalandmostimportanttruthuponthewholesubjecttowhichit relates. It is plainly themost important thing that can be known inregard to the natural condition of man, the most important boththeoreticallyandpractically,initself,initsrelationtothegeneralschemeofChristiandoctrine,and in itsbearinguponthedutieswhichmenarecalled upon to discharge. All the other questions which have beenagitatedwithrespect to thenatural stateandconditionofman,maybesaid to be in some sense subordinate and inferior to this one. Theyrespectchiefly theoriginandcause, theexplanationorrationale,of thegreat factwhich thisdoctrine asserts; and therefore they cannot rise inpointofintrinsicimportancetothelevelofthequestionastotherealityof the fact itself. Thematter of fact, when once established by its ownappropriate evidence, must be admitted to be true, and must be dealtwithandappliedasareality,eventhoughweknewnothing,andhadnomeans of knowing anything, about its origin or cause; and though wewereunabletogiveanyexplanationorsolutionofdifficultiesthatmight

be started upon the subject, viewed either in its relation to the moralgovernment of God, or to the responsibility of man. Upon all thesegrounds it isof the last importance thatmen-especially thosewhoarecalled upon to instruct others in the way of salvation - should bethoroughlyestablishedintheassuredbelief,thatweallbringwithusintotheworldathoroughlydepravedmoralnature,which infallibly involvesusinviolationsofthedivinelaw,andsubjectsustothedivinewrathandcurse;and familiarwith thewholeevidencebywhich the realityof thisgreatfactcanbeestablished.

All Calvinists, many Arminians, and, indeed, wemay say almost all ofwhatevernameordenomination,whohavegivengoodevidencethattheyhad honestly submitted their understandings to the authority ofScripture, and had cordially embraced the truth as it is in Jesus, haveadmittedthetruthofthishumblingandalarmingdoctrinewithrespecttothe actual moral condition of mankind. There have been considerabledifferences,indeed,astowhatwasthemostaccuratewayofstatingandapplyingit.ButamongCalvinistsatleast-andwiththemonlywehaveatpresenttodo-thedifferenceswhichhavegivenrisetocontroversyhaveturned,notuponthenature,import,andevidenceofthisgreatfactastowhatmanbynatureis,butupontheexplanationsortheorieswhichhavebeenpropoundedas to itscause,ground,ororigin;andespeciallyas tothe relation subsisting between the first sin of Adam, and the moralcharacter and condition of his posterity. All who believe in the moraldepravityofhumannatureasanactual featureofcharacter,universallyattaching to the race, admit, upon the authority of Scripture, that theorigin of this is to be traced to Adam’s sin, and to the connectionsubsistingbetweenhimandhisposterity;and the leadingcontroversiesuponthesubjectmaybesaidtoresolveintothesetwoquestions:HaveweanymaterialsinScripturethatenableustodrawoutthisgeneralidea,ofsome connection subsisting between the sin of Adam and the moralcharacterofhisposterity,intomoredistinctanddefinitepositions?andifso,Whatare theprecisepositions towhich the fairapplicationof thesematerials points? All the discussions which have taken place amongCalvinists about the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity may beranked under these general heads. The doctrine which has been helduponthissubjectby thegreatbodyofCalvinisticdivines is this, that in

virtueofafederalheadshiporrepresentativeidentity,establishedbyGodbetweenAdamandalldescendingfromhimbyordinarygeneration,hisfirstsin is imputedto them,orputdownto theiraccount;andtheyareregardedandtreatedbyGodasiftheyhadallcommitteditintheirownperson, to the effect of their being subjected to its legal penalconsequences, - so that, in this sense, they may be truly said to havesinned in him and fallenwith him in his first transgression.Upon thistheory, the direct and immediate imputation of Adam’s first sin to hisposterity, or theholding themas involved in the guilt or reatus of thatoffence, is regardedasprior in theorder ofnature and causality to thetransmissionanduniversalprevalenceamongmenofadepravedmoralnature,andasbeingtosomeextentthecauseorground-therationaleorexplanation - of the fearful fact that man is morally what he is, - athoroughly ungodly and depraved being. The great body of CalvinistictheologianshavebelievedthatScripturesufficientlywarrantsthisdefinitedoctrineabouttheimputationofAdam’ssintohisposterity,oraboutthetruecharacteroftherelationsubsistingbetweenhimandthem,andthebearing of the results of this relation upon their condition; and in thisbelief we are persuaded they are right. But there have been somemenwho have held Calvinistic views in regard to the actual depravity ofhumannature,andinregardtotheotherdepartmentsofChristiantruth,whohavenotbeenabletofindinScriptureasufficientwarrantforthisdoctrine, who have in consequence rejected it, and have contentedthemselveswithveryvagueandindefiniteviews,orwithnoviewsatall,uponthisbranchofthesubject.Andthesemenhavegenerallycontendedthat Calvin himself was of theirmind upon this question, and differedfrom the great body of those who, following Beza in this matter, havebeengenerallyclassedunderthenameofCalvinists.Itmustbeadmittedthatthereissomeplausiblegroundforthisallegation,thoughwebelievethatitcannotbesubstantiated.

Beforeproceedingtoconsiderhowthecasestandsuponthispoint,itmaybe proper to explain somewhat the grounds usually taken by thoseCalvinistswhohavenotconcurredwiththeordinaryCalvinisticdoctrine.Insurveyingthehistoryofthediscussionswhichhavetakenplaceuponthis subject, we find even among the minority of Calvinists who haverejected the generally received doctrine of the direct and proper

imputationofAdam’ssin,as thecauseorexplanation,pro tanto,of theuniversal prevalence of a depraved moral nature among his posterity,threeprettywellmarkeddivisions: - 1st, Some simply refuse to receivethe ordinary Calvinistic doctrine, on the ground that they see nosufficientwarrantforitinScripture;abstainfromallfurtherdiscussion;and profess to receive the fact of universal moral depravity, as fullyestablishedby its appropriate evidence,without attemptinganything inthewayofaccountingforit.2d,Thereareotherswho,wishingtoadhereto the commonorthodoxphraseology,profess to admit imputation,butevacuateitorexplainitaway,bydistinguishingbetweenanimmediateorantecedent, and a mediate or consequent, imputation, - rejecting theformer, which is what Calvinists in general contend for, and admittingonlythelatter,whichisnotimputationinanytrueandpropersense.3d,There are some who admit the substance of the ordinary orthodoxdoctrineoftheimputationofAdam’ssin,butwhoabstainorshrinkfromthe use of the phraseology in which orthodox divines have beenaccustomedtoexpressorembodyit.ThereisnogoodgroundforallegingthatCalvinistoberankedwitheitherofthetwofirstoftheseclasses;butitmaybecontended,withsomeplausibility,thathemightberankedwiththethird.And,indeed,wearedisposedtoadmitthatthisisnotfarfromthe truth, provided the admission be taken with these qualifications, -thatthere isnogroundtobelievethathedeniedorrejectedanypartofthedoctrinewhichhasbeengenerallyheldbyCalvinistsonthissubject;andthathisnotemployingveryfullythephraseologycommonlyusedbylaterCalvinistswhentreatingofthismatter,isnottobeascribed(asitisin the case of some of those whose writings have suggested to us thisthird head in our classification) to his having considered thisphraseology, andhavingdisliked or disapproved of it, but simply to itshavingneverbeenpresenttohismind..

Beza brought out this doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin to hisposteritymorefullyandpreciselythanithadbeenbefore.Heexpoundedand developed it more fully than any preceding theologian, - both asdirectlyandinitselfanelementintheguiltorrealmoftheconditionintowhich the human race fell through Adam’s transgression, and as thecause,ground,orexplanationof theactualmoraldepravityattachingtoall men as they come into the world. These more precise and definite

views had not occurred to Calvin, and do not seem to have ever beendistinctlypresenttohisthoughts.Thecoursewhichthediscussionofthiswholesubjecttookinhistime,notonlydidnottendtoleadhisthoughtsin that direction, but tended powerfully to lead them in what may becalledanoppositeone.Thisisthetrueandfullexplanationofthewantofdefinitenessandprecisionwhich,itmustbeadmitted,characterizemanyof Calvin’s statements about the imputation of Adam’s sin viewed as adistincttopicofdiscussion,ascomparedwith the fulnessandexactnesswithwhichitwasbroughtoutafterwards;whilethereisreallynoreasontodoubtthatheheldthewholesubstanceofthedoctrinewhichhassincebeengenerallymaintainedbyCalvinisticdivines.

It may be worth while to give some account of the way in which thissubject was usually discussed in Calvin’s time; as this will not onlyfurnishanexplanationofthereasonwhyhedidnotusuallygivesomuchprominenceasmighthavebeenexpected to thedoctrineof imputation,andwhyhedid.notalwaystreatitwithgreatexactnessandprecision,butwill alsoexpose the inaccuracyof anotionwhich seems toprevail, thatthisdoctrineof imputation isamereCalvinisticpeculiarity, -nay,eventhatitisthemostextreme,objectionable,andmysteriousdogmaofultra-Calvinism.

ThedoctrineofthefallofthewholehumanraceinAdamwas,fromthebeginning, a part of the creed of the universal church; and, fromAugustine’stime,thishadbeengenerallyspokenofunderthedesignationofthe imputationofAdam’ssintohisposterity.Mostof theschoolmencontinued to use this language, though in their hands the doctrine ofAugustinewasobscuredandcorrupted.Thewholesubjectoforiginalsinwas discussed at length in the Council of Trent, in the year 1546; and,through the respect generally professed and entertained for Augustine,the deliverance of the Council regarding it was in the main true andsound so far as it went, - containing little of positive error, - thoughchargeable with vagueness, obscurity, and much imperfection. But thediscussionbroughtout someof theerrorswhichhadbeenbroachedbythe schoolmen, and still prevailed extensively in the Church of Rome.AlbertusPighius,whowas one of the leading opponents of Calvin, andagainstwhomCalvin’s twomost important controversial treatises - the

one on Free-will and the other on Predestination - were principallydirected, and Ambrosius Catharinus, another eminent divine of thatperiod, attended theCouncilofTrent, and took aprominentpart in itsdiscussions. In the debates on original sin, these two theologianszealouslymaintained the imputationofAdam’ssin tohisposterity;andCatharinusdelivereda longaddress, thesubstanceofwhich isgivenbyFather Paul in hisHistory of the Council, and inwhich he laboured toestablishthisdoctrinefromthetestimonyofScriptureandtheauthorityof Augustine. But then these men also maintained that the guilt ofAdam’s first sin imputed, constituted thewhole of the sinfulness of theestate into which man fell, and they denied the transmission of anactuallycorruptordepravedmoralnaturefromAdamtohisdescendants;and as they also held a doctrine which had been generally adopted byRomishtheologians,andhasbeenformallysanctionedbytheCouncilofTrent,-viz.thatthisimputationofAdam’ssinwaswhollydoneawayinChrist,andthatanactualdeliverancefromit,andallitsconsequences,iscommunicatedtoallmeninbaptism,-theythuspracticallyreducedthesinfulnessofman’snaturalconditiontolittleornothing,anddepriveditofanygreatpowertoimpressthemindsofmen.FatherPaultellsusthatthedoctrineofPighiusandCatharinuswasverywellreceivedbymanyofthe bishops; but that, as the authority of most of the theologians wasopposed to it, they did not venture to adopt and sanction it. Thetheologians, however, who opposed it, did not deny the imputation ofAdam’s sin to his posterity; this was universally admitted; theymaintainedthatthis imputationdidnotconstitutethewholeoforiginalsin,but that therewasalso, inconjunctionand inconnectionwith this,thetransmissionfromAdamtohisdescendantsofadeterioratedmoralnature. And this view, which certainly could be just as conclusivelyestablishedbytestimoniesbothfromtheBibleandAugustine,prevailedin theCouncil.CardinalBellarmine,accordingly, says, that thedoctrineofPighiusandCatharinusispartlytrueandpartlyfalse,-true,insofarasitadmitstheimputationofAdam’ssintohisposterity,-andfalse,insofarasitmaintainedthatthisimputationwasthewholeoforiginalsin,and that therewasno transmissionof a corruptednature; and thenheproceedstoshowthatthisnegativeportionoftheirdoctrinewasaheresy,asbeingopposedtothedecreesoftheCouncilofTrent.

This doctrine of Pighius and Catharinus,which prevailed widely in theChurchofHomeevenafterthedeliveranceoftheCouncil,wasdealtwithby Calvin and the other Reformers very much in the same way as byBellarmine. Since the doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin to hisposteritywasnotdeniedbytheChurchofRome,andwasnotrejectedbutsanctioned, thoughnotdefinedanddeveloped,by theCouncil ofTrent;and since, on the contrary, some of those who were most zealous inmaintaining it, employed it practically to soften and explain away themostimportantfeaturesofthesinandmiseryofmen’snaturalcondition,-Calvinwasnaturallyledtogivemoreprominence,inhisexpositionsanddiscussionsof this subject, to the transmissionand theactualuniversalprevalenceofadepravedmoralnaturethantotheimputationofAdam’ssin,whichwasnotthenasubjectofcontroversy.ThiswasthetruecauseorexplanationwhyCalvinwasledtomakeoccasionallystatementsuponthissubject,whichhaveinducedsomementoallegethathedidnotholdtheimputationofAdam’ssintohisposterity,butbelievedthesinfulnessof men’s natural condition to consist only in the want of originalrighteousness, and in the possession of a depraved moral nature,certainlyandinvariablyproducingactualtransgressions.

ThetruthastoCalvin’ssentimentsuponthissubjectisinsubstancethis:thathehasnever,directlyorbyimplication,deniedtheimputationoftheguilt of Adam’s sin to his posterity, and that he has, on a variety ofoccasions,plainlyenoughassertedit;thoughhehasnot,fromthecauseabovestated,givenittheprominencetowhich,iftrue,itisentitled,inasystematic exposition of the scheme of divine truth, - has not alwaysintroduceditwhere,perhaps,wemighthaveexpectedittobeintroduced,andhasnot stated itwith somuch fulnessandprecision - especially inthe aspect of its being regarded as producing, and to some extentexplaining,theuniversalprevalenceofadepravedmoralnature-aswasdonebylaterCalvinistsafterthiswholematterwassubjectedtoafullercontroversialdiscussion.Thereis,wethink,sufficientevidencethatthisisreallythetruestateofthecasetobefoundintheextractsfromCalvin,quotedandreferredtobyTurretine;andtherewouldbenodifficulty inproducingotherpassagesquiteasexplicit,andsomeperhaps stillmoreso, from his two treatises on Free-will and Predestination. There is noreason, then, to fear that, in maintaining the higher andmore precise

viewsuponthesubjectoftheimputationofAdam’ssin,whichhavebeenheldbythegreatmajorityoftheablestandmostaccuratetheologians,wemay expose ourselves to the risk of having the venerable authority ofCalvinadducedagainstus.

The question as to what were Calvin’s views upon the subject of theimputationofAdam’ssinwasfirstbroughtintoprominencebyPlacseus,whobroachedsentimentsuponthispointdifferingfromthosewhichhadbeengenerallyheldbyCalvinisticdivines,andclaimedCalvinhimselfasanauthorityuponhisside.AsthediscussionraisedbyPlacseusformsthemost important era in the history of this subject, and as his peculiaropinionshave received some countenance in influential quarters in thepresent day, itmay be proper to give somenotice of it. Placseus or LaPlace,AmyraldusorAmyraut,andCappellusorCappel,wereallsettledinthe year 1633 as theological professors in the Protestant University ofSaumur.Theywereallmenofgreatlearningandability,ofgreatindustryand activity, and though they did not renounce the fundamentalprinciplesoftheCalvinisticsystemoftheology,theyexertedanextensiveinfluenceindiffusinglooseandunsoundopinionsuponsomeimportantdoctrinalquestions,notonlyinFrance,butovertheReformedchurches.Placseus,inaDisputationpublishedinthe“ThesesSalmurienses,”-“Destatu hominis lapsi ante gratiam,” - put forth some views on theimputationofAdam’ssin,whichwereregardedbymanyascontradictingthe doctrine which had been generally professed in the Reformedchurches. Accordingly, the National Synod held at Charenton inDecember1644andJanuary1645,condemnedhisbook,thoughwithoutmentioninghisname,andprohibited thepublicationof thedoctrines itadvocated.Thisdecreeof theSynod led to a gooddeal of controversialdiscussion. Garisolles, the moderator of the Synod, defended it, andansweredPlacseus’s“Disputatio”inaworkwhichwehaveneverseen,butwhich is highly praised by Turretine. Andrew Rivet, perhaps the mosteminentdivineoftheperiod,publishedadefenceoftheSynod,consistingchieflyofextractsfromtheReformedconfessions,andfromallthemosteminentdivines,bothof theReformedandLutheranchurches.Mostofthese extracts were translated and published in the first series of the“Princeton Essays.” They are a very valuable body of testimonies, butthere are some of them which can scarcely be regarded as sufficiently

preciseanddefinitetocontradictPlacseus’sposition.Placseusdefendedhimself inaveryelaborate treatise,published in 1665, “De imputationeprimipeccatiAdami.”Inthisworkhelabouredtoshow,thathisopinionwasnotinconsistentwiththegenerallyreceiveddoctrineoftheReformedchurches; for that theymerelyassertedthe imputationofAdam’ssin tohis posterity, and that he had not denied this, but held it in a certainsense.Inthisworkhedevelopedfullythedistinction,onwhichchieflyhebased his defence, between immediate or antecedent, and mediate orconsequent, imputation. He rejected the former and maintained thelatter,andcontendedthatCalvinandothereminentdivinesconcurredinthe substance of doctrine, though they had not expressed it in thisparticulardefiniteform.Hisdoctrineisinsubstancethis,thattheguiltorreatus of Adam’s first sin is not imputed to his posterity directly andimmediately, as a distinct step in the process, - a separate andindependentelementinthesinfulnessoftheestateintowhichmanfell,-havingitsownproperbasisorwarrantinthefederalrelationsubsistingbetweenAdamandhisposterity,andaffording,byitsantecedentsintheorder of nature, a basis or explanation for the moral depravity whichcameuponmenasaconsequence,inthewayofpenalinflictionthroughthe withdrawal of divine grace. This is the doctrine which has beengenerallyheldbyCalvinisticdivines; ,but thisdoctrinePlacseusopenlyand earnestly repudiated.He contended that the imputation of Adam’ssin is simply a consequence or result of the moral depravity which isadmittedtoattachtomen,inconsequencesomehowoftheirconnectionwith Adam, but of the existence and transmission of which noexplanation is given or attempted; and that all that is meant by theimputation of Adam’s sin is this, that God - contemplating men asactuallyandalready,invirtueoftheirconnectionwithAdam,subjecttomoraldepravity,andinvolvedtherebyinactualtransgressionsofHislaw-resolves,uponthisground,toregardandtreattheminthesamewayasAdambyhissinhaddeservedtobe treated.God’sact in regardingandtreatingmen in theway inwhichAdamdeserved to be treated, is thusbaseduponthemediumof thepreviousexistenceofmoraldepravityasalreadyanactualfeatureofmen’scondition,andisaconsequenceofitsuniversal prevalence; instead of being viewed as an antecedent of thisdepravity in theorderofnature, and theground,and in somemeasurethe explanationor rationale, of it.Andhence thenameofmediate and

consequent, as distinguished from immediate and antecedent,imputation, by which this notion has since Placseus’s time beencommonlydesignated.

Independentlyofthequestion,whichofthesedoctrineshasthesanctionof Scripture? - though that of course is the only question of vitalimportance,-itissurelyverymanifestthatitisamereabuseoflanguageto call thisnotionofPlacseusby thenameof imputation; that it is notimputation in any real honestmeaning of theword; and that he neverwouldhavethoughtofcallingthisimputation,unlesshehadbeentiedupby ecclesiastical authority and his own voluntary engagements, tomaintainthatinsomesenseorotherAdam’sfirstsinwasimputedtohisposterity. It is also very manifest that this doctrine does not give, orattemptorprofesstogive,anyaccountoftheorigin,oranyexplanationofthecause,ofthemoraldepravityofman,andtheuniversalityofactualtransgressionproceedingfromit.Nay,itprecludesanyattempttoexplainit, however partially, except this, that God in mere sovereigntyestablished a constitution, in virtue of which it was provided, and didactually result, that allmen should have transmitted to them the samedepravedmoralnaturewhichAdambroughtuponhimselfbyhisfirstsin.And.therecertainlycanbenothingwhichmoredirectlyandimmediatelythanthisresolvesatoncethesinandmiseryofthehumanraceintothepurpose and the agency of God. Placseus, moreover, brings out veryplainly in this work the true character and tendency of his peculiardoctrine,anditspalpable inconsistencywiththeviewswhichhavebeengenerallyheldbyCalvinisticdivines,byexplicitlydenyingthatGodmadeanycovenantwithAdam,orthatanyfederalrelationsubsistedbetweenhim and his posterity; and makes it manifest that his doctrine ofimputation,falselysocalled,atonceresultsfromandproduces-atonceflows fromand leads to - an entire rejectionof theprinciple ofAdam’sfederalorrepresentativeheadship.

This doctrine of Placseus was not adopted by almost any divines ofeminencewhoreallybelievedininherentdepravityasanactualfeatureofman’s moral nature. It was explicitly condemned by the churches anddivines of Switzerland in the “Formula Consenus.” It has beenmade aquestionamongthePresbyteriansoftheUnitedStates,thoughwedonot

remember that thepointhasbeenmooted in this country,whether theWestminsterConfessioncondemnstheviewofPlacseus;andthegeneralopinion there seems to be, that there is nothing in the Confession soprecise and definite as to make it unwarrantable for one who believesonly inmediateandconsequent imputation to subscribe it.The leadingstatement upon the subject is this - “They (our first parents) being therootofallmankind,theguiltofthissinwasimputed,andthesamedeathin sin and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descendingfromthembyordinarygeneration.”Nowthisstatement,readinthelightof the discussions which Placceus occasioned, is certainly vague andindefinite, and resemblesmuchmore closely the deliverances given onthissubjectintheConfessionofthesixteenthcenturythanthatembodiedintheConsensusof1675.TheConfessionwascompletedabouttheendof1646, not quite two years after the National Synod of Charenton. It isprobable that the members of the Assembly were not yet muchacquaintedwiththediscussionswhichhadbeinggoingoninFrance,andwere in consequence not impressedwith the necessity of beingminuteand precise in their deliverance upon this subject. It is a curiouscircumstance,thatbothintheLargerandtheShorterCatechisms,therearestatementsuponthispointmorefullandexplicit,andmoredistinctlyexclusive of the views of Placseus. The Larger Catechism says, “ThecovenantbeingmadewithAdam,asapublicperson,notforhimselfonly,but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinarygeneration sinned in him, and fell with him, in that first transgressionandbothCatechisms,moredistinctlythantheConfession,representtheguilt of Adam’s first sin as the first, and in some sense the leading,element in the sinfulness ofman’s natural condition.More than a yearelapsed between the completion of the Confession and that of theCatechisms;andwe think it by nomeans unlikely - thoughwe are notaware of any actual historical evidence bearing upon the point - thatduring this interval the members of the Assembly may have got fullerinformationconcerningthebearingofthediscussionsgoingoninFrance,andthat thismayhave led them tobringout somewhatmore fully andexplicitly in theCatechisms theviewswhich, in commonwith thegreatbody of Calvinistic divines, they undoubtedly entertained about theimputationofAdam’s sin.Everyonewhohas readPlacseus’sbookwillsee,thathewould,withouthesitation,havesubscribedthestatement in

theConfession,butthathewouldhavehadextremedifficultyindevisinganyplausiblepretenceforconcurringinwhathasbeenquotedfromtheLargerCatechism.

In the seventeenth century this doctrine of Placseus received somecountenancefromVitringaandVenema.ItwasadoptedbyStapferinhis“Theologia Polemica,” who, however, when accused of error on thisaccount,endeavouredtodefendhimself,bymaintainingthatbothviewsofimputationweresound,-apositionwhich,thoughinacertainsenseitcanbedefended,wasinthecircumstancesamereevasionofthecharge.FromStapferitwasadoptedbyJonathanEdwards inhisgreatworkonOriginal Sin. Edwards’ views, however, upon this point do not seem tohavebeenclearorconsistent,ashesometimesmakesstatementswhichmanifestly imply or assume the common Calvinistic doctrine. It is,indeed, plain enough that Edwards had never subjected this particulartopicof imputationtoacareful investigation,-hisworkonOriginalSinbeingdevotedto theobjectofestablishing thedoctrineor factofman’sinherent native depravity, an object which he has thoroughly andconclusively accomplished. Dr. Chalmers, in the first volume of hislecturesupontheEpistletotheRomans,givessomeindicationsthathehadadoptedthisdoctrine,thoughhedoesnotbringitoutwithanythinglike fullnessandexplicitness.Hehadevidently,whenhepublishedthatvolume,notexaminedthissubjectwithmuchcareandattention,andwasprobably altogether unacquainted with the discussions which hadpreviously taken place among theologians concerning it, - which, in alllikelihood,wasthecasealsowithEdwards.Itismostgratifyingtonoticethat Dr. Chalmers, upon a more careful and deliberate study of thissubject, renounced the defective and erroneous view which he hadimbibed from Edwards; and that in his great work, the “Institutes ofTheology,” he, with the candour and magnanimity of a great mind,retracted his error, and supported the doctrine of the imputation ofAdam’s sin as it has been generally held by Calvinistic divines. Thisdoctrineofmediateorconsequentimputation-whichadmitsimputationonlyinthissense,that,onaccountofourinherent,moraldepravity,asanactualfeatureofourcondition,weareregardedandtreatedbyGodinthesamewayasAdamhaddeservedtobetreated,inthesamewayasifwehadcommittedAdam’ssin-hasalsobeenmaintainedbyoneofthemost

powerful, brilliant, and valuable writers of the present day,Mr. HenryRogers, in a very interesting Essay on the "Genius and Writings ofJonathan Edwards,” prefixed to an edition of his works published atLondon, in two volumes, in 1840. His views are brought out in thefollowingpassages:-

“We dislike the second term, ‘imputation of Adam’s sin,’ because thewordimputationisapttosuggesttheideaofanarbitrarytransferoftheguilt and consequent punishment of onemoral agent to anothermoralagent,whosemoralconditionisessentiallydifferent.Butthisisnotwhatismeantbyit.IfwecouldsupposeoneofthedescendantsofAdambornwithoutthisdepravedbias,andactually,whenmasterofhisownactions,persevering in unbroken obedience to the law of God, then theimputation of Adam’s guilt would be considered by Calvinists quite asabsurdandasunjustasouropponentsprofessnowtoconsiderit.Allthatis meant by the ‘imputation of Adam’s sin,1 is that, as in the originalconstitutionofthings,Adamandhisposteritywerelinkedtogetherbyaninseparableunion,astherootofatreeanditsbranches;andasthemoralstate of the latter (as well as their state in every other respect) wasaffectedbythatoftheformer,soitwasreasonablethatAdamshouldbetreatedasthefederalheadofhisrace.Theyaresofaroneastowarrantsimilarity of treatment. In this hypothesis the moral state of hisdescendantsisnottheconsequenceoftheimputationofAdam’ssin,butpresupposedas the reasonof such imputation, andasprior to it in theorderofnature.Theyaretreatedasheisbecausetheyarepresupposedtobe,andarereally,morallylikehim.Thus,thegreat,andwemaysaythesoledifficulty,istoreconcileitwithjustice,thatthedestiniesofourraceshouldbelinkedinachainofmutualdependencewiththoseofourfirstfather;thatnotonlyourphysicalcondition(afactuniversallyadmitted),but that ourmoral condition should take its complexion fromhis own;thatashewas,weshouldbe;thatifhefell,andasaconsequencebecamemortal, we should fall with him, and become mortal too. Such aconstitution, however, of course, presupposes the state of Adam’sdescendants tocorrespondwithhisown;and the imputationofAdam’ssinmeansnothingmorethanthattheyaretreatedasAdamwas,simplybecausetheyarevirtually in thesameconditionwithhim.According tothis doctrine, therefore, the real difficulty is not to reconcile the

imputationofsinandguiltwherethereisnosinandguiltatall(forthatis not the case supposed), but to vindicate the reasonableness of aconstitutionbywhichonebeingbecomesdepravedbyhisdependenceonanother who is so, or by which the moral condition of one being isremotely determined by the moral condition of another. Such is thedoctrinewhenfreedfromalltheologicaltechnicalities;andthemoreweconsider it, themoreweshallperceivethatthesoledifficulty is theonewehavementioned.

“Such is theexplicationof thedoctrineofOriginalSin,which, itwillbeseen,doesnot,asissooftenrepresented,implythearbitraryimputationoftheguiltofonemoralagenttoanotherinnosenseguilty;andthenanequallyarbitrary infliction of punishment.But, presupposing themoralstate of Adam’s descendants to resemble his own, and to necessitate,therefore,thesametreatment,itrepresentsitasjusttodealwithusasinourgreatprogenitor,asvirtuallyonewithhim,asgraftedonhisstock,asboundupinhisdestinies.’

“It will be seen by the defence we have justmade, that we should notchoose toattempt tovindicate,bydirectargument, that constitutionbywhich the moral destinies of one being are, in fact, entrusted to thekeeping of another.. This is one of the mysteries about which, in ourpresentstate,itisinvaintoreason.Thedifficultyistobemetsimplybyappealing, in the first instance, to the facts which prove such aconstitution,andthenbyshowingthattheverysamedifficultypressesonanyhypothesisthatcanbeadoptedonthissubject,and,indeed,maybeobjected to all the proceedings of God towards this lower universe -consequently canneverbeconclusiveagainst theCalvinisticdoctrineofOriginalSin.”

Mr.Rogersisratherstatinghisdoctrinethanexpoundinganddefendingit;and for this, aswellas forother reasons, itwouldbeoutofplace toenter here upon a full discussion of it. But there are some obviousreflections suggested by these extracts, which we may state, withoutenlarginguponthem.ItisasomewhatpeculiarprocedureonthepartofMr. Rogers, virtually to give his definition or description of theimputationofAdam’ssin,asifitweretheonlytrueandsoundone,andthat which was generally adopted by Calvinistic divines. Mr. Rogers

adopts the mediate and consequent imputation of Placseus, - a viewwhich is neither accordant with the natural ordinary meaning of theword, nor with the doctrine that has been held by the generality oforthodoxtheologians.Hiswholestatementisplainlyfittedtoconveytheimpressionthatthis,andthisalone,is,andshouldbe,recognizedasthetrueCalvinisticdoctrine, - anyothernotionwhich theword imputationmight suggest, and which may have been put forth in some quarters,being merely an unwarranted misrepresentation, repudiated by thejudicious friends of the doctrine itself. Now, this is certainly a veryerroneous impression concerning the actual facts of the case; for it canscarcely be disputed, that the doctrine of immediate and antecedentimputation,whichhebringsinasifitweremerelyamisrepresentationofopponents, and which he himself misrepresents, especially by theapplicationof theword“arbitrary,”-anepithetwhichArminiansaresomuchinthehabitofbrandishingagainstallthedoctrinesofCalvinism,-hasbeenexplicitlymaintainedbythegreatbodyoftheablestCalvinisticdivineswhohaveflourishedsincePlacseus’stime.

ThedoctrineconcerningtheimputationofAdam’ssinisnottobesettled,asMr.Rogers seems toassume,by layingdownanarbitrarydefinition,warrantedneitherbythenaturalpropermeaningofthewords,norbytheprevailingusus loquendi among theologians. It canbedeterminedonlybyanexaminationofScripture,byascertainingwhat it is thatScriptureasserts or indicates concerning the actual relation subsisting betweenAdam and his descendants, - the real bearing of his first sin upon themoralconditionofhisposterity.Placseus,thegreatchampion,ifnottheinventor, ofMr.Rogers’snotionof imputation, undertook to show thattherewasnothinginScripturetowarrantanyotherideaofwhatmightbecalled the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, except this, “thatbecause of the sin inherent in us from our origin, we are deserving ofbeingtreatedinthesamewayasifwehadcommittedthatoffence.”ButmostCalvinisticdivineshavemaintainedthat thisposition, thoughtruesofarasitgoes,doesnotembodythewholetruth;thatScripturegivesussomewhat fuller and more definite information upon the subject, andwarrantsustobelievethatAdamwasconstitutedthecovenant-head,orfederalrepresentative,ofhisposterity,-GodhavingresolvedtomakethetrialorprobationofAdamthetrialorprobationofthehumanrace;that

thustheysinnedinhim,andfellwithhiminhisfirsttransgression;andthat thus the sin and misery of their natural condition assumes thecharacter of a penal infliction, to which they are subjected becauseinvolvedintheguiltofAdam’sfirstsinimputedtothem,orputdowntotheiraccount.WhetherScripturedoeswarrantandrequireustobelievethis,isaquestiononwhichthereisroomforadifferenceofopinion.Ifitdoes not, then we must fall back upon the mediate or consequentimputationofPlacseusandMr.Rogers.Butifweweresatisfiedthatthisis the true state of the case, we would scarcely be contented with“disliking,” as Mr. Rogers confesses he does, “the term, imputation ofAdam’ssin;”norwouldweattempttoexplainitawaybyanarbitraryandunwarranted definition: we would reject it altogether as improper andunsuitable,fittedonlytoconveyanerroneousimpression.

Mr. Rogers has not entered into any examination of the scripturalgroundsbywhichthisquestionshouldbedetermined,andneithercanweat present advert to them. _ We can only assert that, for above twohundredyearspast,thegeneralityofthemosteminentCalvinisticdivineshave contended, that the doctrine of immediate and antecedentimputationistaughtinthenaturalandobvious,meaningoftheapostle’sstatementsinthefifthchapteroftheEpistletotheRomans,andisonlyconfirmedbythemostthorough,searching,criticalinvestigationoftheirimport;whileitisalsoinfullaccordancewiththewholehistoryofGod’sdealingswiththehumanrace,andwiththeprinciplesbywhichtheyhavebeen regulated, - and especially with the great principle of covenant-headship and federal representation, so plainly exhibited in God’sarrangementswithrespecttotherecoveryaswellastheruinofmankind.WehaveadmittedthatthegreatdoctrineorfactofthetransmissionfromAdam, and the actual prevalence among all his descendants, of adepravedmoralnature,isofmoreintrinsicandfundamentalimportance,in itselfand itsconsequences,viewedboth theoretically andpractically,thananyparticulartenetastothecause,orground,orrationaleof thisstateofthingscanbe.ButthisdoesnotintheleastaffectourobligationtoascertainandtoproclaimallthatScripturemakesknowntousonthesubject. We admit, also, that the evidence of this great fact fromScripture, confirmed as it is by the testimony of observation andexperience, is more varied, abundant, and conclusive than can be

adducedinsupportofthedoctrineoftheimputationofAdam’ssin,asithasbeenusuallyheldbyCalvinists.Buttheevidenceforthisdoctrineis,webelieve,sufficientandsatisfactory;andifso,menareboundtoreceiveit.Itcertainlycannotbelegitimatelysetasidebyanythingbutadisproofofthescripturalevidenceonwhich it isprofessedlybased;and this,wearepersuaded,hasnotbeenandcannotbeproduced.

Mr. Rogers represents it as a great advantage of his virtual denial ofimputation, by resolving it into what is only mediate and consequentupontheexistenceofdepravityasanactualfeatureofhumannature,thatit leaves only one difficulty unsolved, - viz. “to vindicate thereasonablenessof a constitutionbywhichonebeingbecomesdepravedbyhisdependenceonanother;”andheplainlyinsinuatesthatanyotherdoctrine upon the subject must be attended with additional and moreformidabledifficulties.

Thesubstanceoftheonlyanswerheattemptstothisdifficultyis,thatthematteroffactastoman’snaturalconditionisconclusivelyestablishedbyitsappropriateevidence,andmustthereforebereceivedastrue,and,ofcourse,consistentwithGod’sattributesandmoralgovernment,howevergreatmaybethedifficultiesattachingto it.Thisanswerweadmit tobequite sufficient and satisfactory; but we contend that the doctrine ofimputation,intheonlytrueandfairsenseoftheword,-thedoctrineofimmediate and antecedent imputation, - does not introduce anyadditionaldifficulty into the investigation of this subject, and upon thewholerathertendstodiminishoralleviatetheadmitteddifficulty,thantostrengthen or aggravate it. It is a principle of the greatest value andimportance in the consideration of the difficulties attaching tospeculations on religious subjects, and especially in dealing with theobjections commonlydirected againstCalvinism, that thedifficulties orobjectionsreallyapply,nottoparticulardoctrinesorrepresentations,buttoactualfactsorresults,whichareadmitted,orcanbeproved,toexistorto take place under God’s moral government. This principle appliesequallytotheviewsgenerallyheldamongstuswithrespecttothefallofmankindinAdam,andtheirsalvationthroughChrist.Thegreat,theonlydifficulty, in the one case is, that all men come into the world withmorallydepraved,natures,whichcertainlyandinvariablyinvolvethemin

actualviolationsofthedivinelaw,andthussubjectthemtopunishment;andintheothercase,thatofthewholehumanracethusinvolvedinsinandmisery,someonlyaresavedfromthisconditionandtherestperish,whilethisdifferenceintheresultcannotbefullyexplainedbyanythinginmenthemselves,orbyanything theyhavedoneor cando,butmustbereferredultimatelytothegoodpleasureofGod.Theseareactualfactsorresultswhichcanbeconclusivelyproved,andmustthereforebeadmittedtobetrue.Itiswiththefallalonewehaveatpresenttodo;andherethegreat, the only real difficulty is, the universality of depravity, with itscertainandinvariableconsequences.Thisweundertaketoprovetobeanactualmatter of fact’. If its truth be denied, wemust stop, and beforeproceeding furtherwemust establish it, for it is the great fundamentalposition with respect to the moral condition of mankind. But it isadmitted by all Calvinists, and we have to do at present only withdifferencessubsistingamongthem,-differenceswhichwearepersuadeddo not and cannot seriously affect, either in the way of alleviation oraggravation,thedifficultiesattachingtotheadmittedfact.

SomeCalvinists-agreeinginthiswiththosemoreevangelicalArminianswhoadmit thegreat factof theuniversalnativedepravityofmankind -contend that,beyondestablishing the realityof the fact,Scripturegivesusnofurtherinformationonthesubject,exceptthis,thatthisdepravitywastransmittedbyAdamtoallhisposterity,andthatitisinsomewayorother to be traced to the relation subsisting between him and hisdescendants.They stophere,because they think that Scripture goes nofurther, and because they have a vague notion - which Mr. Rogersappears to sanction - that togoany furtherwould involve them innewandadditionaldifficulties;thoughtherereallycanbenogreaterdifficultythanwhatstandsoutpalpablyonthefaceofthefactitself.Theyusuallyallege, thatScripturemakesknowntousnootherrelationassubsistingbetweenAdamand thehuman race, except that theyareallhisnaturaldescendants; while in connection with this they admit, that God hadestablishedaconstitutionorarrangement, invirtueofwhichallAdam’sdescendantswereinpointoffacttohavethesamemoralcharacterintowhichhefellbyhisfirstsin.ThisconstitutionorarrangementofGod,invirtue of which Adam transmitted to all his descendants the samedepravity ofmoral naturewhich he brought upon himself, is of course

admitted by all who, upon the authority of revelation, believe in thedepravityofthehumanrace.Butitmanifestlydoesnotfurnish,orappearor profess to furnish, any explanation or solution of the one greatdifficulty; which consists essentially in this, that God appears to berepresentedastheauthororcauseofthesinandmiseryofmankind.Theadmissionofthisdivineconstitutionisreallynothingmoreinsubstancethan an assertion of the matter of fact, as a matter of fact; and thentracing the fearful result, directly and immediately, to a purpose andappointment of God. The view held by a certain section of Calvinists,fromPlacseustoMr.Rogers, -denyingthe imputationofAdam’ssin inanyfairandlegitimatesenseoftheexpression,andreducingittoamerenameornonentity,-impliesthatScripturemakesknowntousnootherrelation,nootherkindofunityor identity,assubsistingbetweenAdamandthehumanrace,exceptthatofprogenitorandposterity-theunityoridentityofafatherwithhisdescendants;and.thisissimplyasserting,inanother form, the mere fact of the actual transmission of a depravednature, as the result of a constitution or arrangement which God hasestablished. This view of the matter leaves the difficulty just where itfound it. It interposes nothing whatever between the result and theexercise of the divine sovereignty; it does nothing whatever towardsexplainingorvindicating thatdivineconstitutionorarrangementunderwhichtheresulthastakenplace.Atthesametime,itistoberememberedthat it is universally admitted that this relation of progenitor andposterity,thisspeciesofonenessoridentity,doessubsistbetweenAdamand his descendants, - that it is in no way inconsistent with themorestrict and definite views of imputation which have been held by thegeneralityofCalvinists,-andthatinsofarasitcanbemadeavailableorusefulintheexpositionofthissubject,thisadvantagebelongsequallytothosewhobelieve,andtothosewhodeny,thegenerallyreceiveddoctrineof imputation; while those who deny it have nothing else whatever toadduceinexplanationordefenceoftheirposition.

If Scripture gives us no further information upon this subject, thenwemuststophere,and-indealingwiththeobjectionsofopponents- takeourstandupontheposition,thatthefactofthefallandthedepravityofthe human race has been conclusively proved, and must therefore bereceivedastrue.Thisgroundiscommontoallwhoadmitdepravity,and

it issufficient todisposeof thedifficulty.ButCalvinists ingeneralhavecontended,thatScripturedoesgiveussomeadditionalinformationuponthis subject; and that this additional information - while certainly notfurnishing a solution of the difficulty,which all admit to be insoluble -introducesnoadditionaldifficulty, andnot onlydoesnot aggravate thedifficultyadmittedtoexist,butrathertendstoalleviateit.Thepeculiarityofthedoctrineofimputation,- immediateandantecedentimputation,-asheldby the generality ofCalvinists, consists in this, that it brings inanother relation besides that of mere natural descent as subsistingbetweenAdamandhisposterity-anotherspeciesofonenessoridentitybetween them,viz. thatof covenant-headshipor federal representation.Theirdoctrineis,thatGodmadeacovenantwithAdam,andthatinthiscovenantAdamrepresentedhisposterity, the covenantbeingmadenotonly for him but for them, - including them as well as him in itsprovisions.Theproperresultofthiswas,that,whiletherewasnoactualtransfer to themof themoral culpabilityorblameworthinessofhis sin,they became, in consequence of his failure to fulfil his covenantengagements, in, - or incurred reatus, or guilt in the sense of legalanswerableness,-tothiseffect,thatGod,onthegroundofthecovenant,regardedandtreatedthemasiftheythemselveshadbeenguiltyofthesinwhereby the covenant was broken, and that in this way they becamelegally involved in all the natural and penal consequenceswhichAdambrought upon himself by his first sin. Now this doctrine - viewing itmerely as a hypothesis, and independently of the actual support itreceives fromScripture - neither introduces any newdifficulty into theinvestigation, nor aggravates the difficulty which all admit to exist. Itdoes not in any respect make more sinful or miserable the actualconditionofthehumanraceasarealityormatteroffact,anditdoesnotascribeanythingtoGodwhichappearsmoreliabletoobjectionormoreincapable of explanation, by bringing His agency more closely intocontactwiththeactual resultof thesinandmiseryofmankind.On thecontrary,itrathertendstoalleviatethedifficulty,andtothrowsomelightuponthismysterioustransaction,bybringingitsomewhatintothelineoftheanalogyoftransactionswhichwecancomprehendandestimate,andillustrating its accordance with great general principles, which areexhibited, not only, in God’s ordinary providence, but specially andemphaticallyintheschemeofsalvationbyaRedeemer.

Thegreatdifficulty of course is to explainhow, consistentlywithGod’sattributes and man’s responsibility, the human race could come to beplaced inaconditionofsinandmisery,withoutanyapparentadequategroundinjusticefortheirbeingsotreated.Andwethinkitbynomeansunlikely, that to a man reflecting upon this state of things as anascertainedreality,-evenwhileheknewnothingoftheinformationgivenas concerning it in Scripture, - the ideamight occur, that the best andmost satisfactory way of getting to anything like an explanation of itwould be, if it could be shown to be of the nature of a penal inflictionuponthehumanrace-anevilthathadcomeuponthemasapunishmentofactualsincommitted.Thereisnogreatdifficultyinbelieving,thatthemoraldepravityofAdam’sownnaturewasapenal inflictionuponhim,throughthewithdrawalof theDivineSpirit-apunishmenttowhichhewas justly subjectedonaccountofhis first sin; andwe cannotbut feel,thatifthisideaoflegalresponsibilitycouldinanywaybeintroduced,andcould in any measure be applied to the human race as a whole inconnectionwithAdam,itwouldtendsomewhattoalleviateorlightenthedifficulty attaching to this mysterious and incomprehensible subject.Now, this is precisely what Scripture, according to the views of thedefendersoftheordinaryCalvinisticdoctrineof imputation,does inthematter; this is the very service it renders, by leadingus to believe, thatGod resolved to make the trial or probation of Adam the trial orprobation of the human race, - that the covenantwhichHemadewithAdamcomprehendedallhisposterity,-andthatitlaidafoundationforalegalorfederalonenessoridentitybetweenhimandthem.ThedoctrinethatAdamwasthefederalheadorrepresentativeofhisposterity in thecovenant, lays a foundation for the imputation - the immediate andantecedentimputation-tothemoftheguiltorreatusofhisfirstsin;andthis imputationfurnishesaground fordealingwith themas if theyhadcommitted that sin themselves, and thus involving them in the penalresultswhichAdambroughtuponhimselfbyhisownsin.Therearethusinterposed several steps between the actual moral character andcondition of mankind and the mere sovereign purpose and agency ofGod;andthesestepsinterposed,whiletheydonotsolvethedifficulty,donot introduce into it any additional darkness or perplexity. On thecontrary,beinginaccordancewithanalogiesfurnishedbyGod’sordinaryprovidenceandbyhumanjurisprudence,aswellasbythearrangements

of theschemeof redemption, they tendsomewhat to relieveandsatisfythemindinthecontemplationofthisgreatmystery.

Therearemanypersons-andMr.Rogersisevidentlyoneofthem-whohaveastrongprejudiceagainstthisdoctrineoftheimputationoftheguiltorreatusofAdam’sfirstsintohisposterity,asifitbroughtinsomenewandadditionaldifficulties into the investigationof this subject, -as if itwere the most mysterious and incomprehensible dogma of ultra-Calvinism, one which all moderate and reasonable Calvinists mustrepudiate.Butiftheconsiderationswehavehintedatweredulyweighed,this unfounded prejudice might possibly be removed; and it might beexpected,thatallmenwhoadmitthetotaldepravityofhumannatureasanactualfeatureofman’scondition,ofwhichtheycangiveusnoaccountor explanationwhatever,wouldbemore likely to yield to theweight ofthe evidence - quite sufficient, we think, though not overwhelming -which Scripture furnishes in proof of the doctrine, that “the covenantbeingmadewithAdam,asapublicperson,not forhimselfonly,but forhisposterity,allmankind,descendingfromhimbyordinarygeneration,sinnedinhim,fellwithhiminhisfirsttransgression.”

Amongthethreedifferentclassesorsectionsintowhichwedividedthosedivineswho,whileadmittingtheuniversaldepravityofthehumanrace,declinedtoadmittheorthodoxdoctrineof imputation,oneconsistedofthosewhorejectedtheordinaryorthodoxphraseology,yetsofardeferredto the authority of Scripture as to receive, though in a confused andinconsistent way, some part of the doctrine which they professed toreject.ThishasappearedmostprominentlyandpalpablyamongtheNewEnglandCongregationalistsandsomeoftheNewSchoolPresbyteriansinthe United States; though there have been frequent indications of itamongmenwhowere fondofdeviating fromtheoldbeatenpaths,andaspiredtobethoughtreasonable,moderate,andliberal.Thisisacuriousandimportantfeatureofthecontroversy,andfurnishessomeinterestingmaterials in confirmation of the old orthodox faith. An admirablespecimen of what can be done in this department will be found in acrushingexposure,byDr.Hodge,ofPrinceton,oftheinconsistencyandconfusion exhibited by Professor Moses Stuart, of Andover, in hiscommentary upon the Epistle to the Romans. We have dwelt so long

uponthesetwosubjects,thatwemustbeverybriefupontheremainingtwo;and,indeed,mustconfineourselvestoamerestatementastowhatCalvin’ssentimentsuponthesetwotopicsreallywere,withoutdigressingintothemoregeneralhistoryofthecontroversiesconcerningthem.

III. It has been contended, very frequently, and very confidently, thatCalvin did not sanction the views which have been generally held byCalvinisticdivines,inregardtotheextentoftheatonement,-thathedidnotbelieve in thedoctrineofparticular redemption, that is, thatChristdidnotdieforallmen,butonlyfortheelect,forthosewhoareactuallysaved, -but that,onthecontrary,heassertedauniversal,unlimited,orindefinite atonement. Amyraut, in defending his doctrine of universalatonement in combination with Calvinistic views upon other points,appealedconfidently to theauthorityofCalvin;and, indeed,hewroteatreatise entitled, “Eschantillon de la Doctrine de Calvin touchant laPraedestination,” chiefly for the purpose of showing that Calvinsupported his views about the extent of the atonement, and was in allrespectsaverymoderateCalvinist.Daillee, inhis“ApologiaproduabusSynodis,” which is a very elaborate defence, in reply to Spanheim, ofAmyraut’s views about universal grace and universal atonement, fillsabovefortypageswithextractsfromCalvinastestimoniesinhisfavour.Indeed,thewholeofthelastportionofthisworkofDaillee,consistingofnearly five hundred pages, is occupied with extracts, produced astestimonies in favour of universal grace anduniversal atonement, fromalmosteveryeminentwriter,fromClemensRomanusdowntothemiddleof the seventeenth century; and we doubt if the whole history oftheological controversy furnishes a stronger case of the adduction ofirrelevantandinconclusivematerials.ItwaschieflythesurveyofthisvastcollectionoftestimoniesthatsuggestedtoustheobservationswhichwehavelaidbeforeourreadersinourdiscussionoftheviewsofMelancthon.

ItiscertainthatBezaheldthedoctrineofparticularredemption,orofalimited atonement, as it has since been held by most Calvinists, andbroughtitoutfullyinhiscontroversieswiththeLutheransonthesubjectof predestination; though hewas not, as has sometimes been asserted,thefirstwhomaintainedit.IthasbeenconfidentlyallegedthatCalvindidnot concur in this view, but held the opposite doctrine of universal

redemptionandunlimitedatonement.NowitistruethatwedonotfindinCalvin’swritingsexplicitstatementsastoany limitationintheobjectoftheatonement,orinthenumberofthoseforwhomChristdied;andnoCalvinist, not even Dr Twisse, the great champion of highSupralapsarianism,haseverdeniedthatthereisasenseinwhichitmaybeaffirmedthatChristdiedforallmen.Butwethinkitislikewisetrue,thatno sufficient evidencehasbeenproduced thatCalvinbelieved in auniversalorunlimitedatonement.OfallthepassagesinCalvin’swritings,bearingmoreor less directly upon this subject,whichwe remember tohavereadorhaveseenproducedoneitherside,thereisonlyonewhich,withanythinglikeconfidence,canberegardedasformallyandexplicitlydenyinganunlimitedatonement;andnotwithstandingallthepainsthathavebeentakentobringouttheviewsofCalvinuponthisquestion,wedo not recollect to have seen it adverted to except by a single Popishwriter.Itoccursinhistreatise“DeveraparticipationeChristi incoena,”in reply to Heshusius, a violent Lutheran defender of the corporalpresence of Christ in theEucharist. The passage is this - u Scire velimquomodo Christi carnem edant impii pro quibus non est crucifixa, etquomodo sanguinem bibant qui expiandis eorum peccatis non esteffusus.”Thisisaveryexplicitdenialoftheuniversalityoftheatonement.Butitstandsalone-sofarasweknow-inCalvin’swritings,andforthisreasonwedonotfoundmuchuponit;thoughatthesametimewemustobserve,thatitisnoteasytounderstandhow,ifCalvinreallybelievedinauniversalatonement for thehumanrace, sucha statementcouldeverhave dropped from him. We admit, however, that he has not usuallygivenanydistinct indicationthathebelieved inany limitationas to theobjects of the atonement; and that, upon a survey of all that has beenproduced from his waitings, there is fair ground for a difference ofopinionastowhathisdoctrineuponthispointreallywas.Thetruth is,that no satisfactory evidence has been or can be derived from hiswritings, that the precise question upon the extent of the atonementwhichhasbeenmootedinmoremoderntimes,intheonlysenseinwhichitcanbecomeaquestionamongmenwhoconcurinholdingthedoctrineof unconditional personal election to everlasting life, ever exercisedCalvin’smind,orwasmadebyhimthesubjectofanyformalorexplicitdeliverance. The topic was not then formally discussed as a distinctsubjectofcontroversy;andCalvindoesnotseemtohavebeeneverled,in

discussingcognatequestions,totakeupthisoneandtogiveadeliveranceregarding it. We believe that no sufficient evidence has been broughtforward that Calvin held that Christ died for allmen, or for thewholeworld, inanysuchsenseastowarrantCalvinisticuniversalists- that is,men who, though holding Calvinistic doctrines upon other points, yetbelieve in a universal or unlimited atonement - in asserting that hesanctionedtheirpeculiarprinciples.

It is true thatCalvinhas intimatedmore thanoncehis conviction, thatthe position laid down by some of the schoolmen, viz. that Christ died“sufficienterproomnibus,efficaciterproelectis,”issoundandorthodoxinsomesense.Butthenhehasnever,sofaraswerememberorhaveseenproved,explainedpreciselyinwhatsenseheheldit,andthereisasenseinwhich the advocatesofparticular redemption can consistently admitandadoptit.Itistruealso,thatCalvinhasoftendeclared,thattheoffersand invitations of the gospel are addressed by God, and should beaddressed by us, indiscriminately to all men, without distinction orexception;andthattheprincipalandproximatecausewhymentowhomthe gospel is preached finally perish, is their own sin and unbelief inputtingawayfromthemthewordof life.Buttheseareprincipleswhichtheadvocatesofparticularredemptionbelievetobetrue,andtobevitallyimportant;andwhichtheyneverhesitatetoapplyandtoactupon.It isquitefairtoattempttodeduceanargumentinfavourofthedoctrineofauniversal atonement from the alleged impossibility of reconciling thedoctrineofanatonement,limitedastoitsobjectsordestinationinGod’spurpose or intention, with the universal or unlimited offers andinvitations of the gospel, or with the ascription of men’s finalcondemnationtotheirownsinandunbelief.Butasthegeneralityoftheadvocatesofalimitedatonementdenythattheinconsistencyofthesetwothings, or the impossibility of reconciling them, can be proved, andprofess toholdboth, it isquiteunwarrantable to infer, inregardtoanyparticularindividual,thatbecauseheheldtheone,hemustbepresumedto have rejected the other. And there is certainly nothing in Calvin’sgeneral character and principles, or in anything he has written, whichaffords ground for the conclusion, that the alleged impossibility ofreconciling these two things would, had he been led to investigate thematter formally, have perplexed him much, or have tempted him to

embrace the doctrine of universal atonement, which is certainlysomewhatalien,tosaytheleast, initsgeneralspiritandcomplexion,tothe leading featuresofhis theological system.And this consideration isentitled to the more weight for this reason, that this difficulty is notgreater than some others with which he did grapple, and which hedisposedofinadifferentandmorescripturalway,-orrather,isjustthevery samedifficulty, put in adifferent form, andplaced in a somewhatdifferentposition.

There is not, then, we are persuaded, satisfactory evidence that Calvinheldthedoctrineofauniversal,unlimited,orindefiniteatonement.And,moreover, we consider ourselves warranted in asserting, that there issufficient evidence that he did not hold this doctrine; though on thegroundsformerlyexplained,andwiththeoneexceptionalreadyadvertedto, it is not evidence which bears directly and immediately upon thisprecisepoint.Theevidenceofthispositionisderivedchieflyfromthetwofollowingconsiderations:-.

lst,Calvinconsistently,unhesitatingly,andexplicitlydeniedthedoctrineofGod’suniversalgraceandlovetoallmen,-thatis,omnibusetsingulis,toeachandeveryman,-asimplyinginsomesenseadesireorpurposeorintentiontosavethemall;andwiththisuniversalgraceorlovetoallmenthedoctrineofauniversalorunlimitedatonement, in thenatureof thecase,andintheconvictionsandadmissionsofall itssupporters,standsinseparablyconnected.ThatCalvindeniedthedoctrineofGod’suniversalgraceor love toallmen,as implying somedesireor intentionof savingthemall,andsomeprovisiondirectedtothatobject,istooevidenttoanyonewhohasreadhiswritings,toadmitofdoubtortorequireproof.Wearenotaware that thedoctrineof auniversal atonementeverhasbeenmaintained,evenbymenwhow£re inotherrespectsCalvinistic,exceptin conjunction and in connection with an assertion of God’s universalgraceorlovetoallmen.Anditismanifestlyimpossiblethatitshouldbeotherwise.IfChristdiedforallmen,-proomnibusetsingulis,-thismusthave been in some sense an expression or indication of a desire orintentiononthepartofGod,andofaprovisionmadebyHim,directedtothe object of saving them all, though frustrated in its effect, by theirrefusal to embrace the provision made for and offered to them. A

universalatonement,orthedeathofChristforallmen,-thatis,foreachandeveryman,-necessarilyimpliesthis,andwouldbeananomalyinthedivinegovernmentwithoutit.Nodoubtitmaybesaidthatthedoctrineofauniversalatonementnecessitates,inlogicalconsistency,adenialoftheCalvinisticdoctrineofelection,asmuchasitnecessitatesanadmissionofGod’suniversalgraceor love toallmen;andwebelieve this tobe true.But still, when we find that, in point of fact, none has ever held thedoctrine of universal atonement without holding also the doctrine ofuniversalgrace,-whileitiscertainthatsomemenofdistinguishedabilityand learning, such asAmyraut andDaillee,Davenant andBaxter, haveheld both these doctrines of universal atonement and universal grace,andatthesametimehaveheldtheCalvinisticdoctrineofelection,-wearesurelycalleduponinfairnessandmodestytoadmit,thatthelogicalconnectioncannotbequitesodirectandcertainintheonecaseasintheother.Andthenthisconclusionwarrantsusinmaintaining,thatthefactof Calvin so explicitly denying the doctrine of God’s universal grace orlove to all men, affords a more direct and certain ground for theinference,thathedidnotholdthedoctrineofuniversalatonement,thancould be legitimately deduced from the mere fact, that he held thedoctrine of unconditional personal election to everlasting life. Theinvalidity of the inferential process in the one case is not sufficient toestablish its invalidity in the other; and therefore our argument holdsgood.

2d, The other consideration to which we referred, as affording somepositiveevidence,thoughnotdirectandexplicit,thatCalvindidnotholdthedoctrine of auniversal atonement, is this, - that hehas interpretedsomeoftheprincipaltextsonwhichtheadvocatesofthatdoctrinerestit,insuchawayastodeprivethemofallcapacityofservingthepurposetowhich its supporters commonly apply them. If this position can beestablished,itwillfurnishsomethingmorethanapresumption,andwillalmostamounttoaproof,thathedidnotholdthedoctrineinquestion.As this point is curious and interesting,wemay adduce an instance ortwoinsupportofourallegation.Incommentingupon1Tim.in.4,“Whowillhaveallmentobesaved,andtocometotheknowledgeofthetruth,”Calvinsays:“Apostolussimpliciter intelligitnullummunchvelpopulumvelordinemasalute excluch,quiaomnibus sineexceptioneevangelium

proponiDeusvelit.Estautemevangeliiprsedicatiovivifica,meritoitaquecolligit Deum omnes pariter salutis participatione dignare. At dehominum generibus, non singulis personis, sermo est; nihil enim aliudin-tenditquamprincipesetextraneospopulosinhocnumeroinclu-dere.”Again,incommentingupon1Johnin.2,“AndHeisthepropitiationforoursins,andnot foroursonly,but for thesinsof thewholeworld,”hesays: “Qui hanc absurditatem (universal salvation) volebant effugere,dixerunt sufficientur pro toto mundo passum esse Christum, sed proelectis tantum efficaciter. Yulgo hsec solutio in scholis obtinuit. Egoquanquam verum esse illud dictum fateor, nego tamen prsesenti locequadrare.Neque enim aliud fuit consilium Joannis quam toti ecclesisecommune facere hoc bonum. Ergo sub omnibus reprobos noncomprehendit,sedeosdesignatquisimulcrediturierant,etquipervariasmunch plagas dispersi erant.” He gives the very same explanation ofthese two passages in his treatise on “Predestination.” Now this is insubstance just the interpretation commonly given of these and similartexts by the advocates of the doctrine of particular redemption; and itseemsscarcelypossiblethatitshouldhavebeenadoptedbyonewhodidnotholdthatdoctrine,orwhobelievedinthetruthoftheoppositeone.

Letitbeobserved,thatourobjectisnottoshowthatwearewarrantedinadducingtheauthorityofthegreatnameofCalvinasapositivetestimonyin favour of the doctrine of particular redemption, - of a limitedatonement, - as it has been generally held by Calvinistic divines; butrathertoshowthatthereisnoadequategroundforadducinghim,ashasbeendonesofrequentlyandsoconfidently,ontheotherside.ToadduceCalvin as maintaining the doctrine of particular redemption, couldscarcely,uponafullandimpartialsurveyof thewholecircumstancesofthecase,beregardedaswarrantable.Itisevidentthathehadneverbeenled to examine this precise question, in the form which it afterwardsassumed in controversialdiscussion, and togiveanexplicitdeliveranceuponit.Heseemstohaveattachedlittleornoimportancetoanydefinitedoctrine about the extent of the atonement. In his “Antidote” to theearliersessionsoftheCouncilofTrent,hepassesbywithoutcommentoranimadversion the fourth chapter of the sixth session, although itcontainsanexplicitdeclarationthatChristdiedfor.allmen;andhedoesthis not tacitly, as if per incuriam, but with the explicit statement,

“tertiumetquartumcaputnonattingo,”-asifhefoundnothingtheretoobject to.Hewas innowaysensitiveor cautiousaboutusing language,concerning the universality of the offers and invitations, or - in thephraseologywhichthengenerallyprevailed-thepromisesofthegospel,and concerning the provisions and arrangements of the scheme ofredemption,whichmighthavetheappearanceofbeinginconsistentwithany limitation in the objects or destination of the atonement. And it ischiefly because the great body of those who have been called after hisname - even those of themwho have held the doctrine of a definite orlimitedatonement-havefollowedhisexampleinthisrespect,believingittohavethefullsanctionofScripture,thatDailleeandothershavegotupsuchamassoftestimoniesfromtheirwritings,inwhichtheyseemtogivesome countenance to the tenet of universal redemption, even at theexpense of consistency. But this is no reason why Calvinists shouldhesitate to follow the course, which Scripture so plainly sanctions andrequires, of proclaiming the glad tidings of salvation to all menindiscriminately without any distinction or exception, setting forth,withouthesitationorqualification,thefulnessandfreenessofthegospeloffers and invitations, - of inviting, encouraging, and requiring everydescendantofAdamwithwhomtheycomeintocontact,tocometoChristandlayholdofHim,withtheassurancethatthosewhocometoHimHewill in no wise reject. The doctrine of particular redemption, or of anatonementlimited,notastoitssufficiency,butastoitsobject,purpose,or destination, does not, either in reality or in appearance, throw anygreaterobstacleinthewayofpreachingthegospeltoeverycreature,thanthe doctrines which all Calvinists hold, of the absolute unconditionalelection of somemen to eternal life, and of the indispensable necessityand determining influence of the special agency of the Holy Spirit inproducingfaithandconversion.Thedifficultyofthiswholesubjectliesinadepartmentwhichbelongs toGod’sprovince,andnot toours.HehasimposeduponusthedutyofmakingChristknowntoourfellow-men,notonlyasable,butaswilling.andready,tosaveuntotheuttermostallthatcomeuntoGodbyHim;andthisdutyweareboundbythemostsolemnobligations to discharge, without let or hindrance, without doubt orhesitation; assured that God, while exercising His own sovereignty indealingwithHiscreatures,will,inHisowntimeandway,fullyvindicatetheconsistencyandthehonourofallthatHehasdoneHimself,andofall

thatHehasrequiredustodoinHisname.

IV.Theonlyothertopictowhichwereferred,-asoneinregardtowhichit has been made matter of discussion what Calvin’s views were, andwhetherhedidnotcomeshortoftheaccuracyandprecisionexhibitedbyBeza, and the generality of later Calvinists, - is the doctrine ofjustification. SomeArminianshave gone so far as to allege, thatCalvinheldtheirfundamentaldistinguishingprincipleuponthissubject,-that,viz.,oftheimputationoffaithasasubstitutefor,orintheroomandsteadof, a perfect personal righteousness, as the ground of a sinner’sforgiveness;indistinctionfrom,andinoppositionto,thedoctrineoftheimputationofChrist’srighteousnessthroughtheinstrumentalityoffaith.Butnoevidencehasbeenproduced fromhiswritings insupportof thisallegation, sufficient to entitle it to examination. It has also, however,beenalleged,andwithmuchgreaterplausibility,thatheheldjustificationtoconsistsolelyinpardonorremissionofsin,withoutincludinginit,asthegeneralityofCalvinistshavedone,thedistinctadditionalideaoftheacceptanceofmenas righteous; and that, as anatural consequence,hedidnotadmit thedistinction -whichhasalsobeenheldbymost ofhisfollowers-betweenthepassiverighteousnessofChrist,orHisvicarioussufferings,asmoreimmediatelythegroundofourpardon,andHisactiverighteousness,orperfectobediencetothelaw,asmoreimmediatelythegroundofouracceptanceandtitletoheaven.Withrespecttothefirstofthesepoints,-viz.hismakingjustificationtoconsistsolelyinpardonorremission, - it isundeniable thathehas repeatedlymade statements inwhichthisisassertedinterminis.Butthemeaningandbearingofthesestatementshavebeensomewhatmisconceived,fromnotattendingtotheleadingobjectwhichhehadinviewinmakingthem,andtotheimportofthe tenetagainstwhichhewasarguing.Hischiefobject in layingdownthisposition,wastodenyandexcludethePopishdoctrineofjustification,whichmakes it comprehend not only remission, but also regeneration.Andthesumandsubstanceofwhathemeanttoinculcate,inlayingdowntheposition that justificationconsistedonly in remission,was just this,that it did not comprehend, as the Papists maintained, a change ofcharacter,butmerelyachangeofstateinrelationtoGodandtoHislaw.That he did not mean to deny, and that he really believed, thatjustificationincludedacceptanceasadistinctelementfromforgiveness,-

separablefromit in thought, thoughalwaysunitedwith it in fact, -andthathebasedtheoneaswellastheothersolelyupontherighteousnessofChrist imputed through faith, can be clearly established from hiswritings. Indeed, this may be said to be put beyond all doubt by thefollowingveryexplicitcommentaryupontheapostle’sstatement,that66Christ is made unto us righteousness,” or justification: “quo intelligit(apostolus)nos ejusnomineacceptos esseDeo,quiamorte suapeccatanostra expiaverit, et ejus obedientia nobis in justitiam imputetur.Namquum fidei justitia in peccatorum remissione et gratuita acceptioneconsistat, utrumque per Christum consequimur.” This statement is fartoopreciseandexplicittoadmitofbeingexplainedaway,anditisquiteconclusive as to what were Calvin’s views upon the point now underconsideration.

It may be worth while to advert to another expression which Calvinsometimes used when treating of this subject, - an expression whichconfirmstheaccuracyoftheaccountwehavegivenofhissentiments,butwhich in itself is not strictly correct, as was indeed brought out in thecourse of the subsequent controversies. Calvin repeatedly speaks ofjustificationasconsistingintheremissionofsinsandtheimputationofChrist’s righteousness.Therecanbenoreasonabledoubt that,whenheused this form of expression, he meant by the imputation of Christ’srighteousness justacceptance,orpositiveadmission into theenjoymentof God’s favour, - the bestowal of a right or title to eternal life, asdistinguished from and going beyond mere forgiveness. In any othersense, and, indeed, in the strict andpropermeaning of the expression,the statement is inaccurate. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness,correctly understood, is to be regarded as, in the order of nature,preceding both remission and acceptance, and as being the ground orbasis,orthemeritoriousorimpulsivecauseofthesetworesults-thattowhichGodhasarespectwheninanyinstanceHepardonsandacceptsasinner.

AstothedistinctionbetweenthepassiveandtheactiverighteousnessofChrist, - the first regarded as more immediately the ground of ourpardon, and the secondof our acceptance, - this doesnot appear tobeformallybroughtoutinthewritingsofCalvin.Itistobetracedratherto

the more minute and subtle speculations to which the doctrine ofjustificationwasafterwardssubjected;andthoughthedistinctionisquiteinaccordancewiththeanalogyoffaith,andmaybeofuse inaidingtheformation of distinct and definite conceptions, it is not of any greatpractical importance, and need not be much pressed or insisted on, ifmen heartily and intelligently ascribe their forgiveness and acceptancewholly towhatChrist hasdone and suffered in their room and stead. 'There isnoground inanythingCalvinhaswrittenforasserting, thathewouldhavedeniedorrejectedthisdistinction,ifithadbeenpresentedtohim. But it was perhaps more in accordance with the cautious andreverential spirit in which he usually conducted his investigations intodivine things, to abstain from any minute and definite statementsregarding it. Much prominence came to be given to these distinctionsbetween forgiveness and acceptance, and between Christ’s passive andactive righteousness, in the Lutheran Church; and it is interesting tonotice,thatdowntillaboutthemiddleoflastcentury,-wheneverythinglikesounddoctrineandtruereligionweresweptawaybytheprevalenceof rationalism, - not only these distinctions, but the whole of thescriptural doctrine on the subject of justification, were strenuouslymaintained by the Lutheran theologians. Very few Calvinistic divineshaverejectedthedistinctionbetweenforgivenessandacceptance,thoughmany have been disposed to pass over or omit the distinction betweenChrist’s passive and active righteousness. Themost eminent Calvinisticdivines,whohavemaintainedthatjustificationconsistsonlyinremissionof sins, - thus denying or ignoring the generally received distinctionbetween forgiveness and acceptance, and rejecting the imputation ofChrist’sactiverighteousness,-werePiscatorandWendelinus,whobothbelonged to the German Reformed Church, the former of whomflourished near the beginning, and the latter about the middle of theseventeenthcentury.Thegeneral reasoningsonwhich thesemenbasedtheir peculiar views are of no force, except upon the assumption ofprinciples which would overturn altogether the Scripture doctrines ofsubstitution and imputation. The question resolves into this -WhetherwehavesufficientevidenceinScriptureforthesedistinctions?Andinthediscussion of this question it has, we think, been shown that thescripturalevidenceissufficient;andthatthosewhodenythis,demandanamount of evidence, both in point of quantity and of directness and

explicitness,whichisunreasonable.

Butmany eminent divines have been of opinion that the controversieswhich have been carried on upon this subject, have led some of thedefendersofthetruthtopressthesedistinctions-especiallythatbetweenChrist’s passive and active righteousness - beyond what Scripturewarrants,andinawaythatisscarcelyinkeepingwiththegeneralscopeandspiritof itsstatements.Thereisnotraceofthisexcess,however,intheadmirablycautiousandaccuratedeclarationsuponthissubjectintheWestminster Confession; where, while pardon and acceptance areexpressly distinguished as separate elements in the justification of asinner, they are both ascribed, equally and alike, to the obedience anddeath of Christ, without any specification of the distinct places orfunctionswhichHispassiveandactiverighteousnessholdinthematter.

“Those whom God effectually calleth He also freely justifieth; not byinfusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and byaccounting and accepting then’ persons as righteous; not for anythingwrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not byimputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelicalobediencetothemastheirrighteousness,butbyimputingtheobedienceandsatisfactionofChristuntothem,theyreceivingandrestingonHimandHisrighteousnessbyfaith,whichfaiththeyhavenotofthemselves,itisthegiftofGod.”

This statement contains a beautifully precise and exact repudiation ofPopishandArminianerrors,andassertionof theopposite truths,uponthe subject of justification; but it wisely abstains from giving anydeliverance, directly or by implication, upon thosemoreminute pointswhicharelessclearlyindicatedinScripture,andhavebeenmadesubjectsof controversial discussion among Calvinists. The same wisdom andcaution are exhibited in dealing with this topic in the correspondingportions of the catechisms. In the Larger Catechism, pardon andacceptancearebothbased,equallyandalike,upon“theperfectobedienceandfullsatisfactionofChrist;”andintheShorterCatechism,whiletheyarestilldistinguishedfromeachother,theyarebothdeclaredtobebasedupon “the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us and received by faithalone.” The danger of yielding to any excess, or undue minuteness, of

exposition upon this subject, and at the same time the necessity andimportanceofmaintainingthewholetruthregardingit,assanctionedbyScripture,areveryclearlyandjudiciouslyenforcedbyTurretine,withhisusualmasterlyability.

The general subjectwhichwehave been surveyingmight suggest somereflections fittedtobeuseful in thestudyof theologyandof theologicalliterature, bearing especially upon the two topics - of the use andapplication of testimonies from eminent writers as authorities uponcontroverted questions, and the value and importance of definite andprecise statements in the exposition of the doctrines of Christiantheology.

Inalmostalltheologicalcontroversies,muchspacehasbeenoccupiedbythe discussion of extracts from books and documents, adduced asauthoritiesinsupportoftheopinionsmaintained;andthere iscertainlyno department of theological literature in which so much ability andlearning, somuch time and strength, havebeenuselesslywasted, or inwhich so much of controversial unfairness has been exhibited.Controversialistsingeneralhaveshownanintenseandirresistibledesiretoprove, that theirpeculiaropinionsweresupportedby theFathers,orbytheReformers,orbythegreatdivinesof theirownchurch;andhaveoftenexhibitedagreatwantbothofwisdomandofcandourintheeffortsthey have made to effect this object. It is indeed very important toascertain,asfaraspossible,thedoctrinalviewswhichhaveprevailed inevery countrywhere theology has been studied, and in each successivegeneration since the canon of Scripture was completed. And it is agratifyingfeatureintheconditionof thechurch, thatsomuchattentionhasbeengiveninmoderntimes-especiallyontheContinent-tothefullandscientifictreatmentofthehistoryofdoctrines.Thehistoryofopinioncan always be turned, by competent persons, to good account in theinvestigationoftruth.Itisimportantalsotoascertainfullytheviewsheldeven by individuals, who have exerted an important influence on theirownandsubsequentages,-epoch-makingmenastheyhavebeencalled,-suchasOrigen,Augustine,Abelard,Aquinas,Luther,Calvin,Arminius,and Socinus. Some deference is due to the opinions of men who havebroughtdistinguishedgiftsandgraces tobearon thestudyof theology.

Butnodeferencethatmaybeshowntotheopinionsofmen,shouldeverbe transmuted into submission to authority, properly so called; as if itever could be of essential importance, or of determining influence, toascertainwhatothermenbelievedonmatterswhicharerevealedtousinGod’s word. No document has ever been prepared by uninspiredmen,whichdidnot exhibit some traces ofhuman imperfection, - not indeedalways in actual positive error, yet in something about it defective orexaggerated, disproportionate or unsuitable, - exhibited either in thedocumentitself,orinitsrelationtothepurposeitwasintendedtoserve.There is no man who has written much upon important and difficultsubjects,andhasnotfallenoccasionallyintoerror,confusion,obscurity,and inconsistency;andthere iscertainlynobodyofmenthathaveeverbeen appealed to as authorities, in whose writings a largermeasure ofthesequalitiesistobefoundthaninthoseoftheFathersoftheChristianchurch.Wehaveneverreadanythingmorewearisomeanduselessthanthe discussions which have been carried on between Romanists andProtestants,especiallydivinesof theChurchofEngland,concerningtheopinionsoftheFathersoftheearlyages.Neverhaveabilityandlearningbeenmorethoroughlywasted,thaninthoseendlessdebates,inwhichsomuchpainshavebeentakentobringoutthemeaningofpassagesintheFathers, which really have no meaning, or no meaning that can beascertained,-whichinmanycasestheirauthors, if theycouldbe calledup and examined, would be unable to explain intelligibly; and toharmonizetheconfusionandreconciletheinconsistencieswhichaboundin theirworks. Itwas right and important indeed to show conclusivelyandonce forall, that theRomanistsarenotwarranted toappeal to theearly church, in support of their leading peculiar opinions; and theconclusiveevidencewhichhasbeenproducedinproofofthisposition,itmay be necessary occasionally to refer to. But beyond this, elaboratediscussionsofthemeaningofparticularpassagesintheFathers,shouldin general be now regarded as nothing better than learned lumber.Occasions indeed do sometimes occur in theological literature wheresomethingofthiskindmaybecalledfor.Andwethinkthattherewasadignusvindicenodus,andthatanimportantservicewasrenderedtothecause of truth, when Dr Goode, the Dean of Ripon, undertook andenduredthelaborimprobusofproving-ashehasdoneunanswerably,inhis“DivineRuleofFaithandPractice”-thattheTractarianappealtothe

authority of the Fathers, and also of the great Anglican divines, wascharacterized by the same incompetency and unfairness which haveusuallymarkedtheconductofRomishcontroversialists.

Inadducingextracts fromeminentwriters in supportof theiropinions,controversialists usually overlook or forget the obvious consideration,thatitisonlythematureanddeliberateconvictionofacompetentjudgeupon the precise point under consideration that should be held asentitled to any deference.Whenmen have never, or scarcely ever, hadpresent to their thoughts theprecisequestionthatmayhaveafterwardsbecomematterofdispute,-whentheyhaveneverdeliberatelyexaminedit,orgivenaformalandexplicitdeliveranceregardingit,--itwillusuallyfollow', lst, That it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertainwhat theythought about it, - to collect this from incidental statements, or mereallusions,droppedwhentheyweretreatingofothertopics;and2d,Thattheiropinionaboutit,ifitcouldbeascertained,wouldbeofnoweightorvalue. A large portion of the materials which have been collected bycontroversialistsastestimoniesinfavouroftheiropinionsfromeminentwriters,isatoncesweptawayasuselessandirrelevant,bytheapplicationof this principle. The truth of this principle is so obvious, that it haspassed into a sort of proverb, - “auctoris aliud agentis parva estauctoritas.” And yet controversialists in general have continuedhabitually todisregard it, and towaste their time in trying tobring theauthorityofeminentwriterstobearuponquestionswhichtheyhadneverexamined; and have not scrupled, in many cases, to have recourse togarblingandmutilation,inordereithertosilencetestimoniesortomakethemspeakmoreplainly.TheopinionevenofCalvin,uponapointwhichhehadnever carefully examined, andonwhichhehas givenno formaldeliverance, is of no weight or value, and would scarcely be worthexamining;wereitnotthatsomuchhasbeenwrittenuponthissubject,and thathis viewsuponmanypointshavebeen, and still are, somuchmisrepresented.

Indealingwithauthorities,then,itisnecessarytoascertainwhethertheauthors referred to and quoted have really formed and expressed anopinionuponthepointinregardtowhichtheirtestimonyisadduced.Itis necessary further to collect together, and to examine carefully and

deliberately,thewholeofwhattheyhavewrittenuponthesubjectunderconsideration, that wemay understand fully and accurately what theirwholemindregarding it reallywas, insteadof trying to educe it fromahastyglanceatpartialandincidentalstatements.Andinordertoconductthisprocessofestimatingandapplyingtestimoniesinasatisfactoryandsuccessfulway, it is also necessary that we be familiar with the wholeimportandbearingof thediscussiononbothsides,as itwaspresenttothemindof theauthorwhose statementsweare investigating.Withoutthisknowledge,weshallbeveryapt tomisapprehendthe truemeaningand significance of what he has said, and to make it the ground ofunwarrantedanderroneousinferences.Wehaveseenhownecessaryitis,in order to understand and construe aright Calvin’s statements aboutimputation and justification, to know in what way these subjects werediscussed at the time among Romanists as well as among Protestants;andmanyotherillustrationsofthenecessityofathoroughacquaintancewiththewholequestioninall itsaspects,andoftheerrorsarisingfromthe want of it, might easily be adduced from this department oftheological controversy. Tomanage aright thismatter of the adductionand application of testimonies or authorities, requires an extent ofknowledge, a patience and caution in comparing and estimatingmaterials, and an amount of candour and tact, which fewcontroversialists possess, and in which many of them are deplorablydeficient.This isnot indeedadepartmentof investigationwhichcanberegardedaspossessedof anygreat intrinsic importance,with a view totheestablishmentoftruth.Butithasalwaysoccupied,andit is likelytocontinuetooccupy,aprominentplace intheological literature;andit isthereforeof some consequence that it should be conducted judiciously,accurately,andhonourably.

Muchmoreimportantthanthissubjectofauthoritiesandtestimonies,istheothertopicsuggestedbythesurveyinwhichwehavebeenengaged,viz. the increasing fullness, exactness, and precision of deliverances ondoctrinal matters, as the result of controversial discussion. The greatlessons suggested by the investigation inwhichwe have been engaged,andsuggested indeedby thewholehistory of thediscussionof all suchquestions, are, 1st, The obligation to improve the controversies whichhave sprung up in the church, for aiding in the formation of clear and

accurate, precise and definite, opinions upon all topics of doctrinaltheology,uptothefullextentwhichScripture,correctlyinterpretedandreasonably and judiciously applied,may be fairly held to sanction; 2d,The danger and mischief of laying down explicit deliverances, andindulging in elaborate controversies, about minuter matters which arenotrevealedtous,andwhichScripturereallyfurnishesnomaterialsfordetermining;and3d,Thenecessityofgreatcautionandmuchwisdominintroducing into symbolical books, and thereby imposing as articles offaithortermsofcommunion,eventruepositionsofaminuteanddefinitedescription, which may possess no great intrinsic importance asconnectedwiththedevelopmentoftheschemeofsalvation,orwhichmayderive their importance from temporary or local discussions. These, ofcourse,arejusttruismsadmittedbyeveryone.Everythingdependsuponthe right application of them to particular cases and topics; and thisrequires thorough and comprehensive knowledge, great soundness anddiscriminationofintellect,andmuchcarefulanddeliberateinvestigation,- qualities which are very rare, and which especially are very seldomfoundincombinationwitheachother.

In regard to each of these three positions, there are temptations anddangersonbothsides,-greatrisksbothofdefectandofexcess;andonechief means fitted, with the divine blessing, to guard against error inthesematters,bothontherighthandandontheleft,isacomprehensivesurvey of the history of past discussions, and a sincere and impartialdetermination to turn it to the best account, with a view to theascertaining of truth and the determining of the church’s duty. It is animperative obligation, attaching to every man, according to his meansand opportunities, to acquire as accurate and complete a knowledge ofthecontentsofdivinerevelationashecan.AndnexttothediligentandprayerfulstudyofthewordofGoditself,intheunweariedandimpartialapplication of all legitimate apparatus and auxiliaries, a comprehensiveand discriminating investigation of past discussions, conducted bycompetent parties, affords the bestmeans of discharging this duty andsecuringthisresult.Wherevermenofability,learning,andintegrity,havebroughttheirmindstobearupontheinvestigationofdivinetruth,-andespeciallywhen,bythecollisionofmenofthisstamp,thesiftinganalyticprocess of controversial discussions has been brought to bear upon the

subjectsexamined,-materialsareprovided,which,bymenwhohavenotthemselvesbeeninvolvedinthecontroversies,maybeturnedtothebestaccount, in forming an accurate estimate, first, of the truth, and then,secondlyandseparately,of the importance,of thepoints involved.Menareboundtoimprovetotheuttermostalltheiropportunitiesofacquiringthemostclear,accurate,andexactknowledgeofallthetruthsrevealedinthesacredScriptures;andsomemen, inseeking todischarge thisduty,havebeenhonouredby theHeadof the church to contribute largely todiffuse among their fellow-men more correct, definite, andcomprehensiveviewsofChristiandoctrinethanhadprevailedbefore,andtoshowthattheseviewswereindeedsanctionedbythewordofGod.

The men who have been most highly honoured in this importantdepartmentofwork,wereAugustineinthefifthcentury,-theReformersofthesixteenthcentury,andespeciallyCalvin,thegreatestofthemall,-and lastly, the great Calvinistic systematic divines of the seventeenthcentury. The works of this last class of writers - such men as FrancisTurretine, John Henry Heidegger, Herman Witsius, and Peter YanMastricht-arebasedwhollyuponthetheologyof theReformation;buttheycarryitouttoitscompletion,andmaybesaidtoformthecrownandthe cope-stone of theological science, viewed as an accurate,comprehensive, and systematic exposition and defence of the doctrinesrevealed in theword ofGod.We believe that thesemen have given anexposition of the doctrines which aremade known to us in the sacredScriptures, and which all men are bound to understand and believe,becauseGodhasrevealedthem,suchasinpointofclearnessandfullness,accuracy and comprehensiveness, was never before equalled, and hasneversincebeensurpassed.Inthewritingsofthesemen,andofothersofthesameclassandperiod,wefindthatalmosteverydiscussionraisedforthelastcenturyandahalfaboutthesubstanceoftheology-thatis,aboutthe doctrines actually taught in Scripture concerning all matters ofuniversal and permanent importance, concerningGod andman, Christand thewayof salvation, thechurchand the sacraments - isdealtwithanddisposedof, - ispracticallyexhaustedandconclusivelydetermined.But it does not by any means follow from this, that the precise anddefinite statements, on doctrinal subjects, which the writings of thesemenpresent-althoughtrueinthemselvesandwarrantedbyScripture,as

in general we believe them to be - should be embodied in symbolicalbooks, and be thereby made terms of communion with a view toordination to theministry, and grounds of separation among churches.Thedutyofa church in settlingher symbols,orarrangingher termsofcommunion, is tobe regulatedbydifferentprinciples fromthosewhichdeterminethedutyofindividuals,whoaresimplyboundtoacquireandtoprofessasmuchofaccurateanddistinctknowledgeoftruthastheycanattain to, on all matters, whether important or not. When a church isarranginghertermsofcommunion,otherconsiderations, inadditiontothatof themere truthof thestatements,mustbebrought tobearuponthequestion,ofwhatitisright,necessary,andexpedienttodo,orofwhatamount of unity in matters of opinion ought to be required. Theprinciplesapplicabletothisbranchofthechurch’sdutyhaveneverbeensubjectedtoathoroughdiscussionbycompetentparties,thoughtheyarevery important in their bearings; and the right application of them isattended with great difficulty. Calvin would probably have made adifficulty about adopting precise and definite deliverances on somepoints,concerningthetruthofwhichthegreatCalvinisticdivinesoftheseventeenthcenturyhadnohesitation.But itwillprobablybeadmittedthathewasqualified for theofficeofaminister inaCalvinisticchurch,eveninthisadvancednineteenthcentury.

The great general objects to be aimed at in this matter, though theapplication is, of course, the difficulty, are embodied in the famousmaxim,whichWitsiusadoptedashis favouritemotto -u Innecessariisunitas,innonnecessariislibertas,inomnibuscaritas.”

CalvinismandArminianism

IthasoftenbeenallegedthatCalvinistsareverypugnacious,-everreadyto fight in defence of their peculiar opinions. But a survey of thetheological literature of this country for the last half century gives nocountenance to this impression. Much more has been published indefence of Arminianism than of Calvinism. Calvinists have scarcelyshownthezealandactivitythatmighthavebeenreasonablyexpectedofthem, either in repelling attacks that were made upon them, or inimproving advantages thatwere placedwithin their reach. In the earlypart of the century, indeed, the “Refutation of Calvinism,” by BishopTomline, was thoroughly refuted by Scott, the commentator, in his“Remarks” upon it, and by Dr Edward Williams, in his “Defence ofModern Calvinism.” But since that time, Copleston, Whately, StanleyFaber,andRichardWatson--menofdeservedlyhighreputation-haveallwrittenagainstCalvinism,andsomeofthemveryelaborately,whilenoanswertoanyofthemhasbeenproducedbyitsdefenders.WhatelyandRichardWatson-thefirstfromhissagacityandcandour,exercisedbothuponmattersofabstractreasoningandofphilologicalinvestigation,andthesecondfromthegeneralsoundnessofhisviewsuponoriginalsinandregeneration, sodifferent from thePelagianismof the schoolofWhitbyand Tomline - have made concessions, and thereby have affordedadvantages,toCalvinists,ofwhichtheyhavehithertofailed,sofaraswehave noticed, to make any public use. The concessions of Watson arenothingbutwhateveryonewhoholdsscripturalviewsofthemoralstateofhumannature,andoftheworkoftheHolySpiritinchangingit,mustmake; and such accordingly as have been made by all the moreevangelicalandanti-PelagianArminiansfromArminiusdownwards.ButhisattackuponCalvinism-formingtheconcludingportionofthesecondpartofhis“TheologicalInstitutes,”andpublishedalsoinasmallvolumeseparately,aswellasinthecollectededitionofhisworks-is,bothfromits great ability and from the large amount of scriptural anti-Pelagiantruthwhichitembodies,deservingofspecialattention.Ithasbeenthirtyyearsbeforetheworld,andithasnot,sofarasweknow,beenanswered.

DrWhately,ArchbishopofDublin,inhisEssayuponElection,-thethirdinthevolumeentitled“EssaysonsomeoftheDifficultiesintheWritingsof the Apostle Paul,” - has made some important concessions toCalvinists, both in regard to matters of abstract reasoning andphilologicalexposition,whichareeminentlycreditabletohissagacityandcandour, but which they do not seem as yet to have turned to muchaccount. There is reallymore of interest, and, in a sense, of somethinglikenovelty,intheseconcessionsofDrWhately,thaninalmostanythingthathasbeenproduceduponthesubjectofthisgreatcontroversyinthepresent day. There is indeed nothing like novelty in the statementsthemselves towhichwenowrefer.Theyexpressviewswhichhavebeenalways laid down and insisted on by the defenders of Calvinism. Theimportanceand thenoveltyare tobe foundonly in thecircumstanceoftheirbeingbroughtforwardbyonewhoisnotaCalvinist.DrWhately,inthe essay referred to, has admitted, in substance, that the argumentscommonly adduced against the Calvinistic doctrine of election, derivedfrom the moral attributes of God, apply as much to actual resultsoccurringunderGod’sprovidentialgovernment, - inotherwords,applyequallytothefactsoftheintroductionandpermanentexistenceofmoralevil; and that the term election, as used in Scripture, relates, in mostinstances,to“anarbitrary,irrespective,unconditionaldecree.”Thesearepositions which have been always asserted, and have been oftenconclusively proved, by Calvinists; but they have not usually beenadmittedbytheiropponents.Anditmayseem,at firstsight,difficult tounderstandhowanyonecouldadmitthem,andyetcontinuetorejectthedoctrinesofCalvinism.

We once had occasion to refer to these positions of DrWhately; and,regardinghimasanArminian,weventuredtoapplythatdesignationtohim,andtorepresentthesepositionsastheconcessionsofanopponent.DrWhately, itseems,doesnotbelieveoradmit thathe isanArminian,andtookoffenceatbeingsodesignated.Inthelasteditionofthevolumeabovereferredto,headvertstothismatterinthefollowingterms:-

“So widely spread are these two schemes of interpretation, that I haveknown a reviewer, very recently, allude to a certain author as ‘anArminian,’ though he had written and published his dissent from the

Arminian theory, and his reasons for it. The reviewer, on having thisblunderpointedout,apologizedbysayingthathehadmerelyconcludedhim to be an Arminian, because he was not Calvinist, and he hadsupposed that every one must be either the one or the other! It isremarkable that, by a converse error, the very same author had been,someyearsbefore,denouncedasCalvinistic,onthegroundthathewasnot Arminian.” Dr Whately has acted from misinformation ormisapprehension in saying that the reviewer to whom he refersapologized for the blunder of representing him as an Arminian. Thereviewerhasneverseenthattherewasanyblunderinthematter,andisprepared to assert and to prove, that, according to the ordinaryacknowledged rules applicable to such questions, Dr Whately may befairlycalledanArminian,whetherheperceivesandadmitsthatheissoor not; and that it is absurd to pretend, as he does, to be neither aCalvinistnoranArminian.

There is no doubt a sense in which on this, as well as onmost of theleadingquestionsinChristiantheology,thereisathreefoldcourseopentomen.TheymayadoptSocinianaswellasArminianorCalvinisticviewsonthesubjectofelection,justasonothergreatdoctrinesoftheChristiansystem; but Socinianism upon this point is notmuch brought forwardnow-a-days, and was therefore scarcely worth adverting to in anincidental and popular allusion to existing differences. Arminians andSociniansoppose,withequalstrenuousness, anduponsubstantially thesamegrounds, thewholedoctrinesofCalvinistsuponthissubject.Theyagreewitheachotherinall themainconclusionstheyhold inregardtoforeordinationandelection;sothatallpartiesmayreallyberankedunderthetwoheadsofCalvinistsandanti-Calvinists.ThemaindifferenceherebetweentheArminiansandtheSociniansis,thattheformeradmit,whilethe latterdeny, thedivine foreknowledgeof futureevents.This isnotadifference bearing directly uponwhat is actuallymaintained under thehead of predestination; though it enters into, and has been largelydiscussed in connectionwith, the arguments in support of the one andthe other side of that question. Indeed, some of the bolder and morecandidoftheoldSociniansacknowledge,thattheydeniedthedoctrineofdivineforeknowledge,chieflybecausetheywereunabletoseehow,ifthiswere admitted, they could refuse to concede the Calvinistic doctrine of

foreordination; while, at the same time, some of the bolder and morecandid of the old Arminians have made it manifest, that they wouldgladly have rejected the doctrine of the divine foreknowledge, if theycould have devised any plausible evasion of the scriptural evidence insupport of it. The admission or denial of the divine foreknowledge -thoughinitselfadifferenceofverygreatimportance-thusaffectsratherthe mode of conducting the argument, so far as foreordination isconcerned,thantheactualpositionsmaintainedbytheoppositeparties;thoughithasoftenbeenbroughtintosomeofthemorepopularbutlessaccurate formsofstating thepoint indispute.ArminiansandSociniansconcur in denying all the leading positions held by Calvinists on thesubject of the divine decrees or purposes, - the foreordination of allevents, - and the absolute election of some men to eternal life; and,practically, the great question is, - Is the Calvinistic affirmation or theanti-Calvinistic negation of these things true? This being so, it is notstrictly correct to say, that the only antagonistic alternative to theCalvinistic doctrine of predestination is the Arminian one; because thefundamental Calvinistic position is denied equally by Arminians andSocinians;andtherealquestionindisputemaybe,andshouldbe,statedinsuchawayastoomitanyreferencetothepointofdifferencebetweentheArminiansandtheSocinians,-viz.thedivineforeknowledge,-andtoapplyequallyandaliketobothsectionsofanti-Calvinists.

But while on this ground it must be admitted, that the antagonisticposition to the Calvinistic doctrine is somewhat wider and morecomprehensivethantheArminianone,ascommonlystatedbyArminiansthemselves;yettheSociniandenialofthedivineforeknowledgeisnowsolittlebroughtunderournotice,thattherewasreallynocalltotakeitintoaccount in an incidental reference to the subject; - and there is nomaterialinaccuracyinCalvinismandArminianismbeingspokenofastheonlyreallyantagonisticpositions.

It is not upon the ground which has now been adverted to, that DrWhatelyobjectstobeingcalledanArminian,andtriestothrowridiculeupontheideathatamanmustbeeitheranArminianoraCalvinist.HeisnotaSocinianonthispoint;forheadmitsthedivineforeknowledgeofallevents. He denies that he is an Arminian, - he denies that he is a

Calvinist; and he denies that a man, though holding the divineforeknowledgeofallevents,andthereforenotaSocinian,mustbeeithera Calvinist or an Arminian on the subject of foreordination. He thusplainly gives us to understand that he holds a doctrine on this subjectwhich ismateriallyandsubstantiallydifferentboth fromCalvinismandArminianism, - though he has not suggested any name by which todesignateit.Nowwetakethelibertyofdissentingfromallthis,;andwedo not hesitate to affirm thatDrWhately is anArminian: and further,thateverymanwhohasformedanintelligentanddefiniteopinionuponthisimportantcontroversy,andwhorepudiatestheSociniandenialofthedivine foreknowledge, must be either an Arminian or a Calvinist, - orrathermustbeanArminian,ifherefusestoadmitthetruthofCalvinism.

ItmayseemsomewhatungracioustorefuseDrWhately’sownstatementabout his views, and to continue to maintain that he is an Arminian,when he himself repudiates the name. Most certainly nothing -ungraciousisintended;thesomewhatuncourteousformofthestatementistheresultofwhatwaspurelyaccidental;andtherearesomeimportantconsiderations,bearingupontheinterestsoftruth,whichseemtorenderitexpedientthatthegroundtakenshouldbemaintained.TheallegationthattheArchbishopisanArminianwasintroducedinthemostincidentalway, and evidently under the influence of a feeling that this was apositionofnotoriousandundeniablecertainty,,-apositionwhichnoonecould dispute, and of which no one would complain. We are neitherconvinced nor frightened by the somewhat angry allusionmade to thismatterinthenoteabovequotedfromhim;andwethinkitmaybefittedto throw light upon an important subject, not well understood, if weattempt to establish the truth of the allegation.We have, of course, nodoubtoftheintegrityandsincerityofDrWhatelyinabjuringthenameofan Arminian. We differ from him in opinion as to what is or is notArminianism,andas towhatare thegrounds and circumstanceswhichwarrant theapplicationof thisname;and thesearemattersonwhichadifference of opinion may be expressed without any want of personalrespectbeingindicated.WethinkwecanprovethatDrWhately’sviewsupon the subject of election are - notwithstanding his importantconcessions toCalvinism,above referred to - soaccordant in substancewiththosewhichhavebeengenerallyknowninthehistoryofthechurch

as Arminian, and so different from those indicated by any otherrecognized ecclesiastical designation, that it is perfectly warrantable todescribethemasArminianism.

Wewould scarcely have thought of taking the trouble of attempting toprovethis,hadwenotbeenpersuadedthatdefectiveanderroneousviewson thesematters are very prevalent, especially among the clergy of theChurchofEngland;andthatthereisnota little inthepresentaspectoftheological literature, fitted to show the importance of trying to diffuseaccurateanddefiniteviewsofthetruestatusquestionisinregardtothetopicsinvolvedinourcontroversywiththeArminians.

DrWhately is not the only eminent writer of the present day who hasadvocated Arminianism, without being aware of this, and even whilerepudiatingit.ThelateMr.StanleyFaber-whohasrenderedimportantservices inseveraldepartmentsofecclesiastical literature,andwhowasgreatly superior to Dr Whately in theological erudition, though muchinferior to him in sagacity and penetration of intellect - published anelaborate work “On the Primitive Doctrine of Election,” the secondedition of which appeared in 1842. In this work he expounds threedifferent theories on the subject of Election - viz. Calvinism,Arminianism,andwhathecallsNationalism,orthesystemadvocatedbyLocke and Dr John Taylor. He labours to prove that all these threetheoriesareerroneous, -opposedequally to the testimonyofScripture,primitiveantiquity,andthesymbolicalbooksoftheChurchofEngland.He then brings forward a fourth theory, different from all these - onewhich isneitherCalvinism,norArminianism,norNationalism.This hecalls Ecclesiastical Individualism, - meaning thereby an election ofindividualstotheprivilegesofthevisiblechurch-totheenjoymentofthemeansofgrace.This fourththeory-asdistinguishedfromandopposedtotheotherthree-helabourstoestablishastrue,byanapplicationofthethree standards just mentioned. While Calvinism, Arminianism, andNationalism,areallunfoundedanderroneous,Arminianismis,inFaber’sjudgment, the farthest removed from the truth;or, asheexpresses it, -“Of the threesystems,Arminianismhas themostwidelydeparted fromaboriginal Christian antiquity” (including Scripture and the earlyfathers),“for, intruth, ithasaltogetherforsakenit.”Now,wearefirmly

persuaded,andthinkwecanprove,thatboththeNationalismwhichherejects,andtheIndividualismwhichheupholds,arejustinsubstancethevery Arminianism which he denounces and abjures; that hisArminianism, Nationalism, and Ecclesiastical Individualism, are reallyjust one and the same system or doctrine, exhibited under slightlydifferentaspects,andconstitutingtheoneonlyreallyantagonistictheorytoCalvinism.Faber,we think, has utterly failed to distinguish betweentheessentialsand theaccidentalsof thedifferent systemswhichhehasinvestigated. He has not penetrated beneath the surface. He has beenentirely carried awayby slight and superficial differences,while he haswholly failed to perceive intrinsic and substantial resemblances. Theconsequence is, that his “Primitive Doctrine of Election” - thoughcontaining much interesting matter, which admits of being usefullyapplied- ispracticallyamassof confusion;andcanproduceonlyerrorandmisapprehension in themindsof thosewhoareunacquaintedwithsomeofthemorethoroughandsearchingexpositionsoftheseimportantanddifficultsubjects.

Iftherebeanytruthinthesestatements,-iftherebeanyfairgroundforbelieving that Whately and Faber, the former most favourablyrepresenting the ability, and the latter the erudition of the EpiscopalChurchofthiscountry,arereallyArminians,thoughtheyarenotawareof it, - if thesemenare truly in substance teachingArminianism,whilethey sincerely denounce and abjure it, - there must be some greatmisapprehension or confusion prevalent, which distorts and pervertsmen’sviewsuponthesesubjects;andifanysuchstateofthingsexist, itmustbeimportant,withaviewtotheinterestsoftruth,thatitshouldbepointedoutandexposed.

ThestatementsofWhatelyandFaber-towhichwehavereferred-seemto be received as true, without any doubt or misgiving, in the greatecclesiastical denomination to which these authors belong; and we arenotbyanymeansconfidentthatthegeneralityofScotchCalvinistsnow-a-dayshavesufficientknowledgeofdoctrinaltheologytobeabletodetectthefallacy.Thediscussionofthissubjectextendsgreatlybeyondwhatispersonal to individuals, as affecting the accuracyof their statements. Itreally involves the whole question of the right settlement of the true

status question is in the great controversy about predestination. Thesettlement of the status question is is always a point of fundamentalimportanceingreatdoctrinalcontroversies.It isespecially important inthis one,where - unless the state of the question is clearly settled andcarefully and constantly attended to - men are very apt to fight atrandom, to be dealing blows in the dark, and running some risk ofwoundingtheirfriends.ArightestimateoftheaccuracyofthestatementsofWhatelyandFaber,condemningandrepudiatingArminianism,mustbebaseduponaninvestigationofthesetwoquestions-1st,WhatistherealessentialpointofdifferencebetweenCalvinistsandArminiansonthesubject of election? and 2d, Is there any real, definite, and importantsubjectofcontroversialdiscussioninvolvedintheexpositionofelection,and not disposed of by the determination of the fundamental questioncontrovertedbetweenCalvinistsandArminians?Itisonlybysettlingandapplyingthefirstofthesequestions,thatwecansatisfactorilydeterminewhether Whately and Faber, and men holding such opinions, may bejustly designated as Arminians; and if, by a further application of theresults of the same inquiry, we can settle the second of these twoquestions in the negative, we thus establish the wider and moreimportantconclusion, thatmenwho intelligently investigate thesubjectofelection,andformanythinglikeaclearanddefiniteopinionregardingit, must be substantially either Calvinists or Arminians, whether theyperceiveandadmitthisornot.

Theconsiderationofthesepoints,however,hasawiderbearingthanhasyetbeen indicated. It is fitted tobringoutsomedefectsof considerableimportanceinthewayinwhichthisgreatclassoftheologicaltopicshavebeen usually discussed by divines of the Church of England. Doctrinalandsystematictheologyhasnotordinarilybeenstudiedwithmuchcareby theclergyof that church;and the consequenceof thishasbeen,notonly that crude, confused, anderroneous viewsupondoctrinal subjectsabound in the writings of many of them, but also that thewarrantableness and desirableness of vague and indefinite views uponthesemattershavefoundinthemopenandavoweddefenders.TheclergyoftheChurchofEnglandattheperiodoftheReformationweregenerally,like most of the other Reformers, Calvinists, and continued to be soduringthewholereignofQueenElizabethandthegreaterpartofthatof

JamesVI.SinceabouttheearlierpartofthereignofCharlesI.,thegreatmajorityofthemhaveceasedtobeCalvinists,thoughmanyofthesehaverefused,likeDrWhately,tobecalledArminians,andsome-thoughnotCalvinists-haveevendeclinedtobecalledanti-Calvinists.ThesechangesintheactualopinionsoftheclergyoftheChurchofEnglandhavetakenplace, while their symbolical books have continued unaltered upondoctrinalquestions.SincethegreatbodyoftheclergyhavethusbeenatonetimeCalvinistic,andatanotherArminian;andsinceprobablyatalltimes, at least for two centuries and a half, there have been bothCalvinistsandArminiansamongthem,thishastendedinmanywaystoproducegreat laxity and confusionofdoctrinal views, andhasnotonlytendedtoproduce this laxityandconfusion inpointof fact,but to leadmen to justify its prevalence as a sound and wholesome condition ofthings. Calvinists and Arminians had equally to show that their viewswereaccordantwiththeThirty-nineArticles;andthisalmostunavoidablyled, not only to a straining and tampering with the language of theArticles, but even with the full expression of their own personalconvictions. Some have contended that the Articles admitted only of aCalvinistic,othersonlyofanArminiansense;whileothershavethoughtitmoreaccordantwiththefactsofthecase,andwiththehonouroftheirchurch,tomaintainthattheydonotdecideinfavourofeitherdoctrine,but may be honestly adopted by both parties. The position that theArticlesareneitherCalvinisticnorArminian,distinctively,doesnotdifferverymateriallyfromtheonethattheyareboth.Somehavepreferredtoput it in this latter form; and this again has just tended the more todeepentheconfusionwhichhasbeenintroducedintothediscussion.

Wemaygiveaspecimenortwoofwhat isacommonmodeofspeakingamong the divines of the Church of England upon this subject. BishopTomlineconcludeshis “RefutationofCalvinism” in thesewords: - “Ourchurch is not Lutheran, it is not Calvinistic, it is not Arminian; it isscriptural, it isbuiltupontheapostlesandprophets,JesusChristbeingthechiefcorner-stone.”DrMagee,thelateArchbishopofDublin,-whomwe regard as a far superior man to Tomline, - puts the point underconsiderationinthisway,inoneofhischarges:-

“IfanyproofwerewantingthatourArticlesare,astheyprofesstobe,ofa

comprehensive character, it would be found in this, that, of thecontending parties into which our church is unhappily divided, eachclaimsthemasitsown.BythosewhoholdthecreedofArminius,theyarepronouncedtobeArminian;andbythosewhoholdthecreedofCalvin,they are pronounced to be Calvinistic. The natural inference of theimpartial reasoner would be, that they are neither, whilst they containwithinthemwhatmaybetracedtosomeoftheleadingprinciplesofdoth.Andthisisthetruth.Theyarenotenslavedtothedogmasofanypartyinreligion. They are not Arminian. They are not Calvinistic. They arescriptural.TheyareChristianInanoteonthispassage,heasserts“thatthedoctrinesoftheChurchofEnglandarenotthedoctrinesofCalvinism,and that the informed and intelligent clergy of that church are not thefollowersofArminius.”Thishasbeenafavouritemodeofstatementwithvery many Episcopalian divines, whom we believe to have beensubstantially Arminians, perhapswithout their being aware of it. SomeEpiscopalians -whosedoctrinal viewswere sounder - have, aswehavehinted, been disposed rather to take the ground, that, withoutcontradictingeitherScriptureortheEnglishArticles,menmightbebothCalvinists and Arminians, or partly the one and partly the other.Statementstothiseffect,orsomethinglikeit,havebeenproducedfrom“Cecil’s Remains” and from “Simeon’s Memoir;” and they have beenemployed by Professor Park of Andover, to countenance his ingeniousattempt to involve important doctrinal differences in inextricableconfusion, by distinguishing between the theology of intellect and thetheologyoffeeling.

There is, indeed, adistinction tobemadebetweenmen’sownpersonalconvictionsandtheirviewsastothemeaningandimportofasymbolicaldocumentofpublicauthority.Itisquitepossibletoproduceadeliveranceuponthesubjectofelection,whichisneitherCalvinisticnorArminian,-that is, which is so general, vague, and indefinite, as to contain nodecision of any of the points really controverted between the oppositeparties.Achurchmaythinksuchanindefiniteandindecisivestatementthe most suitable for a symbolical book, - may deliberately intend toinclude both parties within her pale, - and may so regulate herdeliverances as not to make a definite opinion on the one side or theotheratermofcommunion,orwhatisvirtuallythesamething,aground

ofseparation.VerymanyoftheclergyoftheChurchofEnglandcontendthat this is realized in the Thirty-nine Articles. And it is quite possiblethat they may hold this to be an actual feature of these Articles, andapprove of it as a right state of things for a church to exhibit in hersymbols; while yet they themselves, in their own personal convictions,may have decided the question in favour of the one side or the other.Tom-line and Magee were Arminians as much as Whately and Faber,whilemaintainingthattheArticlesareneitherArminiannorCalvinistic;and they might have taken this view of the Articles although theythemselves had been Calvinists. But although the Episcopalian clergymay consistently maintain that the Articles are neither Calvinistic norArminian, - even while they themselves, in their own personalconvictions,mayhavedecidedlyadoptedtheoneviewortheother,-yettherecanbenodoubtthatthepeculiarcharacteroftheArticles,andthekind of discussion which this has suggested or required, has tendedlargelytokeepmanyEpiscopaliandivinesinastateofgreatuncertaintyandconfusioninregardtothiswholeclassofsubjects.Therebeingsomeplausiblegrounds for believing that subscription to theArticles didnotrequire them to have their minds made up on the one side or on theother, verymany have not thought themselves called upon to give thetime and research necessary for forming a judgment on these difficultandarduoustopics;andhavepreferredtoexercisetheirtalentsratherinthe way of trying to show that it was not only unnecessary, but verydifficult,andhighlyinexpedientanddangerous,tobeformingadecidedopinion,andtobegivinganexplicitdeliverance,uponsuchmatters.Thetitleofthe“BamptonLectures”for1855,bytheRev.JohnE.Bode,-andtheyformaveryrespectablework,-isthis,“TheAbsenceofPrecisioninthe Formularies of the Church of England scriptural and suitable to astateofProbation.”Andthis“absenceofprecision,”whichtheyregardasattaching to the public formularies, they too often extend to their ownprivate personal convictions. This influence of the one upon the otherhas, nodoubt, operatedpowerfully on the general state of thought andsentiment in theChurch of England.But it ought not to have done so.Theremay be very good grounds why precise deliverances upon somedoctrinal controversies should not be embodied in symbolical books;whileyetitmaybethedutyofministerstohaveformedforthemselvesadecided opinion regarding them. The reasons that satisfy many of the

warrantablenessandexpediencyofthe“absenceofprecisioninthepublicformularies,”donotnecessarilysanctionthesamequalityasattachingtomen’sownpersonalconvictions;thoughwefearthatsomenotionofthissort isveryprevalentamongtheclergyoftheChurchofEngland.Manyhave preserved and cherished the “absence of precision” in their ownpersonal convictions; and indefending thepropriety andexpediency ofthis,theyhaveintroducedavastdealofvaguenessandconfusionintothewholediscussion.

This course has been adopted, and this tendency has been exhibited,chieflybyArminians;andArminianismcertainlyhasgotthebenefitofit.Indeed, ignorance and confusion upon this subject always tend to thebenefitofArminianism.Truthispromotedbyathoroughknowledgeanda careful study of the subject in hand, and by the clear and definiteconceptionswhicharetheresultsofintelligenceandinvestigation;whileany shortcoming or deficiency in these respects tends to promote theprevalenceoferror.Thisholdstruegenerallyofalltheordinarysubjectsof speculative inquiry. Itholds truepre-eminentlyof the leadingpointsinvolvedinthecontroversybetweenCalvinistsandArminians.Therearevague, general, and indefinite positions about the divine purposes andplans, and about the divine providence and agency, in which bothCalvinistsandArminiansconcur.Calvinismmaybesaidto involve,andto be based upon, a conversion of these vague and indefinite positionsintopreciseanddefinitedoctrines.ThesedoctrinestheArminiansrefusetoadmit,-allegingthatnosufficientevidencecanbeproducedinsupportof them, and that formidable objections can be adduced against them.They refuse to advance to the more profound and definite positions,whichmaybesaidtoconstitutethedistinctivefeaturesofCalvinism;andthey insist thatmenshouldbesatisfiedwiththosemoresuperficialandindefinite views in which they and their opponents agree. We are notprofessingtogivethisastheformalstatusquestionisinthecontroversy.Butthisisanaccountofthedifferencewhichiscorrect,sofarasitgoes;anditillustratesourpresentposition,thatimperfectandconfusedviewsuponthesesubjectstendtoinjuretruthandtoadvanceerror,-todamageCalvinism and to favour Arminianism; and this, too, even whenmen’sviewsmaybesopervadedby ignoranceandconfusion,thattheydonotthemselvesperceivethistendency,ordonotreallymeantoadvancethe

objecttowhichitleads.

Itisoneoftheleadingfeaturesorresultsofthisvaguenessandconfusionof thought upon these subjects, that there has commonly been a greattendency to multiply and exaggerate the differences of opinion whichhavebeenexpressedregardingthem;asiftoconveytheimpressionthatthere was a considerable variety of views, out of whichmenwere verymuch at liberty to make a choice as they might be disposed. AsArminianismisatthebottomofallthisconfusion,andasitispromotedchiefly for Arminian objects, it has been common for divines of theChurch of England tomagnify differences subsisting among Calvinists,and to represent each modification of sentiment that may have beenbroughtout,asconstitutingadistinctanddifferentdoctrine.Thisprocesstends to increase the generalmass of confusion attaching to thewholesubject, and to excite a special prejudice against Calvinism, as if itssupporters were divided among themselves on points of fundamentalimportance,andhadnotanyuniformandwell-settledpositiontooccupy.We may refer to some historical illustrations of this feature of thecontroversy.

The firstpersonofanyconsequencewhoopenly taughtArminianismintheChurchofEngland(notthenknownbythatname)wasPeterBaro,aFrenchman,whohadheldtheofficeofMargaretProfessorofDivinityatCambridge for about twenty years. Itwashis teachingArminianism, inoppositiontothegeneraldoctrineoftheReformers,thatoccasionedthepreparationofthefamousLambethArticlesin1595,-atransaction,thehistoryofwhichaffordsconclusiveevidenceofthegeneralprevalenceofCalvinismintheChurchofEnglandtilltheend.ofthesixteenthcentury.In 1596 he had to resign his office in the university because of hisdoctrinal views; andon thatoccasionheprepareda shortexpositionofhis case, under the designation of “Summa Trium de PrsedestinationeSententiarum,”-thethreedoctrinesbeing,lst,SupralapsarianCalvinism;2d, Sublapsarian Calvinism; and 3d, his own Arminianism, which hedescribes as the doctrine held by the Fatherswho precededAugustine,andbyMelancthonandafewotherProtestantdivines;justasifthefirstandseconddifferedfromeachotherasmuchastheybothdifferedfromthethird.

Arminius himself made large use of the same unfair mode ofrepresentation.InhisArnicaCollatiowithJunius,hispredecessorinthechair of theology at Leyden, he brings forward three leading doctrinesuponthesubjectofpredestinationasprevailingamongProtestants,andattempts to refute them in order to make way for his own. The threedoctrinesare-Supralapsarianism,whichheascribes,unwarrantably, toCalvin; Sublapsarianism, which he ascribes to Augustine; and a theoryintermediate between them, - a sort of modification ofSupralapsarianism, - which he ascribes to Thomas Aquinas. In hisfamous “Declaratio Sententise,” published in 1608, the year before hisdeath, he brings forward again the same three opinions as contrastingwith his own, though without associating them historically with thenames of individuals. He puts first and most prominently the highestSupralapsarianism,anddwellsuponitatthegreatestlength.Headmits,indeed,atlast,thatthereisnotanyverymaterialdifferenceamongthesethreedoctrines,-allheldbyCalvinists.Buthehastakencare,inthefirstplace, to have the controversial advantage of having conveyed theimpression, that there is great diversity of sentiment among hisopponents; and of having held up first and most prominently, in hisaccount of their opinions, the highest Supralapsarianism, - the viewagainst which it is easy to excite the strongest prejudice, while it hasreallybeenprofessedbycomparativelyfewCalvinists.Itisworthwhiletomention,asacuriousspecimenofelaboratecontroversialunfairness,thatof the whole space occupied by the declaration of his judgmentconcerningpredestination,Arminiusdevotesfour-fifthstoanexposureofhighSupralapsarianism,leavingonlythelastfifthforthestatementoftheothertwoformsofCalvinism,andofhisownanti-Calvinisticdoctrine.

Butwemeantoconfineourselvesforthepresenttoourowncountry.Thefirst elaborate Arminian work produced in England, after Laud’spatronagehaddonesomethingtoencourageoppositiontoCalvinism,andafterBishopMontaguehadfairlybrokenthe ice,was“AnAppealtotheGospelforthetruedoctrineofDivinepredestination,concordedwiththeorthodox doctrine of God’s free grace and man’s free will, by JohnPlaifere,B.D.”HeheldalivingintheChurchofEnglandforaperiodverynearlycorrespondingtothereignofJamesVI.inthatcountry,andisnotto be confoundedwith Thomas Playfere, a Calvinist, who succeeded to

theMargaret divinity professorship in Cambridge,whenBaro lost it inconsequenceofhisArminianism.JohnPlaiferebeginshis"Appeal”withafullandelaboratestatementoffivedifferentdoctrinesuponthesubjectofpredestination. The first, of course, is Supralapsarian Calvinism; thesecond is Sublapsarian Calvinism; the third is a sort of intermediatesystem between Calvinism and Arminianism, propounded by BishopOverall,andverysimilartowhatwasafterwardscalledBaxterianism;thefourth he represents as the doctrine held by Melancthon, by theLutherans, and the Arminians; and the fifth and last is the opinion ofArminius himself, of the Jesuit defenders of scientiamedia, and, as healleges,of all theFathersbeforeAugustine.The first fourhe regardsaserroneous,thoughindifferentdegrees,whileheadmitsthatinallofthemthereare“somepartsandpiecesoftruth,butobscureandmingledwithdefects.”Thefifthheadoptsashisown,anddefendsitastrue;thoughhehas failed to point out any intelligible difference between this and thefourth.Thesubstantialidentityindeedofthefourthandfifthopinionsissoobvious,thatitisadmitted,andtherepresentationgivenisattemptedtobeaccountedfor,inthePrefacetotherepublicationofthiswork,ina“Collection of tracts concerning predestination and providence,” atCambridgein1719.

The example set by Plaifere, in this the earliest formal and elaboratedefence of Arminianism in the Church of England, has been largelyfolloweddown to thepresentday,especially in thepointofmultiplyingand magnifying differences, in order to excite a prejudice againstCalvinism, and to shelter Arminianism in the confusion and obscurity.Bishop Burnet, in his Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, hasmanifestedagooddealofcandourandfairness.HewasanArminian,or,as he himself expresses it in his preface, - “1 follow the doctrineof theGreekChurch,fromwhichStAustindepartedandformedanewsystem.”Buthehasdistinctlyadmitted,inexpoundingthe17thArticle,that“itisnot to be denied that the Article seems to be framed according to StAustin’sdoctrinethat“itisveryprobablethatthosewhopenneditmeantthatthedecreewasabsolute;”andthat“theCalvinistshavelessoccasionfor scruple” in subscribing than the Arminians, “since the Article doesseemmoreplainlytofavourthem.”Butwhatalonewehaveatpresenttodo with is, that he follows the common Arminian course, by giving a

distinct and separate head to Supralapsarianism. According to Burnet,there are four leading opinions on the subject of God’s decrees orpurposes, viz.: - 1st,Supralapsarianism;2d,Sublapsarianism;3d, “ThatofthosewhoarecalledRemonstrants,Arminians,orUniversalists;”and4th, “That of the Socinians, who deny the certain prescience of futurecontingencies.”

Withoutfurthermultiplyingproofsofthis,wecomedowntothepresentday.WehavealreadystatedFaber’sclassificationoftheleadingdoctrinesupon this subject under the four heads of Calvinism, Arminianism,Nationalism,andEcclesiastical Individualism, - the first threebeing, inhisjudgment,false,andArminianismtheworst,-whilewemaintainthatthree of them, including the fourth, which he defends as true, are justArminianism,andnothingelse.

There is a book which seems to be in great repute in England in thepresentday,whichalsoillustratesthepointwe.arenowexplaining.Itis,“AnExpositionoftheThirty-nineArticles,historicalanddoctrinal,”byE.HaroldBrowne,B.D.,NorrisianProfessorofDivinityintheUniversityofCambridge.The third editionof itwas published in 1856, and a fourthhasalreadyappeared,thoughitisabulkyoctavoofabout900pages.Wehave done littlemore than dip into it; but we are satisfied that it is ahighly respectable and useful book, embodying a large amount ofinformation,andexhibitingafairandcandidspirit,thoughcertainlynotfree from errors and inaccuracies. The Norrisian Professor begins hisexpositionof the17thArticlebyanenumerationandbrief statementofthe leading theories which have been held upon the subject ofpredestination.Accordingtothisauthor,theyarenofewerthansix,viz.1.Calvinism; 2. Arminianism; 3. Nationalism; 4. Ecclesiastical Election.Thus far hehas fully followed Faber, - ecclesiastical election being justthe election of individuals to outward privileges, - the elect being justvirtuallythebaptized,andtheelectionthevisiblechurch.Thefifththeoryhementionsisasomewhatunintelligiblepieceofcomplication,towhichnodesignationisgiven;andthesixth isBaxterianism.Thisseemstobenow, as indeed it has always been in substance, a favourite mode ofrepresenting the matter among the divines of the Church of England.ProfessorBrowne’sownopinionsarenotveryexplicitlybroughtout.He

seems to think that the Articles were expressed intentionally in suchindefiniteandgeneralphraseologyastotakeintheadherentsofseveralofthedifferenttheories.HisownviewsseemtobeverymuchthesameasFaber’s, while, at the same time, he concedes that there are somescripturalstatementswhichdonoteasilyadmitofanyothersensethanaCalvinisticone.

Mozley’s“TreatiseontheAugustinianDoctrineofPredestination,”isoneof a different class, and of a higher order, both in point of ability andgeneralorthodoxy;whileatthesametimeitaffordsanotherspecimenofthat predilection for the “absence of precision” on doctrinal questions,whichhassogenerallycharacterizedtheclergyoftheChurchofEngland.Itisaworkofverysuperiorlearningandability,andisreallyavaluablecontribution to our theological literature.This treatise is substantially (an exposition and defence of the Augustinian or Calvinistic view ofpredestination;whileatthesametimetheauthorseemsdetermined,forsomereasonorother, to stop shortof committinghimself toa full andopenassertionofthedoctrinewhichheseemstobelieve.Heappearstobe always on the point of coming out with an explicit and unqualifiedassertion of Calvinism, when he finds some excuse for stopping short,and leaving the subject still involved to some extent in obscurity andconfusion. Itwould almost seem as ifMrMozley had some secret andinexplicablereasonforrefusingtocomeoutwithanexplicitprofessionofthe Calvinism to which all his convictions tend to lead him; and theexcusesorpretencesheassigns forstoppingshortonthevergeofa fulland open proclamation of this system, are of a very peculiar andunreasonablekind.Werefertothisverysuperiorandremarkablebookasanotherspecimen,thoughinasomewhatpeculiarform,ofthetendencyof Church of England divines to exhibit and to defend “the absence ofprecision,” indiscussing thepoints controvertedbetween theCalvinistsandtheArminians;andtherebytoinvolvethestatementandexpositionof this important subject in obscurity and confusion, - qualities whichalwaystendpowerfullytopromotetheprevalenceofArminianerror.

We have brought forward these historical notices to illustrate themagnitude and the prevalence of what we believe to involve a seriousinjury to doctrinal truth; and to show the importance of attempting to

settle,aspreciselyanddefinitelyaspossible,thetruestateofthequestion- the realmeaning and import of themain points controverted on thesubjectofpredestination.Thisisimportant,notsomuchinreferencetothetopicwhichhasmoreimmediatelysuggestedtousthisinvestigationof it, - viz. determining the accuracy of the application of certainhistoricaldesignations,-butchieflyinreferencetothefarhigherobjectofformingaccurateanddefiniteconceptionsonthewholesubject,insofaraswehavematerials fordoingso.Webelieve that it canbeproved,thatmenwhoadmitthedivineforeknowledgeofallevents,andwhohaveformedadistinct anddefinite opinionon the subject of predestination,mustbeeitherCalvinisticorArminian,whethertheyperceiveandadmitthis or not; and that Whately and Faber may be fairly designated asArminians, notwithstanding their honest repudiation of the name,inasmuchastheyaccordwiththeviewscommonlyknownasArminianinevery point of real importance, and differ from them only, if at all, ontopicsthatarereallyinsignificant.Thedeterminationofthesequestionsmust,fromthenatureofthecase,dependuponthetruestatusquestionisbetweenthecontendingparties;andthereisnogreatdifficultyinsettlingthis, - although it is true that men, notwithstanding its paramountimportance, often allow their minds to remain in a condition of greatuncertaintyandconfusionregardingit.

In proceeding to consider this subject, wewould beginwith observing,thatittendstointroduceobscurityandconfusionintothewholematter,thatmen in surveying it areapt, especially inmodern times, toconfinetheirattentiontoomuchtoelection,-thatis,tothedecreesorpurposesandagencyofGodwithreferencetotheeternaldestiniesofmen,withouttakinginpredestinationorforeordinationingeneral,-thatis,thedecreesorpurposesandagencyofGodwithreferencetothewholegovernmentoftheworldandalltheactionsofHiscreatures.Thefundamentalprincipleof Calvinism, as stated in the “Westminster Confession,” is, “that Godfromalleternitydid,bythemostwiseandholycounselofHisownwill,freelyandunchangeablyordainwhatsoevercomestopass.”If thisgreatdoctrinebetrue,andbevalidlyestablishedbyitsappropriateevidence,itincludes and comprehends, - it carries with it and disposes of, - allquestionsaboutthepurposesofGodwithrespecttotheeternaldestiniesof thehuman race. If itbe true thatGodhath foreordainedwhatsoever

comes to pass,Hemust havepredetermined thewhole history and theultimate fate of allHis intelligent creatures. If it be true thatGod hatheternallyandunchangeablyordainedwhatsoevercomethtopass,itmustalso be true, - as being comprehended in this position, - that, as the“Confession”goesontosay,“BythedecreeofGodforthemanifestationofHisglory,somemenandangelsarepredestinateduntoeverlastinglife,andothersforeordainedtoeverlastingdeath.”Itservessomeusefulandimportantpurposesbearingupontheapprehensionandestablishmentofsound doctrine, to have regard to the import and evidence of thefundamentalandcomprehensivedoctrineofpredestination,orofGod’sdecreesingeneral;insteadofconfiningourattentiontothemorelimitedtopics usually understood to be indicated by the words election andreprobation.ThedecreesofGodareusuallyunderstoodasdescribingingeneral the purposes or resolutions which He has formed, and inaccordancewithwhichHeregulatesHisownprocedure,ordoeswhateverHedoes in thegovernmentof theworld.ThatGodhas,andmusthave,formedpurposesorresolutionsfortheregulationofHisownprocedureincreatingandgoverningtheworld,mustbeadmittedbyallwhoregardHimaspossessedofintelligenceandwisdom;andthereforethedisputeswhichhavebeenraiseduponthissubjectappeartorespect,notsomuchthe existenceof thedivinedecrees, but rather the foundationonwhichtheyrest,thepropertieswhichattachtothem,andtheobjectswhichtheyembrace.Themainquestionswhichhavebeenusuallydiscussedamongdivinesconcerningthedivinedecreesingeneral,orpredestinationinitswidestsense,havebeenthese,-1.Arethedivinedecreesorpurposesinregard to all the events which constitute the history of the worldconditionalornot?and2.Aretheyunchangeableornot?CalvinistsholdthatGod’sdecreesorpurposesinregardtoeverythingthatwastocometo pass are unconditional and unchangeable, while Arminians or anti-Calvinists deny this, and maintain that they are conditional andchangeable. But while this is the form which the general question hascommonlyassumedinthehandsoftheologians,therealpointindisputecomespracticallytothis:HasGodreallyformeddecreesorpurposes,inanypropersense,withrespecttothewholegovernmentoftheworld?Itseemsplain - so at least Calvinists believe - that it is unwarrantable toascribe to a Being of infinite perfection and absolute supremacy anypurposesorresolutionsforregulatingtheadministrationoftheuniverse,

that should be left dependent for their taking effect, or being fullyrealized, upon the volitions of creatures; and liable to be changedaccordingtothenatureandresultsofthesevolitions.Andthisbringsusback again to the simple but infinitely important and comprehensivequestion,HasGodeternallyandunchangeablyforeordainedwhatsoevercomestopass?Thereisnodifficultyinunderstandingthemeaningofthisquestion. The foreordination of every event implies, that God frometernityhadresolvedthatitshouldcometopass,andhadmadecertainprovisionfor thisresult.Andtherealsubjectofcontroversy is just this,Has God foreordained, in this the only proper sense of the word,whatsoever comes to pass?All Calvinists say thatHehas; and all anti-CalvinistssaythatHehasnot.ArminiansandSociniansequallydenythisdivine foreordination of all events; while Socinians also deny, butArminians admit, that God foreknew or foresaw them all. The divineforeordinationofalleventsmusteitherbeaffirmedordenied,-allwhoaffirm it are Calvinists, and all who deny it are anti-Calvinists; and if,whiledenying foreordination, theyadmit foreknowledge, then theymaybe fairly and justly described as Arminians, because this is thedesignation by which, for nearly two centuries and a half, the actualdoctrinal position they occupy upon this fundamental and all-comprehensivesubjecthasbeencommonlyindicated.

WhatelyandFaberdenythedivineforeordination,whiletheyadmitthedivine foreknowledge, of all events; and therefore, according to theacknowledged rules and the ordinary practice by which this matter isregulated,theymay,withoutanytransgressionofaccuracy,orjustice,orcourtesy,bedesignatedasArminians.

ButitwasnotthisgreatdoctrineoftheforeordinationofalleventswhichWhately and Faber discussed, or seem to have had in their view. Itcomprehendsindeedanddisposesofthesubjecttheydiscussed;anditisan act of ignorance or inconsideration, tending to involve the wholematter in confusion, that they did not take it into account. If they hadbeenfamiliarwiththewholesubjectinthisitshighestandwidestaspect,andiftheyhadseenthatthesettlementofthequestionofforeordination,ascommonlydiscussed,disposesofthequestionofelection,theywouldscarcelyhave ventured to deny that theywereArminians.Butwemust

seewhatwastheirpositioninregardtothesubjectwhichtheyhadunderconsideration,viz.election,orthedoctrineofthepurposesandprocedureof God in regard to the ultimate destinies of the human race.What isCalvinism, and what is Arminianism, on this subject? The Calvinisticdoctrine is this, that God from eternity chose or elected some men,certaindefinite individualsof thehuman race, to everlasting life, - thatHedeterminedcertainlyandinfalliblytobringthesepersonstosalvationby a Redeemer, - that in making this selection of some men, and inresolving to save them, He was not influenced by anything existing inthem,orforeseeninthem,bywhichtheyweredistinguishedfromothermen,orbyanyreasonknowntoorcomprehensiblebyus,butonlybyHisownsovereigngoodpleasure,bythecounselofHisownwill, -andthatthiseternaldecreeorpurposeHecertainlyandinfalliblyexecutesintimeinregardtoeachandeveryoneincludedunderit.ThisistheCalvinisticdoctrine of election; every Calvinist believes this, and every one whobelieves this is a Calvinist. The meaning of this doctrine, solemn andmysteriousas it is, is easilyunderstood;andmenareCalvinistsorant-Calvinistsaccordingastheyaffirmordenyit.Thegrandquestionis,-Isthiselection-suchachoiceofmentoeternal life,onthegroundof thegoodpleasureofGod-areality,establishedbyscripturalauthority,orisitnot?Fromthenatureofthecaseitismanifest,thateverythingofrealimportancehingesupontherealityofsuchanelectionashasnowbeendescribed;andthatthecontroversy,sofarasitinvolvesanythingvitalorfundamental, is exhausted, whenever it is settled, - that is, practically,wheneveramanhasconclusivelymadeuphismind,eitherthatsuchanelectionisorisnotrevealedinScripture.AllmenwhoarenotCalvinistsdeny the reality of any such election on the part of God; and if, whiledenyingthis,theyadmitthatGodforesawfrometernitythewholeoftheactual history of each individual of the human race, then they areArminians, - andnothingbut ignorancewill lead them toobject to thisdesignation.

ThefundamentalprinciplesoftheArminiandoctrineuponthesubjectofelection - the leading features of the theory which has been alwayshistorically associatedwith that name -may be accurately exhibited inthe two following positions, lst, ThatGodmadeno decree - formed nopurpose -bearing immediatelyand infalliblyupon the final salvationof

men,exceptthisgeneralone,thatHewouldsaveoradmittoheavenallmenwhoshouldinfactbelieveinJesusChristandperseveretilldeathinfaith and holiness, and that He would condemn and consign topunishment all who should continue impenitent and unbelieving. And2d,ThatiftherebeanyactofGod,bearingupontheultimatesalvationofparticularmenconsideredindividually,whichmaybecalledinanysenseanelection,ordecree,orpurpose,itcanonlybefoundedon,andmustbedeterminedby,aforesightoftheiractualfaithandperseverance.

Thefirstoftheseisthetrueproperanti-Calvinisticposition,heldequallyand alike by Arminians and Socinians; and constitutingmanifestly themainsubstanceofwhatmustbeheldbyevery intelligentmanwhohasnotembracedCalvinism.ItimpliesthatGoddidnotmakeanelectionofparticularpersonstoeternallife,andresolvetobestowuponthemfaith,holiness,andperseverance,inordertosecuretheendofthiselection;butthatHemerelymadechoiceofcertainqualitiesorfeaturesofcharacter,andresolvedtotreatthemaccordingtotheirpropernature,inwhateverindividuals theymight turnoutat last tobe found.Having formed thisgeneral purpose to save thosewhomight believe andpersevere, and tocondemn and punish those whomight be impenitent and unbelieving,GodvirtuallyleftittomenthemselvestocomplyornotwiththetermsorconditionsHe had prescribed; - having no purpose to exercise, and, ofcourse,notinfactexercising,anydetermininginfluenceupontheresultin any case, whatever amount of assistance or co-operation He mayrenderinbringingitabout.Thismustbeinsubstancethegroundtakenby every one intelligently acquainted with the subject, who is not aCalvinist.WecouldeasilyprovethatthisgroundwastakenbyArminiusandhis followers, and really formed themain feature of thediscussionabout the time of the Synod of Dort. The Synod of Dort, in theirdeliveranceuponthecontroversyraisedbyArminiansandhis followersin opposition to the Calvinism of the Reformers, not only gave anexpositionofthepositivescripturaltruthuponeachofthefivepoints,butalsosubjoinedtothesearejectionoftheerrors(rejectioerrorum)whichhadbeenbroachedbyArminians;anduponthefirstoftheArticles, thatonpredestination,theveryfirstoftheArminianerrorswhichtheSynodrejected and condemnedwas this, that “thewill ofGod concerning thesavingofthosewhoshallbelieveandpersevereinfaithandtheobedience

offaith,isthewholeandentiredecreeofelectionuntosalvation,andthatthere is nothing else whatever concerning this decree revealed in thewordofGod”.ArminianismwasfundamentallyandessentiallyarejectionoftheCalvinismtaughtbythegreatbodyofthosewhomGodraisedupandqualifiedastheinstrumentsoftheReformation.Itsleadingpositionsthus came to be a denial of the scripturalwarrant for such a decree ofelectionasCalvinistsusuallyadvocate,andanassertionthatthewholeofwhatissaidinScriptureaboutadecreeofelectionbearing immediatelyuponthefinalsalvationofmen,isexhaustedbythedoctrine,-which,ofcourse,alladmittobetrue,-viz.thatGodhasdeterminedtosaveallwhoshall believe in Jesus Christ and persevere to the end in faith andholiness,andtoconsigntopunishmentallwhocontinueimpenitentandunbelieving.

Thesecondpositionabovelaiddown,statesaccuratelythetrueplaceandstanding of the subject of the foreknowledge or foresight of faith andperseverance, about which somuch is said in the controversy betweenCalvinistsandArminians.Webelievethatitischieflyfromwantofclearandaccurateconceptionsofthetruelogicalpositionandrelationsofthismatterof foreknowledge or foresight, that somanymen areArminianswithoutbeingawareofit;orratherthatsomanyhonestlybutignorantlyrepudiateArminianismwhiletheyreallyholdit.Thefallacywhichleadsmany astray, upon this point is the notion, that the doctrine that thedivine decree of election, or the divine purpose to save certainmen, isbasedorfoundedonlyupontheforeknowledgethatthesemenwillinfactbelieve and persevere, is an essential, necessary part of the Arminiansystem of theology; and affords a precise test for determining, bothnegatively and positively, whether or not men are Arminians. This,though a very common notion, and one not unnaturally suggested bysome of the aspects which this controversy has assumed, is erroneous.Thismatterof foreknowledgedoesnot intrinsicallyandlogicallyoccupysoprominentandimportantaplaceinthecontroversy-oratleastinthatbranchofitwhichconcernsthesettlementofthestateofthequestion-asisoftenimagined.Itsrealplaceinthisdepartmentofthecontroversy iscollateralandsubordinate;andthepracticalresultofacorrectviewofitsposition is, that while the founding of election upon foreknowledgeproves thataman isanArminian, the rejectionof this idea isnoproof

that he is not. The fundamental position ofArminius andhis followerswas in direct opposition to the Calvinistic doctrine of the absoluteelectionof somemen to everlasting life, basedonlyupon the sovereigngood pleasure of God. They held that this doctrine is opposed to thetestimony of Scripture, and to right views of the divine character andgovernment.ButArminians,whiledenying thatGodabsolutely choosessomemen to life in the exercise ofHis sovereign good pleasure, admitthatHedoesinfalliblyforeseeeverythingthatcomestopass,-thatthusthe history and fate of each individual of the human race were frometernity present toHismind, and of course became in some sense theobjectsofHisactingsandpurposes;-andthat,onthisgroundandinthissense, He might be said to have resolved from eternity to save eachindividualwho is saved. Thenotion of an election to life originating inandfoundedupontheforesightofmen’scharacterandconduct, is thusno necessary or fundamental part of the actual position which theArminiansoccupy. It ismerelyacertainmodeofexpression intowhichtheycan,withoutinconsistency,throwtheirleadingdoctrine;andtheuseofwhich involvessomethingofanaccommodationor approximation tothelanguageofScripture,andoftheirCalvinisticopponents.Arminiansvirtually say to their opponents, - “We wholly deny your doctrine ofelection to life on the ground of God’s sovereign good pleasureforeordaining and securing this result; and the only sense inwhichwecould,consistentlywiththisdenial,admitofanythinglikeanelectionofindividuals to life, is God’s foreseeing and recognizing this result as athingdeterminedineachcasebymen’sactual character.Anelection tolifeinthissenseanduponthisgroundisundoubtedlyareality,aprocesswhichactuallytakesplace;andwearequitereadytoadmitit,especiallyas it seems to accord with and to explain those scriptural statementsaboutelectiononwhichyoubaseyourdoctrine.Inshort,ifyouwillinsistupon something thatmay be called an election, at least in a loose andimproper sense, we have no objection to allow an election founded onforesight,butwecanconcedenothingelseof thatsort.”This is thetruestateofmatters,and itbringsoutclearly thesubordinateandcollateralplaceheldbythesubjectofforeknowledgeintheinvestigationofthestateofthequestion.

Some Arminians are willing so far to accommodate themselves to the

scripturalandCalvinisticusageoflanguage,astoadmitthat,inthesensenowexplained,GodhadfrometernityHisown.fixedandunchangeablepurposes in regard to the admission of men individually into heaven;while others think it moremanly and candid to avoid the use of suchlanguage,whentheirfundamentalprinciplerequiresthemsothoroughlytoexplainitaway.Allthatisimpliedintheelectionofanyindividualtoeternallife,intheonlysenseinwhichanyonenotaCalvinistcanadmitit, is, that God foresees that that individual will in fact believe andpersevere; and that on this ground - this being “the cause or conditionmoving him thereto” - He decrees or purposes to admit that man toheaven,andtogivehimeverlastinglife.Theresultisthusdeterminedbythe man himself, - God’s decree (falsely so called) with respect to hissalvation being nothing but a mere recognition of him as one who,without His efficacious determining interposition, would certainly, inpointoffact,complywiththeconditionsannouncedtohim.Adecreeorpurposebasedsolelyupontheforeknowledgeorforesightofthefaithandperseveranceofindividuals,isofcoursepracticallythesamethingastheentirewantornon-existenceofanydecreeorpurposeinregardtothem.Itdeterminesnothingconcerningthem,itbestowsnothinguponthem,itsecuresnothingtothem.Itisamerewordorname,theuseofwhichonlytendsto involve the subject in obscurity and confusion.Whereas, uponCalvinisticprinciples,God’selectingdecreeinchoosingsomementolifeis the effectual source or determining cause of the faith and holinesswhich are ultimatelywrought in them, and of the eternal happiness towhichtheyat lastattain.Godelectscertainmento life,notbecauseHeforesees that they will repent and believe and persevere in faith andholiness,but forreasonsnodoubtfullyaccordantwithHiswisdomandjustice, though wholly unknown to us, and certainly not based uponanything foreseen in them as distinguished from other men; and thenfurtherdecreestogivetothesemen,induetime,everythingnecessaryinorder to their being admitted to the enjoyment of eternal life, inaccordance with the provisions of the scheme which His wisdom hasdevisedforsavingsinners.

Butweareindangeroftravellingbeyondtheconsiderationofthestateofthequestion,and trenchingupon theproperargumentof thecase.Ourobjectatpresentissimplytoshow,thatalthoughtheideaoftheforesight

ofmen’s faithandperseverance is commonlybrought into theordinarypopularmodeofstatingthedifferencebetweenCalvinistsandArminians,yetitdoesnotreallytouchthesubstanceofthepointcontroverted,soastobe,outandout,adiscriminatingtestofmen’struedoctrinalposition.

Itisratheracertainmodeofspeaking,bywhichArminiansendeavourtoevade a difficulty, and to approximate to scriptural language withoutadmitting scriptural truth.Whenmen say, asmanyArminians do, thatthe divine decree of election is based upon the foresight of faith andperseverance,theyarevirtuallysayingthatthereisnodecreeofelection,inanyproper senseof theword;or,what ispractically the same thing,that thewholeandentiredecreeof election isGod’s eternalpurpose tosaveallwhoshall,inpointoffact,believeandpersevere.Foreknowledgethus does not really affect the proper status question is, - the realsubstanceofwhatismaintainedoneitherside,ormadematterofactualcontroversy; though it does enter fundamentally into the argument orproof,-theArminianadmissionofdivineforeknowledgeaffordingtotheCalvinistsanargumentinfavourofforeordinationwhichhasneverbeensuccessfullyanswered.

It isonsuchgroundsasthesethatwecontendthat,while thebasingofelectionuponforeknowledgeisaproofthatmenmaybejustlydescribedasArminians, thedecliningorrefusingtoembracethis idea isnoproofthattheymaynotbejustlysodesignated.Webelievethaterroneousanddefectiveconceptions,onthispoint,areonemaincausewhymenarenotaware that they are Arminians, and unwarrantably repudiate thedesignation. There are various reasons that lead men, who are reallyArminians, toreject this ideaofanelection foundedonforesight.Somethinkitmoremanlyandstraightforwardtodeclareopenlythatthereisnosuchthingasanelectiontoeternal life, insteadofgraspingatwhathasthe appearance of being an election, but is not. Others rather wish toleavedivine foreknowledge altogether in the background, and to say aslittleabout itas theycan,either in thestatementor in theargumentofthe question. Many, while admitting foreknowledge and denyingforeordination, see the difficulties and inconveniences of attempting toconnect them in this way. The attempt to found an election onforeknowledgebringsout,inapeculiarlypalpablelight,thefundamental

objectionofCalvinistsagainstthesystemoftheiropponents,-viz.thatitleaveseverythingbearinguponthecharacterandeternalconditionofallthe individuals of our race undetermined, and indeed uninfluenced, bytheir Creator and Governor, and virtually beyond His control; anddegradesHimtotheconditionofamerespectator,whoonlyseeswhatisgoingonamongHiscreatures,orforeseeswhatistotakeplace,withouthimselfdeterminingit,orexertinganyrealefficiencyintheproductionofit,-andwhomustbeguidedbywhatHethusseesorforeseesinallHisdealings with. them. All this, indeed, can be proved to be involvednecessarily inthedenialofCalvinism;but itcomesoutveryplainlyandpalpablywhenArminianismisputintheformofmaintaininganelectionfoundedonforesight,andonthisaccountmanyArminiansshrink fromthat mode of representation. For these reasons, many who zealouslymaintain what is really the essential characteristic feature ofArminianism,dislikeandavoidthebasingofelectionuponforesight;andasthismodeofputtingthematterispopularlyregardedasthedistinctivemarkofArminianism, thosewhoavoidand reject it are veryapt,whentheir acquaintance with these subjects is imperfect and superficial, toregard themselves as warranted in repudiating the designation ofArminians.

Faberhasmade it quitemanifest that itwas chieflyby some confusionupon this point that he was induced to abjure Arminianism, while hereallybelieved it; andwe suspect that thishas operated as an element,thoughperhapsnottheprincipalone,inproducingthesameresultinthecase ofArchbishopWhately. Faber has developedhis viewsupon thesepoints much more fully thanWhately, and it may tend to throw lightupon the matter under consideration, if we advert to his mode ofrepresenting it. Faber entitles hiswork, “AnHistorical Inquiry into theIdealityandCausationofScripturalElection.”Bytheidealityofelection,hemeanstheinvestigationofthequestionastowhatitistowhichmenare said to be elected or chosen; and by the causation of election hemeanstheinvestigationofthequestionastowhatisthecause,orground,orreasonofGod’sactinsoelectingorchoosingthem.Itisplainenough,fromthenatureofthecase,thattherecanbeonlytwodistinctquestionsoffundamentalimportanceinregardtotheideaofelection,-viz.1st,DidGodchoosemenonly towhat is external and temporal? or 2d,DidHe

alsochoosethemtowhatisinternalandeverlasting?Inotherwords,DidGod choose men only to external privileges and opportunities, notdetermining by any act of His, but leaving it to be determined bythemselves, in the exercise of their own free will, whether or not theyshall improve these means of grace, and consequently whether or nottheyshallbesaved?or,DidHechoosethemalsoto faith,andholiness,andheaven,tograceandglory,resolvingabsolutelytosavethosewhomHehadchosen,andtogivethemeverythingneedfultopreparethemforsalvation,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheschemewhichHehaddevisedandproclaimed?Thecauseofelectionmust, in likemanner,beresolved either into something in men, existing or foreseen, or intosomething in God himself; and if everything in men themselves beexcluded from any causal influence upon God’s act in election, this isevidently the same thing as tracing election to God’s sovereign goodpleasure-tothecounselofHisownwill.

It is by the application of these two pairs of differences that Faberdiscriminates his four different doctrines on election, viz. Calvinism,Arminianism, Nationalism, and Ecclesiastical Individualism, - takingsome assistance also from another distinction of much inferiorimportance, -viz. thatbetweenanelectionofnationsormassesofmencollectively, and an election of individuals. Calvinism he represents asteaching,thattheideaofelectionisGod’schoosingabsolutelysomemenindividuallytoeternallife,andthatthecauseofelectionisnotanythinginthesementhemselves,butonlythesovereigngoodpleasureofGod.AsCalvinists, we have no objection to make to this representation. Faberrejects the Calvinistic idea of election, but approves of our view of itscause. Arminians, according to him, agree with the Calvinists inrepresentingtheideaofelectiontobeachoosingofmenindividuallytoeternallife,butdifferfromtheminrepresentingthecauseofthiselectionto be the foreknowledge ofmen’s’ character and conduct, or their faithandperseveranceforeseen.AndhereweseethefallacywhichinvolvestheviewsofFaber, andmanyothers, upon thiswholematter in confusion,and which we have already in substance exposed. It is only a greatignorance of the whole bearing and relations of the notion of basingelectionuponforesight,thatcouldleadanymantoassert,asFaberdoes,that Arminians agree with Calvinists in maintaining that the idea of

election is that God chooses some men to eternal life. Beyond allquestion,thefundamentalprincipleofArminianismisjustadenialoftheCalvinistic doctrine, that God really, in the proper sense of the word,chooses some men to eternal life - a denial that such an election issanctionedbyScripture;whiletheideaofrepresentingforeknowledgeasthegroundofelection, ismerelyacollateralsubordinatenotion,havingsomethingofthecharacterofanafterthought,andformingnopartofthereal substance or essential features of the actual position maintained.Arminians deny out-and-out that Scripture reveals any real election byGod of somemen to eternal life; while they often add to this denial astatementtothiseffect,thatiftherebeanythinginScripturewhichseemstoindicateanelectionofsomementoeternallife,-anythingresemblingorapproximating to theCalvinistic idea of election, - it can be only anelectionbaseduponaforesightofmen’scharacter,whichismanifestly,asintelligentandcandidArminiansadmit,noelectionatall.But,aftertheexplanations formerly given,weneednot dwell longer upon thispoint.Arminians thenare,according toFaber,unsound,both inregard to theidea of election, inwhich, it seems> they agreewith Calvinists; and inregardtothecauseofit,inwhichtheydifferfromthem.

Letusattendnowtowhathesaysaboutthetwootherschemes,whicharedifferent frombothof these.The third iswhathecallsNationalism, -adoctrinetaughtbyJohnLocke,DrJohnTaylorofNorwich,andDrmadeby, the present Archbishop of Canterbury, in his book on ApostolicalPreaching.It is this, thattheelectionspokenof inScripture ismerelyachoice made by God of nations or masses of men to form His visiblechurch,andtoenjoytheoutwardmeansofgrace;andthat thecauseofthiselectionisthesovereigngoodpleasureofGod,whogivestodifferentagesandcountries theenjoymentof themeansofgrace, andwithholdsthem, according to the counsel ofHis ownwill. Here Faber thinks thecausation right; it being resolved, as in the case of Calvinism, into thegood pleasure of God. He thinks the ideality partly right and partlywrong: right in so faras it representselectionasbeingonlya choice tooutward privileges and means of grace, and not, as Calvinists andArminiansconcur inholding,achoice tosalvationandeternal life; andwrong, in so far as it implies that election has for-its object, notindividuals, but nations or communities. The fourth theory which he

expounds,andwhichhelabourstoprovetobealtogether,bothinidealityand causation, accordant with the sacred Scriptures, with primitiveantiquity, andwith the symbolical books of the Church of England, hecallsbythenameofEcclesiasticalIndividualism.Inpointofcausation,itagreeswithCalvinismandNationalism,inresolvingthecauseofelectioninto the good pleasure of God. In regard to ideality, it agrees withNationalisminthefundamentalpointofrepresentingelectionasachoiceofmenonlytothecommunionofthevisiblechurchandtotheenjoymentofthemeansofgrace,andnottoanythingimplyingorsecuringsalvation;while it differs from it only in the insignificant point of making theobjectsofelectionindividualsinsteadofnations.

ItthusappearswhyitisthatFaberrepresentsArminianismasthemosterroneous of the three erroneous doctrines. Arminianism is erroneousboth in point of ideality and of causation: whereas Calvinism andNationalismarebothrightinpointofcausation,andNationalismisonlypartiallyandslightlywronginpointofideality.Itmustalsobeveryplain,wethink,fromtheexplanationwhichhasbeengiven,thatFaber-whilecondemningandabjuringArminianism,with,wehavenodoubt,perfectsincerity - is himself an Arminian, and nothing else. The fundamentalprinciple of Calvinists is, that God has absolutely chosen somemen tosalvation, resolving to give them eternal life, and of course infalliblyexecutingthispurpose.ThefundamentalprincipleofArminians,andofallwho arenotCalvinists, is andmust be, thatGod hasmade no suchdecree, - formed no such purpose; thatHe has not chosen anymen toeternal life, or to anythingwhich implies or secures it, but only to thatwhichis in itselfexternalandtemporary, though, if rightly improved, itavailstomen’ssalvation,-viz.thecommunionofthevisiblechurchandtheenjoymentof themeansofgrace.Faberrepudiatesthefundamentalprinciples of Calvinism; he strenuously contends for the fundamentalprinciple of Arminianism; and therefore he may be justly called anArminian.

The subject may also be illustrated in this way. Election is frequentlyspoken of in Scripture, and ascribed to God. Men are bound tounderstand the Scriptures, and they should investigate and ascertainwhat is there meant by election. Calvinists admit that election and

cognatewords are used in Scripture in a variety of senses. They admitthat God, in fact, chooses nations and choosesmen individually to theenjoyment of the means of grace; and that this choice of nations andindividualstoexternalprivilegesisdescribedinScripturebythenameofelection,andisascribedtothegoodpleasureofGod.Thusfarallpartiesareagreed.ThedistinctiveprincipleofCalvinism is, that,whileelection.isusedinScriptureinthesesenses,-todescribetheseprocesses,- it isalsousedinahigherandmoreimportantsense,todescribeaprocessinwhichGod,outofHisowngoodpleasure,choosessomementoeternallife,andtothecertainimprovementaswellastheoutwardenjoymentofthemeansofgrace;andbywhich, therefore,Hesecurestheirsalvation.God determines the outward privileges enjoyed by nations andindividuals, - it is admitted thatwhateverHedoes in timeHe resolvedfrometernitytodo,-andthereforeHemaybesaidtohavechosenfrometernity nations and individuals to the outward privileges which theycome in timetoenjoy.NationalismandEcclesiasticalIndividualismarethusbothtruesofarastheygo.NoCalvinistdenieseithertheoneortheother.Theybothdescriberealities,-processeswhichactuallytakeplaceunder God’s moral government, - which He resolved from eternity tocarry through, and which are sometimes indicated in Scripture byelectionandcognatewords.This is certainly true.Thequestion is, Is itthe whole truth? Is there, or is there not, another and higher sense inwhichthewordelection isused inScripture,asdescriptiveofanactof.God bearing directly and conclusively upon the salvation of men?Calvinistsmaintainthatthereis;Arminiansandallotheranti-Calvinistsmaintainthatthere isnot;and this is indeed theoneessential 'pointofdifferencebetweenthem.NationalismandEcclesiasticalIndividualism,-orthechoiceofnationsandindividualstothemeansofgrace,- thoughtrue so far as they go, viewed as descriptive of actual realities, are yet,when represented as embodying the whole truth, or as exhausting thesenses in which election is used in Scripture, just a denial of thefundamentalprincipleofCalvinism,andanassertionofthefundamentalprinciple of Arminianism; and therefore both Nationalists andIndividualists are equally and alike, at least when they admitforeknowledge,Arminians,andnothingelse.

Intheexpositionofthescripturalmeaningofelection,thegroundtaken

byCalvinistsisthis,thatwhateverotheractsofGod,bearinginanywayuponthesalvationofmen,areormaybedescribedbythisname,thereisanelectionspokenofinScripture,ofwhichthethreefollowingpositionscan be established: - 1st, That it is not founded upon anything inmen(foreseen or existing) as the cause or reasonwhy they are chosen, butonlyonGod’sownsovereigngoodpleasure.2d,That it isachoosingofindividuals,andnotmerelyofnations,ormassesofmencollectively.And3d,That it isdirected immediatelynot toanythingmerelyexternalandtemporary,buttocharacterandfinaldestiny;thatitisachoosingofmentoeternalsalvation,anddoescertainlyandinfallibly issue inthatresultinthecaseofall-whoareincludedinit.Calvinistsbelievethatthereisanelection spoken of in Scripture, of which these three positions can beestablished; and it is the maintenance of all this that makes themCalvinists. But the question with which at present we are chieflyconcerned is, -What is theArminianmode of dealingwith these threepositions? andwhatmode of dealingwith them entitles us to callmenArminians?

Withregardtothefirstofthesepositions,themorecandidandintelligentArminiansadmit,thatthereisanelectionspokenofinScripture.whichisfoundednotonanythinginmen,butonlyonthegoodpleasureofGod.SomeArminianshavedeniedthis,notwithstandingtheclearestscripturalevidence. But these have not been the most reputable and formidableadvocates of Arminianism. There is nothing in their Arminianism thatshould prevent them from admitting this; and it is only themisapprehension and confusion which we have already exposed aboutthebearingandrelationsof the ideaof foreknowledgeor foresight, thatcould lead any one to suppose that this admission involved them ininconsistency, or afforded any presumption that they were notArminians. Arminians, indeed, must repudiate - in order to preserveanythinglikeconsistency-anelectiontoeternallife,foundedonlyonthegoodpleasureofGod,andnotonanythinginmenthemselves.Iftherewereanysuchelectionasthis,itcouldbefoundedonlyuponaforesightoffaith, holiness, and perseverance. But rejecting any proper election toeternal life,thereisnothingtopreventthemfromadmittinganelectionof men to what is external and temporary, founded only on the goodpleasureofGod.WhatelyandFaberbothadmitwhatissometimescalled

arbitraryorirrespectiveelection;butasitisonlyanelectiontooutwardprivileges, - which men may improve or not as they choose, - theadmission does not afford even a presumption that they are notArminians,althoughtheyseemtothinkitdoes.

Thesecondposition-viz.thatthereisanelectionspokenofinScripture,theobjectofwhichisnotnationsormassesofmencollectively,butmenindividually-doesnotofitselfdetermineanythingofmuchimportance.Calvinists admit that there is an election of nations spoken of inScripture;andmanyArminiansadmitthatthereisalsobroughtbeforeusintheBibleanelectionofindividualsasdistinguishedfrommasses.Iftheonly election spoken of in Scripture be an election of masses orcommunities, - and this, of course, is thedistinctive tenetof thosewhoarecalledNationalists,-itfollowsthattheelectioncouldbeonlytowhatwasexternalandtemporary,thatis,tooutwardprivileges.Andit isthisplainlywhichhascommendedthenotiontoacertainclassofArminians.Finding it conceded that there are instances in Scripture in which theelectionspokenofisappliedtonations,theyhavebethoughtthemselvesof employing this notion for the purpose of shutting out Calvinismaltogether, by showing that there is no other election - no election ofindividuals - spoken of in Scripture; and consequently that "scriptural«election is only to outward privileges. Nationalism, then, so far frombeingadifferentdoctrinefromArminianism,ismerelyaformoraspectinwhichArminianismmaybeembodied,withsomethinglikeashowofan argument in support of it. The maintenance of Nationalism provesthat men are Arminians; while the denial of it - in other words, theadmissionthatScripturespeaksalsoofanelectionofindividuals-isnoproofthattheyarenot.

The truth is, that thehinge of thewhole question turnsupon the thirdposition above stated as maintained by Calvinists in regard to themeaningofelection, -viz. thatScripturedoes tellusofanabsoluteandunchangeable election of some men to eternal life, an election whichinfalliblysecurestothesemengraceandglory.TheonlyconclusiveproofthatamanisnotanArminian,istheproofthatheholdsthisfundamentalprincipleofCalvinism.IfmendonotadmitthisgreatdistinctiveprincipleofCalvinism,theymustmaintainthattheelectionspokenofinScripture

is only an election to what is external and temporary, - that is, toprivilegesoropportunitieswhichmenmayimproveornotastheyplease.ItisimpossibletoexamineanArminiancommentaryuponthescripturalstatementsconcerningelection,withoutseeingthattheonegrandobjectaimedat is just toestablish, that therearenoneof themwhichprovearealelectiontograceandglory,andthattheymaybeallexplainedsoasto imply nothing more than an election to outward privileges. All theleadingArminian divines have taken - and from the nature of the casecould not avoid taking - this ground, in dealing with the scripturalargumentonthesubjectofelection;andeveryonewhotakesthisgroundistherebyconclusivelyprovedtobeanArminian.They»mayconcedetoCalviniststhefirsttwoofthepositionswehavelaiddowninregardtothescripturalmeaningofelection,-that is, theymayadmitthatthereisanelection spoken of in Scripturewhich is founded only on the sovereigngoodpleasureofGod,andwhichhasrespecttomenindividually,andnotmerely to nations or masses. They are quite consistent in theirArminianism,andhavequiteasufficientbasisonwhichtorestit,solongastheydenythe thirdposition,andmaintain theconverseof it;andbyoccupying this ground they prove themselves to be Arminians. This ispreciselythecasewithFaberandWhately.TheybothdenythatScripturegivesanysanctiontoarealelectionofsomementofaithandholiness,tograce and glory; and therefore they are not Calvinists. They bothmaintain that the only election spoken of in Scripture is an election tooutward privileges and opportunities, whichmenmay improve or not,accordingtotheirOwngoodpleasure;and therefore (sinceat the sametimetheyadmitforeknowledge)theymaybemostwarrantablyheldtobeArminians.

From the explanationwhichhas been given, itmust,we think, be veryevident, that Nationalism and Individualism as explained by Faber,insteadof being, as he represents thematter, twodistinct doctrines onthesubjectofelection,differentboth fromCalvinismandArminianism,arejusttwodevicesforevadingthescripturalevidenceinsupportoftheformer,andforassistingtofurnishascripturalargumentinfavourofthelatter. There is very little real intrinsic difference between these twoArminiandevicesforansweringtheCalvinisticargumentandevadingthetestimonyofScripture;for,ontheonehand,anelectionofnationsmust

be an election only to outward privileges; and, on the other hand,outward privileges are usually - in the ordinary course of God’s moraladministration - bestowed rather upon nations or communities thanuponindividuals.SomeArminiansprefertheoneandsometheotherofthese two modes of disposing of the Scripture testimony in favour ofCalvinism; while others again think it best to employ both methods,according to the exigencies of the occasion. The two together form thegreat staple of the scriptural argument of the whole body of Arminiandivines; and it has beenno uncommonpractice amongmen to employthe one or the other mode of evasion, according as one or the otherseemed to afford the more plausible materials for turning aside theargument in favour of theCalvinistic doctrine of election, derived fromtheparticularpassagewhichtheyhappenedtobeexaminingatthetime.Dr Whately takes the ground, directly and at once, that the electionascribedtoGodinScriptureisnotanelectiontofaithandsalvation,butonlytooutwardprivilegesormeansofgrace,whichmenmayimproveornot as they choose; while Dr Sumner, the present Archbishop ofCanterbury, takes the other ground, and maintains that scripturalelectionisachoicenotofindividualsbutofnations;andthus,ofcourse,comes round to the same inevitable Arminian position, by a slightlydifferentandsomewhatmorecircuitousprocess.

Wearealmostashamedtohavedweltsolong,andwithsuchreiteration,uponthesematters.Butwhenwefinditgravelyputforthbysuchawriteras Faber, that Calvinism, Arminianism, Nationalism, and EcclesiasticalIndividualism, indicate four different theories upon the subject ofelection, -Arminianismbeingatoncemore erroneous in itself, and yetnearertoCalvinism,thaneitheroftheothertwo;whenwefindthesameviewsofthegeneralimportoftheseallegedtheoriesbroughtoutbyoneatpresentholdingtheofficeofaprofessorofdivinityintheUniversityofCambridge, in a work which seems to be in great repute, having gonethrough foureditions in thecourseof the last sevenoreightyears;andwhenwereflectuponthevariousindicationspresented,thattheseviewsofFaberandProfessorBrownepasscurrentasundoubtedtruthsamongmanyoftheclergyoftheChurchofEngland,wecannotbutbelievethatignorance, misapprehension, and confusion are widely prevalent uponthese subjects, and that there is an imperative call to attempt to dispel

thisthickdarkness,whileatthesametimewecannotbutfeelthatitmayprobablynotbeeasytoeffectthis.Wehavesurelysaidenoughtoprove-lst, That there are just two really distinct theories upon this subjectwhich,withsubstantialhistoricalaccuracy,maybecalledCalvinismandArminianism, - that the great point which forms the proper subject ofcontroversy between Calvinists and Arminians is the existence or thenon-existence, the affirmation or the negation, of a real decree, or anabsolute purpose of God, formed from eternity, originating in Hissovereign good pleasure, choosing some men to eternal life, andeffectuallysecuringthatthesemenshallhavegraceandglory;2d,ThatitisathoroughfallacytorepresentArminianism-asisdonebyFaberandProfessor Browne - as countenancing any proper decree or purpose ofGodreallybearinguponthesalvationofmen,-afallacyarisingfromthewantofarightperceptionofthetruebearingandrelationsoftheideaofforeknowledgeorforesight,asithasbeenbroughtintothediscussionofthis subject; and 3d, That Nationalism and Individualism, instead ofbeingtheoriesdifferingfromArminianism,arejustformsoraspectsofit,- or rather, perhaps, attempts at arguments in support of it. All whobelieve thatScripture establishes the existenceof suchanelection as isdescribedinthefirstofthesepositions,areCalvinists;andallwhodenythis,providedtheyatthesametimeadmitthedivineforeknowledge,areArminians.Whentriedbythis,-theonlyreallysoundandsearchingtest,- Faber and Whately are undoubtedly Arminians; and there is noviolation of historical accuracy or of substantial justice in applying tothem that designation notwithstanding that they throughmisapprehensiondisclaimit.

Dr.Whately, inhis latestwork, “TheScriptureDoctrine concerning theSacraments,” has a remark which bears upon this matter, and mayrequiretobeadvertedto.Hesaysthere,“Itisutterlyimproperthatanyshould be called either by themselves or by others ‘Calvinists,’ whodissentfromanypartofwhatCalvinhimselfinsistsuponasanecessaryportionofhistheory;”anduponthisprinciplehewouldprobablycontendthat it is “utterly improper to call him anArminian/’ since he dissentsfrom(isomepartofwhatArminiusinsistsuponasanecessaryportionofhis theory.”Personallywehavenoobjection to theprincipleof the ruleindicatedbyDr.Whately.Wecouldnot,evenifsodisposed,escapefrom

the imputationofbeingCalvinists,byalleging thatwedissent fromanypart ofwhat Calvin insisted upon as a necessary portion of his theory,though we do dissent from some of his opinions. But in regard to theapplicationofDr.Whately’sremarktohisowncase,weventuretoaffirm,lst, That the rule which he lays down about the application of suchdesignationsisunnecessarilyandunwarrantablystringent;and2d,Thateven conceding the soundness of this stringent rule, we are perfectlywarrantedincallinghimanArminian.

lst,Theruleisundulystringent.Thismattermustbesettled-forthereisnootherstandardapplicabletothepoint-byconsideringthepracticeofthegeneralityofdivinesofdifferentdenominations.Now,therecanbenodoubt that it is a common and usual thing for divines to apply suchdesignationsasthoseunderconsiderationinawiderandmoreindefiniteway than Dr. Whately’s rule would sanction. Calvinism, Arminianism,andsimilarnames,aregenerallyemployedto indicate,notsomuchtheactualviewsheldbyCalvin,Arminius,andothers,butratherthegeneralsystem of doctrine which these men did much to bring out and tocommend,eventhoughitmayhavebeenconsiderablymodifiedinsomeof its features by the discussion to which it has been subsequentlysubjected.Controversy conductedby competent personsusually leads -though it may be after an interval, and even after the removal of theoriginal combatants - to clear up and modify men’s views upon bothsides; and yet, for the sake of convenience, the same compendiousdesignations may still be retained. The general practice of divinessanctions this use of thesenames, though it ismanifest that theymustoften be employed in a somewhat vague and ambiguous way, - therebeingnopreciseordefinitestandardtowhichreferencecanbemade,inorder todetermine their propermeaning and import.Thisunavoidablevagueness and. uncertainty in the use and application of those words,leavesmuchroomforcarpingandquibblingwhenmenaredisposed toevadeor escape fromadifficulty.But evenwith thisdrawback, there ismuchconvenience in theuseof suchdesignations; thegeneralusageoftheologians sanctions it; and it is trifling tomake an outcry about anymatter of this sort, unless in a case of gross and deliberate unfairness,CalvinandArminiusmustnotbeheldresponsibleforanyopinionswhichthey have not themselves expressed. Still there is no great difficulty in

distinguishingbetweentheirpersonalopinionsand the leading featuresof thesystemsof theology towhich theirnameshavebeenattached, asthese seem tobe logically related to each other, and as they have beencommonlysetforthbythemosteminentdivinesofeitherdenomination.Arminius never positively and decidedly renounced the Calvinisticdoctrineofthecertainperseveranceofbelievers;butnoonehaseverhadany hesitation about calling the denial of this doctrine Arminianism,uponthesegrounds-1st,Thatlogicallyitformsanatural,necessarypartoftheArminian systemof theology, althoughArminiushimself didnotperceive this, and did not insist upon it as a necessary portion of histheory;and2d,Thathistorically, thedoctrineofperseverancehasbeendeniedbythegreatbodyofthosedivineswho,eversinceArminius’stime,havebeencalledafterhisname.Itistrue,ontheonehand,thatmenofsense do not suppose that these designations - evenwhen applied in awaywhich,generalusagewarrants-affordofthemselvesanythinglikeaproofeitherof the truthor the falsehoodof thedoctrines towhichtheyareattached;andit isalsotrueontheother, thatmenofsensewillnotraise an outcry about the application of one of these designations tothemselves, if their views agree in themainwith the general system ofdoctrine towhich this designation has been usually applied.Wewouldnotobject tobecalledCalvinists, thoughwedifferedmuchmorewidelyfromCalvin’sownviewsthanwedo,nay,eventhoughwedissentedfromsomepointwhich“Calvinhimselfinsisteduponasanecessaryportionofhistheory,”solongasweheldthefundamentaldistinguishingprinciplesofthatschemeoftheologywithwhichhisnameisusuallyassociated.

But 2df Though Dr. Whately’s rule is unduly stringent, still its fairapplication does not prove the unwarrantableness of calling him anArminian. Not only does he hold, all the fundamental distinguishingprinciplesof thesystemof theologywhichhasbeengenerallyknown inthehistoryoftheChurchunderthenameofArminianism,asexpoundedby the generality of themost eminent divines who have accepted that,name for themselves, but he does not dissent from any part of whatArminiushimselfinsisteduponasanecessaryportionofhistheory;nay,hedoesnotdissentfromArminius,orfromthegeneralbodyofArminiandivines,inanydoctrineofrealimportance.Arminiuswasveryunwillingtobringout,honestlyandexplicitly,hispeculiaropinions.Itwasonlyin

1608,theyearbeforehisdeath,thathewasinducedtocomeoutwithaprofessionofhisdoctrines;andeventhenhisconductwasnotverymanlyand straightforward. We have four different statements, more or lessexplicit, prepared by him in that year, of his sentiments uponpredestination. They are to be found in his works. We are unable toperceiveanymaterialdifferencebetweentheviewsofArminius-astherestated - and those of Dr. Whately; and we are confident that no suchdifferencecanbeestablished.Dr.Whately,inassertingthatheisneitheraCalvinistnoranArminian,mustbeunderstoodas intendingtoaffirmthathediffers insomepointsofreal importance,notsomuchfromtheopinionsofCalvinandArminius,asfromtheleadingviewsonthesubjectof election that have commonly been held by Calvinistic and Arminiandivines.Heprobablyalso intended, inmakingthisstatement, toconveythe idea thathis views lay somewherebetween the one systemand theother;or, inotherwords,thatheneitherwentsofarinonedirectionastheCalvinists, nor so far in the opposite direction as theArminians. Ifthis was his intention - as it seems to have been - the fact would onlyshowhow imperfect ishisknowledgeof thesematters.For it isevidentthatinsofarasanythinglikeamaterialdifferencefromArminiuscouldbe pointed out, it is to be found principally in this direction, thatArminiusretainedmoreofthedoctrinesgenerallyheldbyCalviniststhanDr.Whatelyhasdone.Butwhatevertherebeinthis,itiscertainthatheholdsthewholesubstanceofwhathasbeenwellknowninthehistoryofthe Protestant church for the last two centuries as Arminianism, asopposedtoCalvinism,anddifferingsomewhatfromSocinianism,onthissubject; and that therefore we are fully warranted, by the ordinary,reasonable, and convenient practice of theologians, to call him anArminian. We must be careful, indeed, to ascribe to him no opinionswhich he has not professed or acknowledged. But he has no right todemand that, becausehehas a dislike to the designationArminian,wemust have recourse to circumlocution in indicating his theologicalposition,whenheisutterlyunabletoprovethatcallinghimanArminianinvolvesinaccuracyorinjustice,orimpliesanydeviationfromthemodeofdealingwithsuchtopicswhichissanctionedbytheordinarypracticeoftheologians.

Faber having written a book upon the subject of election, and having

there brought out his views fully and elaborately, hasmade itmanifestwhat were the grounds that led him to believe that he was not anArminian;andwehavehadnodifficultyinpointingoutthesourceofthefallacyinhiscase.Whatelyhasreferredtothismatteronlyincidentally,andhasnotgoneintoanyformalorelaborateexpositionofthedifferenttheories which have been held regarding it. In this way, while he hasaffordedusabundantgroundforbelievingthatheisanArminian,andforcallinghimby thatname,hehasnot toldusexplicitlyor indetailwhatarethegroundsonwhichheconsidershimselfwarrantedtorepudiatethedesignation.Ourviewsuponthispointmustthereforebeinferential,andto someextent conjectural.We think there are some indications, inhisstatements upon the subject of election, showing that he was to someextentmisledbythesamefallacyabouttherelationbetweenelectionandforeknowledgewhichwehave exposed in the case of Faber.' They bothconcurinrejectingtheArminianinterpretationofRom.viii.29,“WhomHedidforeknow,HealsodidpredestinatetobeconformedtotheimageofHisSon;”andof 1Pet. i.2, “Electaccording to the foreknowledgeofGod;”-denying,asCalvinistsdo,thatthesepassagesaffordawarrantforbasingelectionuponforesight.Andthereareother indications- thoughnone, so far as we remember, of a very explicit kind - that WhatelyconcurredwithFaber in rejecting altogether the idea of basing electionupon foresight; and in imagining that, in rejecting this idea, he wasabjuringthefundamental,distinctiveprincipleofArminianism.Wehavesaidenough,w’ethink,toshowthatanysuchnotioncanoriginateonlyinaverydefectiveandsuperficialknowledgeof the intrinsicmeritsof thisgreatcontroversy.

WehavehadoccasiontorefertosomepointsonwhichDr.Whatelyhasexpressed opinions different from those held by the generality ofArminians. These we have always regarded as eminently creditable tohim, especially aswe couldnotbut view themas the concessionsof anopponent.Itisprobablyonthese-differencesthathefoundshiswarrantandrighttodenythatheisanArminian.Wethinkitpropertoadverttothese points of difference, not merely for the purpose of showing thattheyaffordnogroundforhisabjuringthedesignation,butforthemoreimportantobjectofbringingout thevaluable concessions thusmade toCalvinism by one whom we must still take the liberty of calling an

Arminian.

The first point of this nature which we would notice we have alreadyadvertedto.Itisonewhichonlypartiallycomesunderthepresenthead,asthesameconcessionhasbeenmadebymanyArminians.Itisthis,thatDr.Whatelydistinctlyadmitsthatthewordelection,asusedinScripture,“relates, in most instances, to an arbitrary, irrespective, unconditionaldecree;” and shows that thosewho endeavour to answer theCalvinisticargument founded upon the Scripture passages where election and itscognatesoccur,bydenyingthis,areincapableofmaintainingthepositionthey have assumed. There are some Arminians who are so afraid ofadmitting anything that might be called “arbitrary, irrespective, orunconditional” in God’s purposes or procedure in regard to men, thatthey labour, in spite of the strongest opposing evidence, to excludeeverythingofthisnaturefromeverypassageinScripturewherethewordsoccur. But Dr. Whately, and many of the more sagacious and candidArminians, admit that this mode of dealing with the matter isunnecessary and unwarrantable. They could not indeed believe in anyarbitrary,irrespective,unconditionaldecreeofGodbearingdirectlyuponmen’ssalvation,andexertingadetermininginfluenceupontheresult.

And,aswehavefullyexplained,thefundamental,distinctiveprincipleofall anti-Calvinists - Arminians included - is just to deny that any suchdecree was or could be formed. But there is nothing in point ofconsistency tomake it impossible for Arminians to admit an arbitrary,irrespective,andunconditionalelection,provideditbeanelectionnottofaithandsalvation,toholinessandheaven,tograceandglory,butonlytowhatisexternalandtemporary,tooutwardprivilegesormeansofgrace;it being still dependent on men’s free will to improve or not theiropportunities,andthustoattainornottoeternallife.Anysuchthingasanelectiontosalvationcould,uponanti-Calvinisticprinciples,bebasedonlyuponaforesightofwhatmenindividuallywouldactuallybeanddo;andinfairnessandreasonthiscouldnotproperlybecalledanelection.Butanelection tooutwardprivilegesormeansofgracemightbebasedupon the sovereign good pleasure of God, as it exerts no efficaciousdetermining influence upon men's eternal destiny. Dr. Whately deniestheexistenceofanyrealelectionofsomemenbyGodtoeternal,life,and

admitsonlyanelectiontothemeansofgrace.Thisisaconclusiveproofthathe isanArminian;and theproof isnot in the leastaffectedbyhisadmission,thatthiselectionofsome,whethernationsor individuals, tooutward privileges, is “arbitrary, irrespective, and unconditional,” - inotherwords, is foundedonthesovereigngoodpleasureofGod,andnotonanythingexistingorforeseeninmenthemselves.

SomeoftheotherconcessionswhichDr.WhatelyhasmadetoCalvinistsarepointsinwhichhehasfewornoneoftheArminianstocountenancehim, and they are therefore all themore creditable to his sagacity andcandour;whileatthesametimewemaysayofthem,ingeneral,thatthe£y cannot be of any avail in proving that he may not be warrantablycalled an Arminian, inasmuch as they do not affect the state of thequestion,ortherealmeaningandimportoftheactualpositionsheldoneithersideandcontrovertedbetweenthetwoparties,butonlytheforceandvalueofsomeoftheargumentsemployedinconductingthecontest.

The second - and in some respects the most important - of theseconcessions is the admission that the arguments commonly adducedagainstCalvinism,derivedfromthemoralattributesandgovernmentofGod,areunsatisfactoryand invalid;andthat thegranddifficultyof thiswholesubjectappliestoeverysystem,inasmuchasitattachestothefacts- admitted by all - of the introduction and permanent continuance ofmoralevil.Hisviewsuponthesesubjectsarebroughtoutnotonlyinhis“EssayonElection,”butalsoinwhathehassaidinconnectionwiththeDiscourseofhispredecessor,ArchbishopKing,onPredestination,whichhehasrepublished,withNotesandanAppendix,inthelatereditionsofhis “Bampton Lectures.” He has fully adopted, as had been previouslydonebyhisfriendBishopCopleston,inhis“InquiryintotheDoctrinesofNecessityandPredestination,”theleadingprinciple,expoundedinKing’sfamousDiscourse.Theprinciple is in substance this (we are not calledupontogointoanydetailsuponthepoint),thatweknowtoolittleaboutGodandthedivineattributesandperfections, towarrantus indrawingconclusions from them as to the divine procedure; that the divineattributes,whileinfinitelysuperiorindegree,are:-thoughcalledbythesamenames-notthesameinkindasthosewhichweourselvespossess;thatourknowledgeofthemisalmostwholly,ifnotaltogether,analogical;

andthat,therefore,wearenotentitledtodrawinferencesorconclusionsabout the divine procedure from the divine power and knowledge, orfromthedivinejusticeandholiness,aswewouldfromthesamequalitiesinmen.Thereisasmuchtruthinthisgeneralprinciple,astolayagoodgroundforcondemningmuchpresumptuousandill-foundedspeculation,whichhasbeenbroughttobearuponthediscussionof thissubject.Buttheprincipleissurelycarriedtoofar,whenit is laiddownsoabsolutelythatourknowledgeofGod’sattributesiswhollyanalogical,anddoesnotwarrant any inferences as to the mode of the divine procedure. Theincomprehensibility of Jehovah - the infinite distance between a finiteandaninfinitebeing-shouldeverbefullyrecognizedandactedon.ButScriptureandrightreasonseemplainlyenoughtowarrantthelegitimacyandpropriety of some inferences or conclusions as toGod’s procedure,derived from the contemplation of His attributes. King developed theleading principle of his Discourse for anti-Calvinistic purposes; andCoplestonbrought it forward - to use a favourite phrase in the presentday-inthesamedogmaticinterest.Theirobjectwastowrest,bymeansof it, from the hands of Calvinists, the formidable arguments usuallyadduced against Arminianism, derived from God’s power, knowledge,and wisdom, which are often spoken of as His natural attributes. Dr.Whately,with superior sagacity and candour, sees and admits that thisprinciple, if true and sound, is equally available for wresting from thehandsofArminianstheargumentstheyhavebeenaccustomedtoadduceagainst Calvinism, derived from what are often called God’s moralattributes -His holiness, justice, and goodness. The great staple of theargumentagainstCalvinismhasalwaysbeen,thattheprocedurewhichitascribes toGod is inconsistentwith the holiness, justice, and goodnesswhichallattributetoHim.Iftheargumentderivedfromthissourcemustbe thrown aside as unwarrantable and invalid, - andWhately concedesthis as necessarily involved in the fair application ofKing’s principle, -Arminiansare strippedofby far themostplausible things theyhave toadduce.Theymaystill, indeed,consistentlyretaintheirleadingpositionupon other grounds. Theymay still deny the fundamental principle ofCalvinism, thoughdeprivedofwhathasbeenalways felt tobethemostformidable argument against it; and this is, indeed, just the positionoccupiedbyDr.Whately.HestillholdsthattherearegoodandsufficientgroundsforrejectingtheCalvinisticdoctrine,thoughhedeclinestomake

any use of the common argument against it, derived fromGod’smoralattributes.Theabandonmentofthisargumentasunsatisfactory,doesnotproduceanychangeintheactualdoctrineshemaintains.Thepositionheoccupiesmaybe, and inpointof fact is, the very sameas thatof thosewhocontinuetobelieveinthevalidityoftheoldfavouriteanti-Calvinisticargument;andastheabandonmentofthisargumentdoesnotmakehimlessanti-Calvinistic,soneithercanitaffordanyevidencethatheisnotanArminian. We must therefore continue to regard Dr. Whately’sabandonment of King’s principle of the common argument fromGod’smoral attributes, as the concession of an opponent, due to the force oftruth; while we are not called upon to attach the same weight to hiscontinuedadherencetotheordinaryArminiangroundoftheinvalidityofthe argument in favour of Calvinism, derived from God’s naturalattributes. Calvinists do not, in general, admit the soundness of King’sprinciple. They think they can establish the invalidity of the Arminianargument from the divine perfections upon other and more specificgrounds; and thus they profess to be able to show, that they arewarranted in accepting the concession ofDr.Whately, as to the utterlyprecarious and uncertain character of the argument against Calvinism,fromitsallegedinconsistencywithGod’smoralattributes;withoutatthesametimeneedingtorenouncetheargumentinfavourofCalvinismandagainst Arminianism, derived from the consideration of His naturalattributes.

The substance of this important concession is also presented by Dr.Whately, in amore definite and specific form.He virtually admits thattheargumentswhichhavebeencommonlyadducedagainstCalvinismonaccount of its alleged inconsistency with God’s moral attributes, reallyapply to and tell against actual facts, - undoubted realities occurringunder God’s moral government, - that they thus prove too much, andthereforeprovenothing; inshort, thattherealdifficulty isnotanythingpeculiar toCalvinism, but just the introduction and the permanence ofmoralevil,-anawfulreality,whicheverysystemmustequallydealwithand in someway dispose of. It is admitted, that whateverGod does intimeHeresolvedfrometernitytodo;andifso,nopeculiaroradditionaldifficultyattachestoHiseternaldecreeorpurpose,asdistinguishedfromthat attaching to its execution in time, or towhatGod actually does in

determiningmen’s character anddestiny.Whatever takesplace in timeGod resolved from eternity to produce or to permit; and the fact of itsoccurrenceprovesthattherewasnothinginHischaractertopreventHimfromproducingorpermittingit;and,ofcourse,nothingtoprecludeHishaving resolved frometernity to produce or permit it. By following outthese obvious considerations, Calvinists have proved that the greatdifficulty in thiswhole subject is just thepermanent existenceofmoralevilunderGod’sadministration;andasthisisadmittedonbothsidestobeanactualreality,thedifficultysuggestedbythecontemplationofGod’smoralattributesisthusprovedtobeonewhichCalvinistsandArminiansareequallybound,butatthesametimeequallyunable,tosolve.AllthishasbeenprovedtodemonstrationbyCalvinists, timeswithoutnumber;anditmanifestlyremovesoutofthewaybyfarthemostformidableandplausibleobjectionsbywhich their systemhaseverbeenassailed.Anti-Calvinistshaveneverbeenabletodeviseaplausibleanswertothislineofargument,sosubversiveoftheirfavouriteandmosteffectiveallegations.Butnotoneofthemhasever,sofarasweremember,concededitstruthand soundness so fully and frankly as Dr. Whately has done. Thisconcession is so important in itself, and sohonourable to him, thatwemustpresentitinhisownwords:-

“Before Idismiss the considerationof this subject, Iwould suggestonecaution relative to a class of objections frequently urged against theCalvinisticscheme- thosedrawnfromtheconclusionsofwhat is calledNaturalreligion,respectingthemoralattributesoftheDeity;which,itiscontended, rendered the reprobation of a large portion ofmankind anabsoluteimpossibility.Thatsuchobjectionsdoreducethepredestinarianto a great strait, is undeniable; and not seldom are they urged withexultingscorn,withbitter invective,andalmostwithanathema.Batweshouldbeverycautioushowweemploysuchweaponsasmayrecoiluponourselves.Argumentsof thisdescriptionhaveoftenbeenadduced,suchas,I fear,will crushbeneath the ruinsof thehostile structure theblindassailantwho seeks to overthrow it. It is a frightful, but an undeniabletruth,thatmultitudes,eveninChristiancountries,arebornandbroughtup under such circumstances as afford them no probable, even nopossible,chanceofobtainingaknowledgeofreligioustruths,orahabitofmoral conduct,but are even trained from infancy in superstitiouserror

andgrossdepravity.Whythisshouldbepermitted,neitherCalvinistnorArminiancanexplain;nay,whytheAlmightydoesnotcausetodieinthecradle every infant whose future wickedness andmisery, if suffered togrowup,Heforesees,iswhatnosystemofreligion,naturalorrevealed,willenableussatisfactorilytoaccountfor.

“In truth, these are merely branches of the one great difficulty, theexistence of evil, which may almost be called the only difficulty intheology. It assumes indeed various shapes: it is by many hardlyrecognized as a difficulty, and not a few have professed and believedthemselvestohavesolvedit;butitstillmeetsthem,thoughinsomenewanddisguised form, at every turn, like a resistless stream,which,whenonechannelisdammedup,immediatelyforcesitswaythroughanother.Andasthedifficultyisonenotpeculiartoanyonehypothesis,but.bearsequallyonallalike,whetherofrevealedorofnaturalreligion,itisbetterin point of prudence as well as of fairness that the consequences of itshouldnotbepressedasanobjectionagainstany.”

“Icannotdismissthesubjectwithoutafewpracticalremarksrelativetothedifficultyinquestion(theoriginofevil).

“First,letitberemembered,thatitisnotpeculiartoanyonetheologicalsystem; let not therefore the Calvinist or the Arminian urge it as anobjection against their respective adversaries, much less an objectionclothedinoffensivelanguage,whichwillbefoundtorecoilontheirownreligioustenets,assoonasitshallbeperceivedthatbothpartiesarealikeunable to explain thedifficulty.Let themnot, todestroy anopponent’ssystem, rashly kindle a fire which will soon extend to the no lesscombustiblestructureoftheirown.

“Secondly, let it not be supposed that this difficulty is any objection torevealed religion. Revelation leaves us, in fact, as to this question, justwhereitfoundus.Reasontellsusthatevilexists,andshowsusinsomemeasurehowtoavoidit.Revelationtellsusmoreofthenatureandextentof theevil,andgivesusbetter instructions forescaping it;butwhyanyevilatallshouldexist,isaquestionitdoesnotprofesstoclearup;anditwere to be wished that its incautious advocates would abstain fromrepresenting itasmaking thispretension,which is, in fact,wantonly to

provokesuchobjectionsastheyhavenopowertoanswer.”fTheseviewsare,of course, familiar to intelligentCalvinists, as furnishingwhat theyregardasa satisfactoryanswer to themostplausibleobjectionsof theiropponents;theirsoundnessisnowforthefirsttimefullyconcededbyaveryableArminian;and thisconcession, sohonourable tohim,maybeexpectedtoputanendtothecoarseandoffensivedeclamationinwhichArminianshavecommonlyindulgedonthisbranchoftheargument,andwhichhasusuallyformedaverylargeshareoftheirwholestockintradeaspolemics.

TheonlyotherconcessionmadebyDr.Whately toCalvinismwhichwemeantonoticeisoneconnectedwithitsallegedpracticalapplication.Ithasalwaysbeena favouriteallegationofArminians, thattheCalvinisticdoctrine of election tends to lead men to be careless about theimprovement of the means of grace and the discharge of practicalobligations,ontheground-astheyrepresentthematter-thattheresultin each case is already provided for and secured irrespective of thesethings.Theanswer to thisallegation is, in substance, that it isnotonlyconsistentwith,butthatitconstitutesanessentialpartof,theCalvinisticdoctrine,thatGodhasforeordainedthemeansaswellastheend,andhasthus established a certain and invariable connection de facto betweenthem.Thisdoctrineof the foreordinationof themeansaswellasof theend,notonlyleavesunimpaired,tosecondcauses,theoperationoftheirown proper nature, constitution, and laws, but preserves and securesthem in the possession of all these. It thus, when viewed as a whole,establishes most firmly the actual, invariable connection between themeans and the end; and in its legitimate application, is at least aswellfittedasanyotherdoctrinecanbe, tokeepalive in themindsofmenadeep sense of the reality and certainty of this connection. All thisCalvinists have conclusively proved, times without number; butArminians have never been willing to concede it, since it completelydisposes of a favourite objection, which, upon a partial and superficialviewofthematter,appearsveryformidable.ButDr.Whatelyadmitsthevalidityof theCalvinisticanswer to theArminianobjection - that is,headmitsthattheCalvinisticdoctrineofelection,whenthewholedoctrineistakenintoaccountandfullyandfairlyapplied,doesnottendtoexertaninjuriousinfluenceupontheimprovementofthemeansofgraceand

thedischargeofpracticalobligations;while,atthesametime,hetriestomakeapointagainstCalvinism,by labouringtoshow,thatbythesameprocess by which Calvinists prove their doctrine to be harmless orinnocent, it can be proved to be entirely useless, and to admit of nopracticalapplicationwhatever.

“IthasindeedbeenfrequentlyobjectedtotheCalvinisticdoctrines, thattheylead,ifconsistentlyactedupon,toasinful,ortoacareless,ortoaninactive life; and the inference deduced from this alleged tendency hasbeen,thattheyarenottrue.Butthisisatotallydistinctlineofargument,both in premises and conclusion, from that now adverted to; and Imentionit,notforthepurposeeitherofmaintainingorimpugningit,butmerely of pointing out the distinction. Whatever may be, in fact, the§practicalilltendencyoftheCalvinisticscheme,itisundeniablethatmanypiousandactiveChristians,whohaveadopted it,havedeniedanysuchtendency,-haveattributedthemischievousconsequencesdrawn,nottotheir doctrines rightly understood, but to the perversion and abuse ofthem; and have so explained them to their own satisfaction, as to becompatibleandconsistentwithactivevirtue.Nowif,insteadofobjectingto, we admit, the explanations of this system, which the soundest andmost approved of its advocates have given, we shall find that, whenunderstoodastheywouldhaveit,itcanleadtonopracticalresult

whatever.SomeChristians, according to them,are eternally enrolled inthe book of life, and infallibly ordained to salvation, -while others arereprobateandabsolutelyexcluded;butasthepreacher(theyadd)hasnomeansofknowing,inthefirstinstanceatleast,whichpersonsbelongtowhich class, and since those who are thus ordained are to be savedthrough the means God has appointed, the offers and promises andthreateningsof thegospelare tobeaddressed toallalike,as ifnosuchdistinctionexisted.Thepreacher,inshort,istoactinallrespectsasifthesystemwerenottrue.

“Each individual Christian again, according to them, though he is tobelievethatheeitherisorisnotabsolutelydestinedtoeternalsalvation,yetisalsotobelievethatifhissalvationisdecreed,hisholinessoflifeisalsodecreed;he is to judge of his own state by ‘the fruits of the Spirit’which he brings forth: to live in sin, or to relax his virtuous exertions,

would be an indication of his not being really (though he may flatterhimselfheis)oneoftheelect.Anditmaybeadmitted,thatonewhodoespracticallyadoptandconformtothisexplanationofthedoctrinewillnotbe led into any evil by it, since his conduct will not be in any respectinfluenced by it. When thus explained, it is reduced to a purelyspeculativedogma,barrenofallpracticalresults.”

Thereisherenoabandonmentofhisanti-Calvinisticposition,-nothingthat should lead either himself or others to believe that he is not anArminian, -but there isaveryexplicit abandonmentof a favourite andplausible Arminian objection against Calvinism; and this importantconcession by such an opponent is one of which Calvinists are wellentitled to takeadvantage.Wecannot enteruponany expositionof thepractical application of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, for .thepurposeof answeringDr.Whately’s allegation, - that, by the very sameprocess of explanation by which Calvinism escapes from the positiveobjection of having an injurious or dangerous tendency, it is proved tohavenopracticalapplicationwhatever,but tobeamereuselessbarrenspeculation.Wethinkwecouldprovethatthisnotionisaconfusionandafallacy; and that it can bewithoutmuch difficulty traced to this cause,thathehasnotheremadethesamefullandcandidestimate,asonsomeother branches of the argument, of the whole of what Calvinists areaccustomed to advance in explaining the practical application of theirdoctrine, but confines his observation to some of the features of thesubject, and these not the most important and peculiar. We think wecouldprovethatitisthisalonewhichgivesplausibilitytohisattempttoshowthattheCalvinisticdoctrineofelection,whenexplainedbyitsmoreintelligentadvocates in suchawayas to escape from the imputationofhavinganinjurioustendency, isdeprivedofallpracticaleffectorutilitywhatever,andthatweshouldactinallrespectsasifthedoctrinewerenottrue.

Inthesevariousways,andinoneortwootherpointsoflessimportance,Dr.WhatelyhasmadevaluableconcessionstoCalvinism.Indoingsohehas been guilty of no inconsistency, and we insinuate no such chargeagainst him; for his deviations from the course pursued by other anti-Calvinistsaffect,notthemeaningandimportofanyofthemainpositions

actuallyheld,butonly thevalidityof someof theargumentscommonlyadducedinthecourseofthediscussion.Henodoubtbelievesthathecanstill produce sufficient and satisfactory evidence against the Calvinisticdoctrineofelection,thoughhehasfelthimselfconstrainedtoabandonasunfoundedtheobjectionscommonlyadducedagainst it from itsallegedinconsistency with the divine character and government, and from itssupposed injurious practical tendency.We regard these concessions aseminentlycreditablebothtohisheadandtohisheart,tohisabilityandhiscourage,tohissagacityandhiscandour.Wevaluethemveryhighlyascontributions-thoughnotsointended-totheestablishmentofwhatwereckonimportantscripturaltruth.Theyhaveundoubtedlytheadvantageofbeingtheconcessionsofanopponent;forDr.Whatelyadmitsthatheis opposed to Calvinism, though he seems anxious to impress theconviction that he is equally opposed to Arminianism. We so highlyadmiretheabilityandcandourDr.Whatelyhasshowninthediscussionofthesetopics,andwearesogratefulforthevaluableconcessionshehasmadetowhatwereckontruth,thatwewouldmostwillinglyabstainfromsayinganythingthatwasdisagreeabletohim,exceptinsofarasaregardto the interests of truth might require this. But we cannot retract theassertionthatheisanArminian.Werethematter,indeed,nowtobeginagaindenovo,wemightavoidtheuseofthisexpression,knowing,aswenowdo,thathedislikesit,andfeelingthatwecouldexpressotherwise,byalittlecircumlocution,allthatwemeanttoconveybyit.Buthavingbeenledtousetheexpressioninallsimplicity,withoutimaginingthatitcouldbe objected to or complained of, - and feeling confident that we candefendtheperfectwarrantablenessofitsapplicationtoDr.Whately,-itwouldbeaninjurytotruthtoretractit,ortorefuse,whencalledupon,todefendit.Inoneaspect,indeed,itisamatterofnoimportancewhetherDr. Whately, or any man, may or may not be warrantably called anArminian; for theapplicationof such terms,evenwhen fullywarrantedby ordinary usage, settles nothing about the truth or soundness ofdoctrines.Butwhenaquestionastotheapplicationof thenamecomesupinsuchaform,andisattendedwithsuchcircumstancesasvirtuallytoinvolvethewholequestionofwhatisArminianism,andwhereindoesitdiffer fromCalvinism,orwhat is thetruestatusquestionis inthegreatcontroversybetweenCalvinistsandArminiansonthesubjectofElection,thentheimportanceofthematterismanifest.Dr.Whately’sunexpected

denial that he is an Arminian, plainly raised the questions, What isArminianism, and in what respect does it differ from Calvinism? andwhether there be any distinct and definite position that can be takenuponthesubjectofelectiondifferingmateriallyfromboth?TheworksofFaberandProfessorBrowneseemedtous to indicate theexistenceofagreatamountofmisapprehensionandconfusionasprevalentuponthesequestionsamongtheclergyoftheChurchofEngland,andsuggestedtousthe desirableness of taking advantage of Dr. Whately’s groundlessrepudiation of the charge of being an Arminian, for giving some suchexplanationofthestateofthequestionaswehaveattempted.Faberhasbrought out fully and distinctly the sources and the grounds of themisapprehensionunderwhichhe,andnodoubtmanyothers,havebeenled to abjureArminianismwhile really believing it; andDr.Whately isjust as clearly and certainly anArminian as Faberwas; but he has notbrought out formally and in detail the grounds on which he considershimself entitled to deny that he is so. We have, in consequence, notventureduponanyexplicit allegationsas to theoriginand the causeofthestrangefallacyunderwhichhelaboursinrepudiatingArminianismaswellasCalvinism;butwehaveexaminedalltheleadingpointsinwhich-so farasweremembered-hehasdeviated fromthecommoncourseofsentimentandexpressionamongArminianwriters;andwehaveshown,wethink,thatthesedeviations-whilehighlyhonourabletohim,andveryvaluable concessions to us - imply no 'disbelief or denial of thefundamental distinctive principles ofArminianism, and, indeed, donotaffect thetruestateof thequestionbetweenthecontendingparties,butonlythesoundnessandvalidityofsomeoftheargumentsadducedontheoppositesidesrespectively.

There is one other feature of Dr. Whately’s mode of dealing with thissubjecttowhichwemustrefer,thoughwescarcelyknowwhattomakeofit.Itisbroughtoutinthefollowingpassages:-

“Itisontheseprinciples,viz.,thatthefirstpointofinquiryatleastoughttobe,WhatdoctrinesarerevealedinGod’sword?andthatweoughttoexpectthatthedoctrinessorevealedshouldbe,notmattersofspeculativecuriosity,butofpracticalimportance-suchas‘belongtousthatwemaydo them;’ - it is in conformity, I say,with these principles, that I have

waivedthequestionastothetruthorfalsityoftheCalvinisticdoctrineofelection,inquiringonlywhetheritisrevealed.”

“I am far from thinking harshly of predestinarians, or of deciding thattheirpeculiardoctrinesarealtogetheruntrue;thoughtometheydonotappear,atleast,tobeeitherpracticalorrevealedtruths.Idonotcallonthemtorenouncetheiropinionsasheretical,butmerelytoabstainfromimposingonothersasanecessarypartof theChristian faithadoctrinewhichcannotbeclearlydeducedfromScripture,andwhichthereisthisadditional reason for supposing not to be revealed in Scripture, that itcannotbeshowntohaveanypracticaltendency.”

“Iwishit,then,tobedistinctlyunderstood(1)thatIdonotimputetoanyoneopinionswhichhedisclaims,nor amdiscussing anyquestion as towhatisinwardlybelievedbyeach,butonlyastowhatis,whetherdirectlyorobliquely, taught;and(2) that Ipurposely abstain, throughout, fromenteringonthequestionastowhatisabsolutelytrue,inquiringonlywhatisorisnottobereceivedandtaughtasaportionofrevealedgospeltruth.Fornometaphysicaldogma,howeversoundandcapableofphilosophicalproof,oughttobetaughtasaportionofrevealedtruth,ifitshallappearthat the passages of Scripture that are supposed to declare it, relate inreality to a differentmatter. 11 would wish it to be remembered,’ saysArchbishopSumner,‘thatIdonotdesiretoargueagainstpredestinationasbelievedinthecloset,butastaughtinthepulpit.’

Andthesamegeneral ideaisrepeated,withouttheadditionofanythingelsetoexplainit,inhislastwork,onthe11DoctrineoftheSacraments.”

ItisnoteasytounderstandwhatDr.Whatelymeantbysuchstatementsasthese.Theysurelyindicatesomethingverylikeconfusion,vacillation,and inconsistency. It would almost seem from them as if he hadsomething like a latent sense that Calvinism, though not taught inScripture, could yet be defended upon such grounds - in the way ofgeneral reasoning of a philosophical ormetaphysical kind - as scarcelyadmittedofananswer;sothatheshrankfromanyformaldeliveranceonthequestionofitsactualtruthorfalsehood.Wedonotwondermuchatsomething likethisstateofmindbeingproduced,especially inonewhodiscerned so clearly, andwhoproclaimed somanfully, theweakness of

someof the leading anti-Calvinistic argumentsbasedupon topics of anabstractormetaphysicalkind.WebelievethattheargumentsinfavourofCalvinism, derived from reason or general considerations, are just astriumphant - viewed as a mere appeal to the understanding - as thearguments from Scripture; and we do not wonder that there shouldoccasionally be men who, while rejecting Calvinism, should have feltgreaterdifficulty indisposingof themetaphysical thanof the scripturalproof. This seems to be the casewithDr.Whately.He appears tohavesomethingof thefeeling, thatonthefieldofgeneralabstractdiscussionhe would not like to face a Calvinist; and that this department of theargumenthewouldratherleaveinabeyancethanfairlygrapplewith.But,aswehavesaid,wedonotknowwellwhattomakeeitherofthemeaningortheconsistencyofsomeofhisstatementsuponthissubject.Wemustinfairnessjudgeofhistheologicalposition,chieflyfromtheviewshehasexpressedastothemeaningandimportoftheteachingofScripture;andhere, certainly, his position is not negative or ambiguous. He teachesexplicitly and unequivocally, that the Calvinistic doctrine of election isnot taught in Scripture; and he teaches further, that the only electionwhichScripturesanctions, isanelectiontooutwardprivilegesormeansof grace, and not to faith, holiness, and heaven. This should settle thewholequestionwithallwhobelieveintheauthorityofScripture;andtheposition here maintained is not only anti-Calvinistic, but may, whenaccompaniedwithanadmissionofthedivineforeknowledgeofallevents,bewarrantablyandfairlydesignatedasArminian.

We are unwilling to quit this subject without some reference, howeverbrief, to theobjectionsbywhich theCalvinisticdoctrineof electionhasbeen commonly assailed. The leading practical lessons suggested by asurveyofthecontroversy,forguidingmeninthestudyofit,aresuchasthese:-1st,Thatweshouldlabourtoformaclear,distinct,andaccurateapprehensionof therealnatureof the leadingpoint indispute, -of thetrue import and bearing of the only alternatives that can well bemaintainedwithregardtoit.2nd,Thatweshouldfamiliarizeourmindswith definite conceptions of the meaning and the evidence of theprincipal arguments by which the truth upon the subject may beestablished,andtheerrorrefuted.3d,Thatweshouldtakesomepainstounderstand the general principles at least applicable to the solution, or

ratherthedisposal(fortheycannotbesolved),ofthedifficultiesbywhichthedoctrinewehaveembracedastruemaybeassailed.And4th,Thatweshouldthenseektomakeawiseandjudiciousapplicationofthedoctrineprofessed, according to its true nature, tendency, and bearing, and itsrelation to other truths; without allowing ourselves to be dragged intoendlessandunprofitablespeculationsinregardtoitsdeepermysteriesormore intricate perplexities, or to be harassed by perpetual doubt anddifficulty. A thorough and successful study of the subject implies thefollowingoutof all these lessons, and this conductsusover awideandarduousfield.Itisonthefirstonlyofthesefourpointswehavetouched,-oneonwhichagreatdealofignoranceandconfusionseemtoprevail.Oftheothers,themostimportantisthatwhichenjoinsacarefulstudyofthedirect and positive evidence that bears upon the determination of themainquestiononwhichthecontroversyturns.Thestrengthof'Calvinismliesinthemassofdirect,positive,and,aswebelieve,unanswerableproofthatcanbeproducedfromScriptureandreason,confirmedbymuchthatissuggestedbyexperienceandthehistoryofthehumanrace,toestablishits fundamentalprinciplesof theforeordinationofwhatsoevercomes topass,andtherealandeffectualelectionofsomementoeternallife.ThestrengthofArminianismlies,notinthedirectandpositiveevidencethatcanbeproducedtodisproveCalvinisticforeordinationandelection,ortoestablish anti-Calvinistic non-foreordination and non-election, butmainly in theproof, thatGod is not the author of sin, and thatman isresponsibleforhisowncharacteranddestiny;andintheinference,thatsinceCalvinism is inconsistentwith these great and admitted truths, itmustbefalse.Thisviewofthestateofthecaseshowstheimportanceofbeing familiarwith thedirectandpositiveevidencebywhichCalvinismcan be established, that we may rest on this as an impregnablefoundation.But it showsalso the importanceofbeing familiarwith thewayandmannerofdisposingoftheplausibleandformidabledifficultiesonwhichmainlytheArminiansfoundtheircase.Thesedifficulties-thatis,theallegedinconsistencyofCalvinismwiththetruths,thatGodisnottheauthorofsin,andthatmanisresponsibleforhisconductandfate-he upon the very surface of the subject, and must at once presentthemselveseventothemostordinaryminds;whileatthesametimetheyare soplausible, that theyarewell fitted to startleand to impressmen,especiallyiftheyhavenotpreviouslyreflectedmuchuponthesubject.We

donotintendtoadducethedirectandpositiveevidenceinsupportoftheCalvinisticdoctrine;buta fewbriefhintsmayhelpa little toshow,thatthedifficultiesattachingtoitare,thoughnotadmittingofafullsolution,yetbynomeanssoformidableasatfirstsighttheyappeartobe;andatany rate furnish no sufficient ground in right reason for rejecting thebody of direct, positive, unanswerable proof bywhich the fundamentalprinciplesofCalvinismcanbeestablished.Thefollowingaresomeofthemost obvious yet most important considerations bearing upon thismatter, that ought to be remembered and applied, and especially thatought to be viewed in combination with each other, as parts of oneargumentuponthistopic.

lst,Whenthesameobjectionswereadvancedagainstthesamedoctrinesas taught by the Apostle Paul, he manifested no very great solicitudeaboutgivingthemadirectorformalanswer;butcontentedhimselfwithresolvingthewholedifficultyintoGod’ssovereigntyandman’signorance,dependence,andincapacity.“Naybut,Oman,whoartthouthatrepliestagainstGod?Shallthethingformedsaytohimthatformedit,Whyhastthoumademethus?”Heknewthatthedoctrineswere true,becausehehad received themby inspirationof theHolyGhost; andwe know thatthey are true, because he and other inspired men have declared themunto us. This should satisfy us, and repress any great anxiety aboutdisposing of objections based upon grounds, the investigation ofwhichruns up intomatters, the full comprehension of which lies beyond thereachofournaturalfaculties,andofwhichwecanknownothingexceptfromtherevelationwhichGodhasgivenus.

2d, It is utterly inconsistent with right views of our condition andcapacities,andwiththeprinciplesusuallyacteduponinregardtootherdepartmentsofChristiantheology,-as,forinstance, thedoctrineof theTrinity,-toassume,astheseobjectionsdo,thatweareentitledtomakeouractualperceptionof,orourcapacityofperceiving,theconsistencyoftwodoctrineswitheachother,thetestorstandardoftheirtruth.Wedonot pretend to be able to solve all the difficulties connected with thealleged inconsistency between the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism, andthetruthsthatGodisnottheauthorofsin,andthatmanisresponsibleforhischaracterandconduct,soastomaketheirconsistencywitheach

otherplainandpalpabletoourownmindsorthemindsofothers;butwecannotadmitthatthisaffordsanysufficientreasonwhyweshouldrejectoneorotherofthedoctrines,providedeachseparatelycanbeestablisheduponcompetentandsatisfactoryevidence.

3d, The difficulties in question do not apply to the Calvinistic systemalone, but bear as really, though not perhaps at first view as palpably,upon every system of religion which admits the moral government ofGod, the prevalence ofmoral evil amongHis intelligent creatures, andtheir future eternal punishment. Indeed, it is easy to show that theleadingdifficultiesconnectedwitheveryschemeofdoctrinevirtuallyrunupintoonegreatdifficulty,whichattaches,andattachesequally,tothemall,viz.theexplanationoftheexistenceandprevalenceofmoralevil;or,what ispracticallythesamequestion inanother form, theexpositionofthewayandmannerinwhichGodandmenconcur(fornonebutatheistscan deny that in someway or other they do concur) in formingmen’scharacterandindeterminingmen’sfate.Thissubjectinvolvesdifficultieswhichwecannot,inourpresentcondition,fullysolve,andwhichwemustjust resolve into the good pleasure of God. They are difficulties fromwhich no scheme of doctrine can escape, and which every scheme isequally bound, and at the same time equally incompetent, to explain.Menmayshiftthepositionoftheonegranddifficulty,andmayimaginethattheyhavesucceededatleastinevadingit,orputtingitinabeyanceorobscurity;butwithalltheirshiftsandalltheirexpedients,itcontinuesasreal and as formidable as ever. Unless men renounce altogether,theoreticallyorpractically,themoralgovernmentofGod,theprevalenceofmoralevil,anditseternalpunishment,theymust,intheirexplanationsandspeculations,comeatlengthtothesovereigntyofGod,andprostratetheirunderstandingsandtheirheartsbeforeit,sayingwithourSaviour,“Even so,Father, for so it hath seemedgood inThy sight;” orwith thegreat apostle, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom andknowledgeofGod!howunsearchable areHis judgments, andHiswayspastfindingout!ForwhohathknownthemindoftheLord?orwhohathbeen His counsellor? Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall berecompensedtohimagain?ForofHim,andthroughHim,andtoHim,areallthings;towhombegloryforever.Amen.”

CalvinismandtheDoctrineofPhilosophicalNecessity

In his “Discussions,” Sir William Hamilton makes a theologicaldemonstration, of a somewhat imposing kind. It is contained in thefollowingpassage:-

“Averments to a similar effect might be adduced from the writings ofCalvin, and certainly nothing can be conceived more contrary to thedoctrineofthatgreatdivinethanwhathaslatterlybeenpromulgatedasCalvinism (and, in so far as I know, without reclamation) in ourCalvinisticChurchofScotland.Forithasbeenherepromulgated,asthedogmaofthischurch(thoughinthefaceofitsConfessionasinthefaceoftheBible),bypiousanddistinguishedtheologians,thatmanhasnowill,agency,moral personality of his own,God being the only real agent ineveryapparentactofHiscreatures; in short (thoughquite theoppositewas intended), that the theological scheme of the absolute decreesimplies fatalism, pantheism, the negation of a moral governor, as of amoral world. For the premises, arbitrarily assumed, are atheistic; theconclusion,illogicallydrawn,isChristian.AgainstsuchaviewofCalvin’sdoctrine and of Scottish orthodoxy, I for one must humbly thoughsolemnly protest, as (to speakmildly) not only false in philosophy, butheretical, ignorant, suicidal in theology.”f This strange passage wasintended as a deadly assault upon Dr. Chalmers, and upon the viewswhich he had promulgated upon the subject of philosophical necessity.Thedoctrineheresovehementlydenouncedcannot, fromthenatureofthe case, be any other than that commonly called the doctrine ofphilosophicalnecessity;andthoughmanywillregardwhatisheresaidasvery unjust and unfair, if viewed as applied to that subject, there ismanifestlynoothertowhichthesestatementscanhaveanyappearanceofapplying.When it is settled that thedoctrinewhichSirWilliamheredenounces is that of philosophical necessity, - and that, of course, thepiousanddistinguishedtheologianswhoareherehelduptoscornareDr.Chalmers, and all who, professing like him to receive theWestminsterConfession, have concurred with him in maintaining the doctrine of

necessity as taught by Jonathan Edwards, - men will be able tounderstandsomethingmoreoftheimportandobjectofthepassage.

We do not of course intend to plunge into the mare magnum of thegeneral subject of philosophical necessity as connected with “absolutedecrees,”“fatalism,”“pantheism,”“negationofamoralgovernor,”etc.,onwhichSirWilliamheredeclaims.Thegeneralsubjectbroughtbeforeusbythesestatementsisthemostperplexingandmysteriousthathaseveroccupiedthemindofman.Nooneacquaintedwiththediscussionswhichhave taken place regarding it, can fail to have reached these twoconclusions:-1st,Thateverythingofanyworthorvaluethatcanbesaiduponthesubject,hasbeensaid insubstancea thousand times;and2d,That after all that has been said, there are difficulties and mysteriesconnected with it which never have been fully solved, and whichmanifestlyneverwill be fully solved, at leastuntilmen get eithermoreenlargedmental faculties,ora fuller revelation fromGod.Thepracticalresult of the adoption of these conclusions, which must have forcedthemselves upon all who have intelligently surveyed this subject, is torendermen rather averse to unnecessary discussions regarding it, - tomake them less anxious about answering objections and clearing awaydifficulties, andmorewilling to restupon those fundamentalprincipleswhichconstitutethedirectandproperevidenceofwhatseemstobethetruth upon the point. This state of mind and feeling - the reasonableresult of a deliberate survey of the discussions which have taken placeuponthematter-issanctionedalsobytheexampleoftheApostlePaul,who, when the same objections were brought against his doctrines ashave in all ages been brought against Calvinism, resolved the wholematter into the inscrutable sovereignty of God and the ignorance andhelplessnessofman, insteadofdirectlyand formallygrapplingwiththeobjection. SirWilliamHamilton’s own views upon the subject are of akind fitted to discourage, if not to preclude, discussion; especiallydiscussionconductedinthewayofbringingtheoppositedoctrinesfacetoface, and trying to make an estimate of the comparative force of theobjectionsagainst them.Hisviewsarebriefly indicated in the followingpassages:-

“The philosophy, therefore, which I profess, annihilates the theoretical

problem,-Howistheschemeoflibertyortheschemeofnecessitytoberendered comprehensible? - by showing that both schemes are equallyinconceivable;but it establishes libertypractically as a fact, by showingthatitiseitheritselfanimmediatedatum,orisinvolvedinanimmediatedatum, of consciousness.” , “How the will can possibly be free, mustremain to us, under the present limitation of our faculties, whollyincomprehensible. We are unable to conceive an absolutecommencement; we cannot therefore conceive a free volition. Adetermination by motives cannot, to our understanding, escape fromnecessitation.”

uHowtherefore,Irepeat,morallibertyispossibleinmanorGod,weareutterlyunablespeculativelytounderstand.Butpractically, the fact, thatwearefree,isgiventousintheconsciousnessofanuncompromisinglawofduty,intheconsciousnessofourmoralaccountability.”

“Liberty is thus shown to be inconceivable, but not more than itscontradictory necessity; yet though inconceivable, liberty is shown alsonot to be impossible. The credibility of consciousness, to our moralresponsibility,asanincomprehensiblefact,isthusestablished.”

“Thishypothesisaloneaccounts for theremarkablephenomenonwhichthe question touching the liberty of thewill - touching the necessity ofhuman actions - has in all ages and in all relations exhibited. Thisphenomenon is the exact equilibrium in which the controversy hascontinued;andithasbeenwagedinmetaphysics,inmorals,intheology,from the origin of speculation to the present hour,with unabated zeal,butalwayswithundecidedsuccess.”

ItappearsfromthesestatementsthatSirWilliam,byhisownadmission,hasthrownnonewlightuponthissubject;andthatheclaimscreditforscarcelyanythingmorethanbringingoutclearly,byanapplicationofthedoctrineof the conditioned, that there are, andmust everbe, insolubledifficultiesattachingtoit.Ourpresentpurposedoesnotleadustoadvertto the grounds on which Sir William based his conclusion, or to theaccuracyofthelanguageinwhichhisviewsareexpressed.Itisenough,inthemeantime, thatwedirectattention to the fact thatheproclaims theexistenceofinsolubledifficultiesasattachingtothissubject;andthathe

admitsthathehasmade,andcanmake,nopositivecontributiontotheexplicationofit.Insubstance,heleavesusonthiswholesubjectoflibertyandnecessityverymuchinthepositionindicatedintheremarkableandoften quoted passage of Locke: “I cannot have a clearer perception ofanything than that I am free, yet I cannot make freedom in manconsistent with omnipotence and omniscience in God, though I am asfully persuaded of both as of any truth I most firmly assent to; andtherefore Ihave long sincegivenoff the considerationof thatquestion,resolving all into the short conclusion, that if it be possible forGod tomakeafreeagent,thenmanisfree,thoughIseenotthewayofit.”

WehavenomaterialobjectiontooffertothesubstanceofthestatementsquotedabovefromLockeandSirWilliamHamilton;butitmaybeworthwhile tonoticehow it is that they concur in this viewas therebroughtout, although the one was a Necessitarian and the other was aLibertarian.Locke,thoughaPelagianintheology,wasaNecessitarianinphilosophy,-that is,heheldthatdoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity,orthat view of the laws which regulate men’s mental processes anddetermine their volitions, against which Sir William declaims in thepassage on which we are commenting. Sir William, on the contrary,makes here a sort of profession of Calvinism. He stands forth as thechampionofCalvinisticorthodoxy,againsttheerrorsofitsignorantandinjudicious friends; and he gives something like evidence both ofintelligenceandintegrityindealingwiththissubject,bylayingdowntheimportantposition, that “thegreat articlesofdivine foreknowledge andpredestination are both embarrassed by the self-same difficulties!” Butnotwithstandingthis,hewasinphilosophyaLibertarian;for,thoughhesometimes talksas ifhe thought it impracticable todecidebetween theopposite opinions,he at other times expresses a decidedpreference forthe Libertarian view; and in the passage under consideration hedenounces,innomeasuredterms,thedoctrinewhichisthecontradictorycorrelativeof it.ThelibertyorfreedomforwhichLockecontended,wasnothingmorethanactualmoralresponsibility forouractions;whichhedid not admit to be precluded, either by the doctrine of God’somniscience and omnipotence, or by the doctrine of philosophicalnecessity, though he was unable to explain how it could be reconciledwiththesedoctrines.SirWilliam,ontheotherhand,wasnottiedupby

anyofhisopinionstosolimitedaviewofwhatlibertyorfreedomis,andwould no doubt say that, by the liberty which he claimed forman, hemeantnotmerely actualmoral responsibility,which all admit, but alsothat anti-necessitarian view of the laws that regulate man’s mentaloperations,whichhasbeensupposedbymanytobenecessaryasabasisforresponsibility.Butthoughhewouldsay this, ifnecessary,andcoulddo so consistently, it clearly appears, froma careful examinationof thestatements we have quoted from him, that he, like Locke, practicallyidentifies liberty with actualmoral responsibility, and virtually admits,that the only thing which is really established by the testimony ofconsciousness,andwhichistobemaintainedatallhazards,isourmoralaccountability, or the obligation “of an uncompromising law of duty.”Mostnecessitarians- including,of course,all the theologianswhomSirWilliam denounces - assert man’s moral responsibility as fully andreadily as their opponents; and if it be merely the fact of moralaccountability which man’s consciousness establishes, as Sir Williamvirtuallyadmits,thenthewholematterstillresolvesitselfintotheoldandvery perplexing question, as to what kinds or degrees of liberty arenecessary to moral responsibility, and what kinds and degrees ofnecessity are inconsistent with it. Necessitarians, in general, have nohesitationinadmittingthetruthofSirWilliam’sstatement,thatitis thetestimonyofourconsciousness,“thatweare, thoughweknownothow,thetrueandresponsibleauthorsofouractions,notmerelytheworthlesslinksinanadamantineseriesofeffectsandcauses.”Necessitariansadmitthis, and undertake to prove that there is nothing in the doctrine ofphilosophicalnecessitywhichcanbeshowntoprecludeeithertheactualrealityortheconscioussenseofthis,asafeatureinman’scondition.SirWilliamvirtuallyadmitsthatitisonlyouractualmoralresponsibilitytowhich the direct testimony of consciousness applies; and he has notenteredanywhere, so faraswe remember, into adeliberate and formalinvestigationofthenatureandgroundsofthelibertywhichisnecessaryto moral agency. By the denunciations, indeed, on which we areanimadverting, and which, as we have explained, must be intended toapplytothedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessityastaughtbyEdwardsandChalmers, SirWilliamhas identified himselfwith the Libertarian view;and has thus, whether he so intended it or not, virtually declared infavourofwhathasbeencommonlycalledthelibertyofindifference,and

theself-determiningpowerof thewill; forwhateverhemightsayaboutthe inconceivableness both of liberty and necessity, he would not, wepresume,havedeniedthattheonewasthecontradictoryoftheother,andthatthereforetheonewasareality,andtheotherwasnot.

But though Sir William has denounced the doctrine of philosophicalnecessity, and has thereby, by plain implication, asserted a liberty ofindifference and the self-determining power of the will, he has notentered into anything like argument against necessity, or in favour ofliberty, beyond simply referring to the testimony of consciousness, inproofthatweareresponsibleforouractions.Thismodeofdealingwithitisunworthyofaphilosopher,andwhollyundeservingofnoticeasacalltoenteruponadiscussionof thegeneralsubject.ThoughIthasbeenherepromulgated,”heassuresus,“asthedogmaofthischurchourCalvinisticChurch of Scotland’), by pious anddistinguished theologians, thatmanhasnowill,agency,moralpersonalityofhisown,GodbeingtheonlyrealagentineveryapparentactofHiscreatures.”Personsunacquaintedwithwhat has been going on in Scotland for the last generation, would bedisposed to ask,with amazement,who are the pious and distinguishedtheologianswhohaveputforthsuchoffensivestatementsasSirWilliamascribes to them? Those who are cognizant of the state of mattersamongst us, arewell aware that no theologians have ever promulgatedthis“dogmawhiletheymustknowalso that theonlypersonswhomSirWilliam could have had in his eye, were Dr. Chalmers and those whoconcurredwithhiminadvocatingthedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity.Thesemencertainlyneverintendedtoteachthis;andtheyhavemadenostatementsbearingtheslightestresemblancetothosehereputintotheirmouths. But SirWilliam, it seems, was of opinion that the doctrine ofphilosophicalnecessity impliedall this, or led to it by logical sequence;anduponthisgroundhethoughthimselfwarrantedinproclaimingtotheworld,withoutfurnishingtousanymeansofknowingthetruegroundofhisassertion, thatpiousanddistinguished theologians in theChurchofScotlandhavepromulgated thedoctrine, “thatmanhasnowill, agency,moral personality of his own, God being the only real agent in everyapparentactofHiscreatures.”Afterthiswearenotintheleastsurprisedthat he goes on to tell us, that these men taught that “the theologicalschemeoftheabsolutedecreesimpliesfatalism,pantheism,thenegation

ofamoralgovernorasofamoralworld.”Headmits,indeed,that“quitetheoppositewasintended;”butstillhethinkshimselfentitledtochargethemwithteachingfatalismandpantheism;andintimates,further,intheimmediatelyfollowingsentence,thattheycanescapefromatheismonlybygrosslogicalinconsistency.

In adverting to this charge of fatalism, pantheism, atheism, etc.,we donotneedtotakeintoaccountwhatSirWilliamhashereintroducedintohis statement about “the scheme of the absolute decrees.” Sir Williamplainlydidnot intend tobring these charges against the schemeof theabsolute decrees, simply as such, by whomsoever held; for, indeed, heprofessestobewritinghereasaCalvinist,achampionofCalvinism,andof course an advocate of “the scheme of absolute decrees.” And then,again,insofarasDr.Chalmersandothertheologiansmayhaveassumedthattheschemeoftheabsolutedecreesnecessarilyimpliedordrewwithitthedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity,this is justthepointwhereweventure to think that their views are untenable, as we shall afterwardsmorefullyexplain.SirWilliamevidentlyintended,bythephraseologyhehasemployed,totellusthatthoseofwhomhewasspeakingregardedtheschemeoftheabsolutedecreesasimplyingthedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity;andthat,inhisjudgment,thisdoctrineofnecessity,asheldbythem,impliedfatalism,pantheism,atheism,etc.WecannotdenythatSirWilliam had good grounds for ascribing to them the belief, that thedoctrines of the absolute decrees and of philosophical necessity arenecessarily connected with each other; and we cannot defend theaccuracyofthisbelief.Butwedonotneedtotakeanyofthesetopicsintoaccount in judgingofSirWilliam’s statementnowunder consideration.Thatstatementisinsubstancethis,-thatsomepiousanddistinguishedtheologians of the Church of Scotland have recently been teaching thatmanhasnowill,agency,moralpersonalityofhisown,GodbeingtheonlyrealagentineveryapparentactofHiscreatures,andthatthisisfatalism,pantheism, atheism; while the only ground he could have adduced fortheseheavycharges, ifhehadbeencalledupon toestablish them,was,that Dr. Chalmers and some others had taught the doctrine ofphilosophical necessity as a part of their Calvinism, and that, in hisjudgmentthisdoctrinenecessarilyimpliedallthefearfulthingswhichhehadlaidtotheircharge.Thepracticeofadducingsuchchargesuponsuch

grounds, and in such circumstances, is repudiated and denounced byeveryfaircontroversialist.

Itisalwaysaveryunworthyproceduretodescribeadoctrinetowhichweareopposed,merelybyconsequenceswhichwethinkdeducible fromit,butwhichitssupportersdisclaim,andthentoattempttorunitdownbyattaching to it offensive nicknames. But there are some things whichmakeitpeculiarlyunwarrantabletoemploythisprocessinregardtosuchadoctrineas thatofphilosophicalnecessity.Notonly is it true that thedoctrinehasjbeenmaintainedanddefendedbyalargeproportionoftheablest andbestmen that ever lived, - bymanyof thehighestnames inphilosophyaswellas in theology;but, fromthenatureof thecasealso,viewed both in its intellectual and in its moral aspects, there areconsiderations which aggravate the unreasonableness of attempting todispose of it in such a way. The subject is one of great difficulty andintricacy;andthisshouldhavebeenfelttobeareasonagainstattemptingtoscoutitfromthefieldoffairdiscussionbyadashingmisrepresentationanda far-fetched inference. The question virtually resolves, aswehaveseen,intothe investigationof thenatureandgroundsof the libertyandnecessitythatareconsistentwith,orindispensableto,moralagency;andnothingbututterincapacityorgrosscarelessnesscanpreventmenfrom,seeingthatthisisasubjectofextremedifficulty,andonewhichnoman,whatever be his standing or his pretensions, is entitled to treat in anoffhand and reckless way. It is impossible for any man to reflectdeliberatelyupon the ideas of liberty andnecessity | as applied,on theonehand,tothevolitionsofthedivinemindiandofotherpureandholybeings,asforinstancetheglorifiedsaintsinheaven,-andasapplied,onthe other hand, to classes of men who have been subjected to mostunfavourable moral influences, and have now sunk into deep moraldegradation,butarestilladmittedtoberesponsible,-withoutseeingthatthereareprofoundmysteriesconnectedwiththismatterwhichcannotbesettled,asmanyseemtosuppose,merelybylayingitdownthatlibertyisliberty, and that necessity is necessity, and that the one absolutely anduniversallyexcludestheother.

Liberty andnecessity,manifestly,may be both predicatedof thedivinewill,andofthewillalsoofsomeclassesofresponsiblecreatures.Ifthisbe

so,thenwemusthavedistinctionsinthesensesinwhichthesewordsareapplied,-precisespecificationsofthedifferentsensesinwhichtheymaybe affirmed or denied respectively of differently constituted and ofdifferently circumstancedbeings, all possessed of the capacity ofmoralagency. It is plain that liberty in some sense is not necessary tomoralagency,andthatnecessityinsomesensedoesnotprecludeit;andifso,there must be some difficult and intricate points to be examined anddisposed of before the question between liberty and necessity can bedetermined,ifitistobedecidedbyanapplicationoftheonlystandardtowhichSirWilliamrefers,viz.theirbearingrespectivelyuponthepointofresponsibility.Wedonotprofesstodiscussthissubject,-wemerelywishtopointouttheunreasonablenessofthewayinwhichSirWilliamdealswithit;andtoexplainwhyitisthatthereisnothinginwhathehassaidaboutit,thatcallsfororrequiresanyinvestigationofthegeneralsubjectonthepartofthosewhoseviewshehascondemned.

There has always been a strong tendency, especially among theLibertarians, to attempt settling this controversy by dwelling uponinferences and practical consequences, supposed to flow from theopposite doctrines, instead of carefully examining the proper evidencedirectly applicable to the question of their truth and falsehood. Thequestioninvolvedinthiscontroversyisproperlyoneoffact,andbelongstotheprovinceofpsychology.Itisarightandasaferuleforbeingsofourlimited mental powers, and of our very inadequate capacity of tracingconsequences, that we should make up our minds chiefly from anexamination of the proper intrinsic evidence directly applicable to thesubjectunderconsideration,insteadofattachingmuchweighttoallegedinferencesorconsequences.Thereasonablenessofthisgeneralprincipleof procedure is peculiarly manifest when the consequence mainlyfounded upon is, that a particular doctrine overturns man’s moralresponsibility, and when this allegation is controverted by men ofunquestionableabilityandgoodcharacter.Whenabodyofmenof thisdescription assert, and undertake to prove, that the allegation that adoctrineheldbythemoverturnsman’smoral,,responsibility,andleadstofatalismandatheism,isunfounded;whentheyproclaimtheirbeliefintheexistenceandmoralgovernmentofGod,andtheirconsciousnessandrecognition“ofanuncompromisinglawofduty,”andcanappeal,inproof

of the sincerity of this profession, to the general tenor of their owncharacter and conduct; when they can further appeal to classes andcommunitieswhohavereceivedthisdoctrine,andyethaveequalledanyothersectionsofmeninobediencetothedivinewillandinthedischargeof moral duty; - when such a state of things as this is presented, theallegation of an atheistic and immoral tendency becomes a practicalabsurdity,whichshouldbelefttothosewhoareincapableofarguingthequestion upon its own proper merits, and which, even when broughtforwardbythosewhoarecapableofhigherthings,isscarcelyworthyofnotice. Calvinists, orNecessitarians, againstwhose views this objectionhas been commonly adduced, have perhapswasted toomuch time andstrengthinelaboratingaformalanddirectanswertoit.Theymight,wearedisposedtothink,havedonemoretoestablishthem,bygivinggreaterattentiontotheinvestigationof thematerialsbywhichthepropertruthor falsehood of the contending theories - apart from their allegedtendenciesandconsequences-mightbedetermined.Lockespokelikeatruephilosopherwhen,inthecontextofthepassageformerlyquoted,hesaid,“Ifyouwillarguefororagainstlibertyfromconsequences,Iwillnotundertaketoansweryou.”SirWilliam,onthecontrary,hasdescendedtoamodeofrepresentationwhichshouldreallyhavebeenlefttothosewhoareunabletoreason,andarecapableonlyoflavishingabuse.

Another curious peculiarity in SirWilliam’s mode of dealing with thissubjectis,thathismisrepresentationaboutmoralresponsibility,fatalism,atheism, etc., is directed only against the doctrine of philosophicalnecessity; while he gives us distinctly to understand, by the plainestimplication, that no such objections can be substantiated against thedoctrinesofCalvinism.HeishereprofessingtobeaCalvinist,andtobedefending genuine Calvinism against the misrepresentations of Dr.Chalmers andothers,who,while professing tobelieve in Calvinism, donot understand it so well as he, - who indeed corrupt the Calvinisticsystembyteachingthedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessityasapartofit.SirWilliam’sheavychargesagainst thesemenare,of course,basednotupontheCalvinismwhichheprofessestoholdincommonwiththem,butupon the philosophical necessity which they taught as a part of theirCalvinism, but in which he differs from them. In other words, heprofessestobelieve,aseveryCalvinistdoes,thatGodhathforeordained

whatsoevercomestopass,andheseesnothinginthisdoctrinethattendsto overthrowmoral responsibility and to bring in fatalism; while thesealarmingconsequencesattachtothedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity,-a doctrinewhich, as held by thosewhomhewas denouncing, could benothingelsethananeffectualprovisionmadebyGodforbringingaboutthe results which, in His “absolute decrees,” He had predetermined tobringtopass.

Uponthegroundofconsiderationsderivedfromthesevarioussources,-viz. the general character and standing of this subject of liberty andnecessity viewed historically as a topic of controversial discussion, thespecialviewsofSirWilliamHamiltonregardingit,andtheverypeculiarcharacter of that passage of his which is more immediately under ourconsideration,-wedonotconsiderourselvescalledupon,andwedonotintend,toenteruponthemoregeneralaspectsofthegreatsubjectwhichis here brought under our notice. We do not intend to deal with SirWilliam’s two principal positions, - viz. 1. That the doctrine ofphilosophicalnecessityis“inthefaceoftheBible.Thatitoverturnsmen’smoralresponsibility,andleadstofatalismandatheism.SirWilliamhasnotgivenusanyevidenceorargumentinsupportofthesetwopositions.Hehas saidnothing here upon the subject butwhatmight just aswellhave been said by the most ignorant person that ever railed againstCalvinism. We deny both these positions, though we do not mean toassert their contradictories.Wedonotbelieve that there is anything intheBiblethateitherprovesordis-„provesthedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity.Wehavenever seenany satisfactoryevidence that it tends toimmoralityandatheism.

Thereis,however,anotherstatementmadebySirWilliaminthepassageon which we are animadverting, which - though relating to a point ofinferior intrinsic importance - is perhapsmore likely to be believed byordinary readers, and thereby todomischief,while at the same time itinvolvesagreatpersonalinjustice,-viz.thatthisdoctrine iscontrarytothe teaching of Calvin, - is a corruption of pureCalvinism, - andmorespecifically, is“inthefaceoftheConfessionofFaith”of“ourCalvinisticChurchofScotland.”ThiswasprobablyintendedbySirWilliamtobetherealgravamenof thechargeagainstDr.Chalmers, thathehad taughta

doctrineopposedto.thesymbolicalbookswhichhehadsubscribed.Thisisaseriouscharge,andafavouriteonewithSirWilliam.Herepeateditsomewhat more calmly, though still not without plain indications ofunphilosophicalvehemence,inanotetothesixthvolumeofthecollectededition of Professor Dugald Stewart’s works. This note, which is asfollows,waspublishedin1855:-

“The Scottish Church asserts, with equal emphasis, the doctrine of theabsolutedecreesofGodandthedoctrineofthemorallibertyofman.ThetheoryofJonathanEdwards touching thebondageof thewill is,on theCalvinistic standardof theWestminsterConfession,not onlyheterodoxbut heretical; and yet we have seen the scheme of absolute necessityurgedby imposingauthority,andevenapparentlyreceivedwithgeneralacquiescence,asthatexclusivelyconformabletotherecognizedtenetsofourecclesiasticalestablishment.”

Itisthemoreneedfultoadverttothischarge,becausetheleadingideaonwhichit isbasedhasbeencountenancedalsobyProfessorStewart, inapassagepublishedforthefirsttimebySirWilliamhimselfin1854inhiseditionof the“DissertationontheProgressofPhilosophy,” formingthefirstvolumeofthecollectedworks.Stewart’sstatementuponthesubject,which is written with the calmness of a philosopher, and conveys nopersonal attack, is insertedbySirWilliamasapassage “restored” fromtheauthor’smanuscriptinthenote‘M.M’andisasfollows:-

“In the Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland (the articles ofwhicharestrictlyCalvinistic),thefreedomofthehumanwill isassertedasstronglyasthedoctrineoftheeternaldecreesofGod.‘God(itissaid,chap.iii.)fromalleternitydid,bythemostwiseandholycounselofHisownwill,freelyandunchangeablyordainwhatsoevercomestopass.Yetsoastherebyneither isGodtheauthorofsin,nor isviolenceofferedtothewillofthecreatures,noristhelibertyorcontingencyofsecondcausestakenaway,butratherestablished.’Andstillmoreexplicitlyinchap.ix.:‘God hath indued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it isneitherforced,norbyanyabsolutenecessityofnaturedetermined,todogoodorevil.’”

Stewart here plainly sanctions the general idea on which Sir William’s

charge against Edwards and Chalmers is founded, and quotes thoseportionsoftheConfessionwhichheregardsasestablishinghisposition.Suchacharge,broughtforwardinsuchcircumstances,andrestingupongroundswhichmayappearnotaltogetherdestituteofplausibility to ill-informed persons, demands consideration; and this brings us back towhatwereallyintendedtohavebeenthemainsubjectofthisdiscussion.Webelievethechargetobeutterlygroundless;whileatthesametimewedonotaltogetherapproveoftheaspectsinwhichEdwardsandChalmershave represented this matter. Our views upon this point may beembodiedintwoplainpropositions,andwedonotmeantoattemptmoreat present than briefly indicating the grounds on which we think theymay be established, lst, There is nothing in the Calvinistic system oftheology, or in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which precludesmen from holding the doctrine of philosophical necessity. 2d, There isnothing in the Calvinistic system of theology, or in the WestminsterConfession, which requires men to hold the doctrine of philosophicalnecessity. By establishing the first of these positions, we vindicateEdwards,Chalmers,andotherpiousanddistinguishedtheologians,fromthe charge which Sir William has adduced against them of corruptingCalvinism, and contradicting the Westminster Confession. Byestablishingthesecond,wevindicateCalvinismfromtheservitudewhichthe views of Edwards and Chalmers seem to impose upon it, of beingobliged to undertake the defence of a doctrine which, whether true orfalse, belongs, after all, to the department of philosophy rather than oftheology, and ought to be left to be disposed of upon its own properphilosophicalgrounds.

First, then, we say that there is nothing in the Calvinistic system oftheology, or in theWestminsterConfession,whichprecludesmen fromholdingthedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity.Wehavehithertospokenofthisdoctrinechieflyincidentally,assumingthatitsgeneralnatureandimportarewellknown;butitmaybepropernowtostatemoreformallywhatismeantbyit.Theadvocatesofthisdoctrinemaintainthatthereisaninvariableandnecessaryconnectionbetweenmen’smotivesandtheirvolitions, - between objects of desire and pursuit as seen andapprehendedbythem,andalltheiractsofvolitionorchoice;orthatourvolitions and choices are invariably determined by the last practical

judgmentof theunderstanding.Libertarians admit thatmen’s volitionsorchoicesare,ordinarilyandingeneral,determinedbymotivesasseenandapprehendedbythemind;butdenythatthereisalawregulatingourmentalprocesses,bywhichthisdeterminationofvolitionsbymotivesisrendered invariable , andnecessary.On the contrary, theymaintain, inoppositiontothis,andastheonlyalternative,thatthewillhasalibertyofindifference, whereby, irrespective or in disregard of any motives thatmaybepresentedtoit,itmayremainineqailibrio;thatitmaydetermineor put forth a volition or choice, either in accordance with or inopposition to themotivespresented to it, and that it cando this in theexerciseofaninherentself-determiningpowerofitsown.Theinvariableandnecessaryinfluenceofmotivesindeterminingvolitions,andalibertyofindifference,combinedwithaself-determiningpowerinthewillitself,arethustheoppositepositionsofthecontendingpartiesonthisquestion.Thedisputemanifestlyturnswhollyuponaquestionastowhatisthelawwhich regulates those mental processes that result in, or constitute,volitions or choices; and this is properly and primarily a question inphilosophy, thematerials for determining whichmust be sought in anappeal to consciousness, and in an application of the data whichconsciousnessfurnishes.Thisstatementoftherealnatureofthepointindispute is surely fitted to suggest at once the improbability of thenecessitarianviewtellingsopowerfullyupongreattheologicalquestions,andleadingtosuchfearfulconsequencesasSirWilliamHamiltonalleges.

WehavetoshowthatmenwhohaveembracedtheCalvinisticsystemoftheology, and subscribed theWestminster Confession, are not therebyprecluded from maintaining this view of the law which regulates ourvolitions,commonlyandjustlydescribedasthedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity.Itmaybeproper,inthefirstplace,toadverttotheauthorityofAugustineandCalvin,unquestionablythetwohighestnamesintheology.Professor Stewart, in the passage which immediately precedes thatquoted above, and which is to be found in the former edition of theDissertation, as prefixed to the “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” says that“Augustinehasassertedthelibertyofthewillintermsasexplicitasthoseinwhichhehasannouncedthetheologicaldogmaswithwhichitismostdifficult to reconcile it, -nay,hehasgone so far as to acknowledge theessential importance of this belief as a motive to virtuous conductand

thenhegivesaquotationfromAugustineinsupportofthisstatement.SirWilliamhasassertedthat“nothingcanbeconceivedmorecontrarytothedoctrine of that great divine (Calvin), than what has latterly beenpromulgated as Calvinism in our Calvinistic Church of Scotland,” -meaning,as ismanifest, thedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity.Hehasgivennoquotationsorreferences insupportof thisposition, thoughhewouldhavehadnodifficulty inproducingextractswhich, to thosewhohadneverreadCalvin,wouldhaveappearedtoestablishit.ButthetrueviewsofAugustineandCalvinuponthissubjectarenottobelearntfroma few isolated passages. They can be correctly understood only upon adeliberateandcomprehensivesurveyoftheirwholeposition.Ifitbetrue,asStewartalleges,thatAugustinehasexpresslyassertedthelibertyofthewill,itisatleastastruethathehasoftenexplicitlydeniedit.Heassertsitinsomesensesanddeniesitinothers;andhehasnotalwaystakenduecaretoexplainfullythesenseinwhichhewasemployingthephraseforthetime,andtoadheretothissensethroughout.Andaccordingly,inthegreat controversy between the Jansenists and the Jesuits as to whatAugustine’s theological doctrines were, there is no point in regard towhichtheJesuitshavebeenabletomakeoutnearlysoplausibleacaseasinsupportofStewart’sposition,thatAugustineassertedthelibertyofthewill.Onthis,however,asoneveryotherpoint,theJansenistsgainedthevictory,thoughnotquitesodecisivelyasupontheotherdepartmentsofthecontroversy.IthasbeenprovedthatAugustineheld,andheldasgreatscriptural doctrines, thatman before the fall had liberty or freedomofwill,-inthissense,thathewasabletowillandtodogoodaswellastowillandtodoevil;thatheentirelylostthislibertyofwillbythefall;thatfallenmaninhisunrenewedstatehasnotlibertyofwill,orhasitonlyinthissense,thatheisstillfullyresponsibleforwhathedoesasbeingafreemoral agent, acting voluntarily or spontaneously; and thatwhenmen’swillshavebeenrenewedbyGod’s grace, and theyare restoredagain tolibertyofwill,-inthissense,thattheyarenowagainabletowillandtodogoodaswell as evil, - it is still true thatGod requiresof themwhatthey are not able to perform. It can be proved that Augustine held alltheseviewsinregardtothelibertyofthewill;whileitcannotbeprovedthathehasgivenanydeliverancewhateverupontheonlypointinvolvedin the controversy about philosophical necessity. All this,which can beproved in regard to Augustine, is equally true of Calvin; the main

difference between the two cases being this, that Calvin hasmore fullyandcarefullythanAugustine,explainedthedifferentsensesinwhichthewillmight be said to be free and not free, - that he has adheredmoreclosely in treating of this subject to precise and definite phraseology,carefully explained and consistently applied, - and that he has neverspoken of free-will without affording, to careful readers, abundantmaterialsforunderstandinginwhatsenseheemployedit,andespeciallyfor satisfying themselves that he did not hold liberty in any senseinconsistentwithnecessity,asunderstoodinthepresentcontroversy.

In Calvin’s most important and masterly treatise, “De Servitute etLiberatione Humani Arbitrii,” he has fully brought out his views uponthis subject, and has furnished amplematerials for establishing all wehave said concerning him. A considerable portion of this treatise isoccupied with an elaborate investigation as to what were Augustine’sviewsuponthispoint,andaconclusiveproof,inoppositiontohisPopishantagonist Pighius, that Augustine, with occasional looseness andinaccuracyofexpression,heldthesameviewsinsubstancewhichheandhisfellow-re-formershadpromulgated.Wemaybrieflyadverttooneortwopoints,indicatingplainlyenoughtheleadingfeaturesoftheviewsofAugustine and Calvin upon thismatter. There is one very striking andpithy saying of Augustine’s, in speaking of the fall, which Calvinrepeatedlyquoteswithapprobation,viz.,“Homoliberoarbitriomaleususetseperdiditetipsum,”-man,bymakingabaduseofhisfree-will,lostbothhimselfandit,-astatementwhichthrowsafloodoflightuponthewholesystemofdoctrinewhichthesegreatmentaughtuponthissubject.Another statement of Augustine’s, which Calvin repeatedly quotes withapprobation, and which was applied by them both to renewed andunrenewedmen,is,“JubetDeusquaenonpossumusutnoverimusquidabipsopeteredebeamus,”-Godrequiresofuswhatwecannotperform,inorderthatwemayknowwhatweoughttoaskfromHim.Wegiveonlyoneotherbriefextractfromthetreatiseabovereferredto.“Ihavealwaysdeclared that Ihavenowish to fight about thename (of free-will), if itwere once settled that liberty ought to be referred not to the power orcapacityofchoosingequallygoodorevil,buttospontaneousmotionandconsent.AndwhatelsemeanthewordsofAugustine?Hesays,‘Thewillis free, but only to evil. Why? because it is moved by delight and its

properappetite.’Headdsafterwards,(Butthiswillwhichisfreeforevil,because it isdelightedwithevil, isnot free forgood,because ithasnotbeen emancipated.’ Towhich Calvin subjoins, i All this is so accordantwith my doctrine, that you might suppose it had been written for thedefenceofit.’Lutherandhisfollowers,whohadatfirstmadesomeveryabsolute and exaggerated statements in the way of denying free-willaltogether, cameafterwards to attachmuch importance to adistinctionbetween man’s freedom in things external, civil, and moral, and hisfreedominthingsproperlyspiritual;andtheyembodiedthisdistinctionin theConfessionofAugsburg.Calvin admitted the truth and reality ofthisdistinction, thoughhedidnotregarditasofmuchimportance inatheologicalpointof view.Butwhile admitting thatmanhasapowerorfreedominthingsoutwardandmerelymoralwhichhehasnotinthingsspiritual,hehasgivennoindicationthathethoughtthateven,inregardto the former classof subjects,manhasa libertyof indifference,orhiswillaself-determiningpower.Inthesecondchapterof thesecondbookoftheInstitutes,hehasgivenaverystrikingandeloquentdescriptionofwhatmancaneffectbytheexerciseofhispowersasbroughttobearuponoutwardandnaturalthings,anduponarts,literature,andphilosophy,ascompared with the blindness and uselessness of the unaidedunderstandinginreligiousmatters.Butneitherherehashesaidanythingwhich implies thathedenied thedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity,orascribedtothewillofmananylibertyorcapacityinconsistentwithit.”

In short, neither Augustine nor Calvin entertained or discussed thepsychological question as to what the laws are which regulate men’smentalprocesses,anddeterminetheirvolitions.Thelibertyandnecessityofwhichtheytreated,andwhichindifferentsentencestheyaffirmedanddenied, referred to something very different from, and much moreimportantthan,this.Fromtheirdenialsoflibertyandfree-will,wewouldnotbewarrantedinassertingthattheyheldthedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity; and neither, on the other hand, is any one entitled to infer,from their assertions of liberty and free-will, that they denied thatdoctrine.Andthis,indeed,isreallythesubstanceofwhatistrueandcanbe established, not only of Augustine and Calvin, who have beenhonouredmorethananyotheruninspiredmentobringoutcorrectlytheschemeofdivinetruth,butofCalvinisticdivines ingeneral,andamong

therest,oftheauthorsoftheWestminsterConfession.

Professor Stewart evidently knew very little about this matter in itstheological aspects. But he writes modestly and cautiously. The onlystatementhemakesaboutAugustineisliterallytrue,thoughitisnotthewhole truth, and is certainly, in the sense in which alone it can beestablished,quite irrelevant to theobjecthehad inview.That “nothingcan be conceived more contrary to the doctrine of” Calvin than thedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity,astaughtbyEdwardsandChalmers,-andthisiswhatSirWilliamHamiltonmusthaveintendedtoassert,-isaposition forwhich no evidence has been or can be produced; and it isscarcely possible that he could be ignorant that he had no materialswhateverforestablishingit.

We proceed now' to themore important and pressing part of the case,that which professes to deal with the teaching of the WestminsterConfession. Upon this point Stewart asserts, in almost the very sameterms which he had employed in speaking of Augustine, that “in theConfession the freedomof thehumanwill isassertedasstronglyas thedoctrineoftheeternaldecreesofGod;”andquotestwopassages,theonefromthethird,and.theotherfromtheninthchapter, insupportof thisposition. He evidently meant to assert that the Confession, thoughteachingstrictCalvinismonthesubjectofforeordination,taughtalsotheLibertarianviewonthesubjectofthewill,asopposedtothedoctrineofphilosophical necessity. But both his general statement and his proofsderived fromtheConfession,manifestly labourunderall thedifficultiesanddrawbacksconnectedwiththeambiguityofthephrase,“thefreedomofthehumanwill,”whichisthesubjectofhisproposition.The“freedomofthewill”maybeunderstoodinavarietyofsenses,and.onbothsidesofthecontroversywouldbeeitheraffirmedordenied,accordingasitmightbeexplained.It isplainenough fromthecontext inwhatsenseStewartunderstoodit,andmeantittobeunderstood;butstillthevaguenessandambiguity of the expression in itself gives the appearance of greaterweighttohisproofsthantheypossess.SirWilliamhasnotdefinedwhatthe doctrine is against which he declaimed so vehemently in his“Discussions;” but it is quite plain that what he had in view was, andcouldbenothingelsethan,thedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessityasheld

by Dr. Chalmers; and this he pronounced to be “in the face of theConfessionasinthefaceoftheBible.”Inhismorerecentnoteinthesixthvolume of Stewart, he brings it out somewhat more definitely as “thetheoryofJonathanEdwardstouchingthebondageof thewill;”andthishe pronounces to be, “on the Calvinistic standard of the WestminsterConfession, not only heterodox, but heretical.” It looks like an unfairattemptto.exciteprejudice, that inthenextclause, inwhichherepeatshis attack uponDr. Chalmers, he should speak of it as “the scheme ofabsolutenecessity,urgedby imposingauthority.”Butnottodwelluponthis, - especially as it is notorious that Dr. Chalmers’ views upon thissubject were avowedly identical with those of Edwards, - we are fullywarranted in laying it down, that Sir William has asserted, that thedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity,astaughtbyEdwardsandChalmers,is“inthefaceoftheConfession,”-66is,ontheCalvinisticstandardoftheWestminster Confession, not only heterodox, but heretical.” This is adefinitestatement.Itinvolvesaseriouscharge.Isittrue?

ThereissurelyaconsiderableantecedentimprobabilitythattheviewsofEdwardsandChalmersshouldbeopposed inan importantpoint to theConfession,andthatSirWilliamHamiltonshouldhavebeenthefirstandonlypersontodiscoverandproclaimthis.Dr.ChalmershadrepeatedlyprofessedhispublicadherencetotheConfessionastheconfessionofhisfaith.He,ofcourse,believedthathebelievedit,andthathisteachingwasin full accordance with its statements. The ministers of the church towhichhebelonged-whohadallthemselvessubscribedtheConfession-foundnothing inhis teachingopposed to it The questionwas once putformally and explicitly by Dr. Erskine to Edwards, whether he couldsubscribe the Westminster Confession, and he in reply declared hisreadinesstodoso.Butstillitisnotimpossiblethatthesemenmayhavebeenwhollywrong in thismatter, and that SirWilliammayhave beenright. In publicly adducing so serious a charge, he ought in fairness tohavedistinctlyspecifiedthegroundsonwhichitrested.Hehasnotdoneso.ButthepassagesquotedbyStewartaremanifestlythoseonwhichthechargemustrest;althoughsomethingmightalsobemadeofapassageinthefifthchapteruponProvidence,andofthestatementswhichassertorimply, that our first parentswere left to the freedomof their ownwill,andenjoyedbeforethefallalibertyofwillwhichwedonotpossess.

Thefirstpassageistakenfromthethirdchapter;itisasfollows:-“God,fromalleternity,did,bythemostwiseandholycounselofhisownwill,freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so astherebyneitherisGodtheauthorofsin,norisviolenceofferedtothewillofthecreatures,noristhelibertyorcontingencyofsecondcausestakenaway,butratherestablished.”

Every one must see, and no Calvinist has ever disputed, that if it beindeed true thatGodhasunchangeably foreordainedwhatsoever comesto pass, this certainly implies that liberty, in some sense, as predicatedevenofmen’svolitionsandactions, is .excluded;andthatnecessity, insomesense,isestablished.Thisbeingtacitlyconcededasundeniable,thelatterpartoftheabovesectionoftheConfessionisdirectedtothegeneralobject of disclaiming or shutting out certain extreme views as to theinferenceswhichsomemightdeducefromthisgreatdoctrineofuniversalforeordination.Allthatishereexpresslyassertedis,thatthethreethingsherespecifieddonot followfromforeordination.Butweadmit that thepassagemaybeheldinfairnesstoimplythatthethingsherespecifiednotonly do not follow from predestination, but are in themselves bad, orfalse, or impossible. The latter part then of the passage may beparaphrased thus: - “It may be thought that this doctrine offoreordinationmakesGod theauthorof sin;buthoweverplausible thisallegationmay be, we do not admit its truth: we deny that God is theauthorofsin,andwedenythatitisajustinferencefromforeordinationthatHe is so. Itmay furtherbeallegedplausibly, thatby thisuniversaland unchangeable foreordination, violence is offered to the will of thecreatures, and that the libertyor contingencyof second causes is takenaway;butwedenythatviolenceisorshouldbeofferedtothewillofthecreatures, or that the liberty or contingency of second causes is takenawaybyforeordinationorbyanythingelse;and,onthecontrary,weholdthat the libertyorcontingencyofsecondcauses is ratherestablishedbyit.” Now there is here no mention of, or reference to, the doctrine ofphilosophical necessity. The only doctrine mentioned here is that offoreordination; and in addition to stating it and asserting its truth, thesubstanceofwhatissaidaboutitis,thatwhileitmaysuggestplausible,itfurnishes no solid, grounds for the inference, either that God is theauthorofsin,orthatviolenceisofferedtothewillofthecreatures.The

onlywaythereforeinwhichthissectionoftheConfessioncanbearupontheproofthatthedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessityishereticalisthis,-this proves that it is wrong that violence be offered to the will of thecreatures;thedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessityoffersviolence,etc.,andthereforeitisherecondemned.ButtheConfessionfurnishesnomaterialsthatbear,orevenseemtobear,upontheproofoftheminorpropositionaboutthenature, tendencies,andresultof thedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity.Thisproposition isnotmoreself-evident -nay, it isnot evenmoreplausible-thantheonethatbyforeordinationviolenceisofferedtothewillofthecreatures.Itisnottobeassumedastrue.Itmustbeprovedby distinct and independentmaterials, for nothing of this sort is to befound in the Confession. Edwards and Chalmers have no hesitation inapplying to their doctrine of necessity what the Confession applies toforeordination-viz.thattherebyneitherisGodtheauthorofsin,norisviolenceofferedtothewillofthecreatures.Andthereiscertainlynothingin theConfession that can be pleaded either to the effect of precludingthemfromtakingthisground,orofthrowinganydifficultyinthewayoftheirmaintaining it. Indeed, theonlycorrect senseofwhat ismeantby“offeringviolencetothewillofthecreatures”isnot,compellingthemtowill in a certain way, for that is impossible and inconsistent with thenatureofwillaswill,butcompellingthemtodowhat theirwillabhors.WewillpresenttheviewgenerallytakenuponthispointbyCalvinists inthewordsofJohnKnox,inhismasterlytreatiseonpredestination,whichhaving been republished in the fifth volume of Mr. Laing’s admirableeditionofhiscollectedworks,willsoon,wehope,becomebetterknownamongstusthanithashithertobeen.“IaffirmthatGodworkethallinallthingsaccording to thepurposeof thesameHisgoodwill, andyet thatHe useth no violence, neither in compelling His creatures, neitherconstrainingtheirwillsbyanyexternalforce,neitheryettakingtheirwillsfromthem,butinallwisdomandjusticeusingthemasHeknowethmostexpedientforthemanifestationofHisglory;withoutanyviolence,Isay,doneto theirwills, forviolence isdoneto thewillofacreaturewhen itwillethonething,andyetbyforce,bytyranny,orbyagreaterpower,iniscompelledtodothethingswhichitwouldnot.”

This is thepropermeaningof thewords, this is therecognizedsenseofthestatement,amongCalvinisticwriters;andthereforetheportionofthe

ConfessionfoundedonbyStewart,notonlycontainsnothingintheleastadverse to the doctrine of philosophical necessity, butnothing that haseventheappearanceofbeingso.Foreventheopponentsofthisdoctrinewillscarcelyallege,thatitimpliesthatviolenceisofferedtothewillofthecreatures,inthesenseinwhichthathasnowbeenexplained.Inordertowarrant suchanallegation, itwouldbe requisite that there shouldbeadenial of the liberty of spontaneity, or the power of doing freely andspontaneouslywhatwewill or choose to do. And not only have all thesupportersofphilosophicalnecessityuniformlyascribedtomenalibertyofspontaneity;buttheopponentsofthatdoctrinehaveadmittedthatthislibertyofspontaneityisperfectlyconsistentwithit,whiletheyholdit tobeinsufficientasthebasisofmoralresponsibility.

Mr.Stewartseemstoindicate,byhisitalics,thatheregardedtheclauseonwhichwehavebeencommenting,about“violenceofferedtothewillofthecreatures,”asembodyingthestrengthofhiscase.Butifhehadbeenfamiliarwith theway inwhich these topicshavebeendiscussedamongtheologians,hewouldprobablyhavebeenofopinionthatthethirdpointreferred to,viz. “the libertyorcontingencyofsecondcauses,” furnishedan argument quite as plausible, especially when viewed in connectionwith the fuller statement upon the same subject, contained in the fifthchapteronProvidence,sec.2:“Although,inrelationtotheforeknowledgeanddecreeofGod,thefirstcause,allthingscometopass,immutablyandinfallibly, yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall outaccording to the nature of second causes, necessarily, freely, orcontingently.” The third chapter states the substance of what Scriptureteaches concerning God’s decrees, - that is, His purposes ordeterminationsformedfrometernityastoallthatwastocometopassintime. This fifth chapter gives the substance of Scripture teaching as toGod’sprovidence,-thatis,astoallthatHedoesintimeforcarryingintoeffect the purposes which He had formed from eternity. God havingforeordainedwhatsoevercomestopass,provisionismadeforsecuringalltheresultssoordainedanddetermined.AndallwhoholdtheCalvinisticdoctrine on the subject of foreordination must, in consistency, alsoreceivethecommonCalvinisticdoctrineonthesubjectofprovidence,orthegovernmentwhich-GodiseverexercisingoverallHiscreaturesand.all their actions; Against the doctrine of foreordination, men are very

pronetoadducetheobjections,-thatitmakesGodtheauthorofsin,thatitoffers violence to thewill of the creatures, and that it takesaway thelibertyorcontingencyofsecondcauses.Theseobjectionsseemtoapplywith equal plausibility to the doctrine of providence as to that ofpredestination;andCalvinistsdealwiththeseobjections,inbothcases,inthe same way, by admitting that these consequences would be fatal toCalvinistic doctrines if it could be conclusively proved that they werenecessaryconsequences,andbyassertingandundertakingtoprovethattheseconsequencesdonotnecessarily followfromtheirdoctrines,oratleast that this cannot be established.Wehavenothing to do at presentwith the allegation that the Calvinistic doctrines of predestination andprovidencemakeGod theauthorof sin.Wehavealreadyexplained themeaningandbearingoftheallegationaboutviolencebeingofferedtothewill of the creatures; and proved that it is utterly inadequate for thepurposeforwhichStewartadduced it, - that ithasnobearingwhateveruponthequestionwhetherEdwards’doctrineofphilosophicalnecessityis or is not opposed to theConfession. In regard to the thirdpoint,wehave nothing to do directly with the contingency, but only with theliberty,ofsecondcauses.Whatissaidaboutthis,andhowdoesitbear,ifat all, upon the question under consideration? God has foreordainedwhatsoevercomestopass,andHehasmadeprovisionforsecuringthateverything which He had before ordained should be actually broughtabout. This might appear, and has indeed been alleged, to involve orrequire the establishment of an absolute, universal, and indiscriminatenecessity or fatalism, as comprehending and controlling, equally andalike, all agents and events. But Calvinists deny that this follows fromtheir doctrines. These doctrines no doubt imply that, in relation to theforeknowledge and decree ofGod the first cause, all things do come topassimmutablyandinfallibly,andthustheycertainlyestablishnecessityandexcludelibertyinsomesense;yettheydonottakeawaythelibertyofsecondcauses,andtheyleaveitopentoGodtocauseallthingstocomeaboutaccordingtothenatureofthesesecondcauses,necessarily, freely,or contingently. In other words, Calvinists maintain that God, inexecuting His decrees in providence, brings about different classes ofeventsinawaythatisinfullaccordancewith,theirowndistinct,propernatures,-bringingtopassnecessarythingsnecessarily,freethingsfreely,andcontingentthingscontingently.Thisofcourseimpliesthatthereare

underGod’sgovernmentfreeagents,whoaredealtwithinallrespectsasfreeagents,accordingtotheirpropernature,andtheactualqualitiesandcapacitiestheypossess.Asfreeagentstheyactfreely;andalthough,ifthedoctrineoftheforeordinationofallthingsbetrue,thereisanecessityinsome sense attaching to all their actions, this does not preclude theirhavingalsoalibertyattachingtothem,inaccordancewiththeirgeneralcharacter and standing, as being free, in contradiction from necessary,agents.Amongthesefreeagents-inwhomthelibertyofsecondcausesismaintained and preserved, notwithstanding the control which Godexercises over all their actions in order to executeHis decrees - are ofcoursemen,rationalandresponsiblebeings.Godhasmadethemrationalandresponsible,andHehasendowedthemwithatleastsuchfreedomorliberty as is necessary to responsibility. He ever deals with them inaccordancewiththequalitiesandcapacitieswhichHehasbestoweduponthem.HedoesnotdealwiththemasHedoeswiththematerialcreationor with the irrational animals. Although ever infallibly executing Hisdecrees, He leaves them in the full possession of the rationality,responsibility,andlibertywhichHehasbestoweduponthem.

NooneacquaintedwiththegroundtakenindiscussionsuponthissubjectbytheCalvinisticdivinesoftheseventeenthcentury,canhaveanydoubtthat this is themeaningof the statementunder consideration, and thatthiswasallthatthesewordswereintendedtoexpress;andifso,thenitismanifest that they just throwus backupon thequestion, to bedecideduponitsownpropergrounds,astothenature,species,andfoundationsof the liberty which men actually possess, while they afford us nomaterials whatever, direct or indirect, for determining the question,whether or not this liberty is to be held as precluding the doctrine ofphilosophicalnecessity.EdwardsandChalmersofcourseheldthatmenare free agents, - that they are in some sense possessed of a free-will,whichneitherthepredestinationnortheprovidenceofGodannihilatesorsupersedes;and if so, theycouldhavenodifficulty in subscribing theseportionsoftheConfession.

ButperhapstheportionoftheConfessionwhichhasmosttheappearanceof something like hostility to the doctrine of philosophical necessity, isthatwhichStewartquotesfromthebeginningoftheninthchapter,which

treatsof“free-will.”Thestatement is this: “Godhathenduedthewillofmanwiththatnaturalliberty,thatitisneitherforcednorbyanyabsolutenecessityofnaturedeterminedtogoodorevil.”'Thisisplainlyintendedas a general description of the human will, or rather of some leadingfeaturesofit,applicabletothewillatalltimes,andamidallthechangeswhichinsomerespects ithasundergone.There is, it ishereasserted,acertainnatural libertywithwhichGodhasendued thewillofman,andwhich itever retains,andmust retain,asessential to itspropernature.Butitmustbeobservedthatthisisnotafulldefinitionordescriptionofthewill as a power or faculty of man, such asmight be expected in aphilosophical treatise giving an account of the human mind. TheConfession professes to give a summary ofwhat is taught in Scripture,and no one has ever imagined that Scripture contains materials forenablingustogiveafulldescriptionofthewillasafacultyofman,andtodetermine, directly and at once, between the two opposite theories ofliberty and necessity. The Scripture affords materials for determiningquestions about the will only in some of its theological bearings. Andaccordingly itmustbenoticed that theConfessiondoesnot here speakgenerally of its being determined, but only of its being determined togoodorevil.Thesewords,“togoodorevil,”areaconstituentpartoftheonlyaffirmationhereput forth. It isnotastatementabout thegroundsandcausesof theordinarydeterminationsof thewill, or of volitions ingeneral,butaboutdeterminationstogoodorevil,-thatis,aboutvolitionswhich involvea choosingbetweengoodand evil, or apreferenceof theoneofthesetotheother.Thegeneralobjectofthewholechapterwastounfold the different aspects which man has presented in his fourfoldstate,astofreedomorlibertyofwillinchoosingbetweengoodandevil.To the freedom or bondage of man’s will, with reference to choosingbetween good and evil, as possessed and exhibited in four differentconditions,thefourfollowingsectionsofthechapteraredevoted;andthefirstsectionwasevidentlyintendedtobeintroductorytotheexpositionofthisgeneraltopicinitsdifferentstages.Sothat,viewedinitsconnectionwith what it introduces, it may be fairly regarded as amounting, insubstance, to a statement to this effect, - that thoughman at differentstagesofhishistory-unfallen,fallen,renewed,glorified-hashadhiswilldetermined togoodandalsodetermined to evil, this result isnot to beascribedineithercasetoforce,ortoanyabsolutenecessityofnature,as

thatwouldbe inconsistentwith thenatural libertywithwhichGodhasendowed thewill.Thiswas theaspect inwhich,principally, -wemightalmost say. exclusively, - both the Reformers of the sixteenth, and thegreat Calvinistic divines of the seventeenth, century contemplated thesubjectof free-will;and it is in this sensealone,weare convinced, thatthecompilersoftheWestminsterConfessionintendedtoexpoundit.

Butthoughwearesatisfiedofthesufficiencyofthegroundsonwhichthislimitationoftheimportofthestatementcanbedefended,-alimitationwhichof itselfdeprives itofall legitimatebearingupon thequestionofphilosophical necessity, - we do not concede that our argument isdependentupontheestablishmentofthis.Evenifthestatementbeheldto apply to the determinations of the will in general, instead of beinglimited todeterminationswhichmake a choice either of goodor evil, -according to the moral character of the prevailing tendency of man’snatureforthetime,-stillthelanguagehereemployedisquitesufficienttoremovefromthemindsofnecessitariansallhesitationaboutacceptingit. No necessitarian has any hesitation about repudiating force, or anabsolutenecessityofnature,asregulatingthedeterminationsofthewill;and though libertarians may allege that the doctrine of philosophicalnecessity implies that thewill is determinedby force or by an absolutenecessityof nature, yet they cannot establish this;while .necessitariansopenly and explicitly deny it, and cannot be convicted of any error orinconsistencyindoingso.Nothingstandsoutmorepalpablyonthefaceofthewholediscussionswhichhavetakenplaceuponthissubject, thanthesetwofacts:lst,ThatCalvinisticnecessitarianshavealwaysadmittedthatdeterminationbyforce-orastheyusuallycalledit,byconstraint,orcoaction, or compulsion - is inconsistent with free agency and moralresponsibility; and 2d, That they have always contended, that there isnothing about thenecessitarian view that gives any countenance to theidea that the will is determined by force. They have always contendedthat liberty or freedom - as opposed to all force or coaction - isindispensable, and must ever be maintained on all sides. Indeed, thecontroversybetweenlibertariansandnecessitarianshasoftenbeenmadeto turn upon this precise question,whether a liberty of spontaneity, asopposed to all force or coaction, all constraint brought to bear fromwithout, - a liberty this which all necessitarians hold and which

libertariansgenerallyadmitthattheycanholdconsistently,-beorbenotsufficient formoral responsibility. Calvin says “If liberty is opposed tocoaction (or force), I confess and constantly assert that thewill is free,andIreckonhimahereticwhothinksotherwise.Ifitiscalledfreeinthissense, because it is not forced or violently drawn by an externalmovement, but is led on sua sponte, I have no objection to this. Butbecausemeningeneral,whentheyhearthisepithetappliedtothewillofman,understanditinaverydifferentsense,forthisreasonIdislikeit.”Edwards himself says, speaking of the Stoics, whose Fate had beenobjected to him as identical with his necessity: <e Whatever theirdoctrinewas,ifanyofthemheldsuchafateasisrepugnanttoanylibertyconsisting in our doing as we please” (the liberty of spontaneity asopposed to all force or coaction from any external cause), 661 utterlydenysuchafate.Iftheyheldanysuchfateasisnotconsistentwiththecommon and universal notions that mankind have of liberty, activity,moralagency,virtueandvice,Idisclaimanysuchthing,andthinkIhavedemonstratedthattheschemeImaintain isnosuchscheme.”Turretinelays down six different senses in which liberty and necessity may beaffirmedordeniedrespectivelyofmanorhiswill;and-whatisacurious,andwithreferencetoourpresentargumentanimportant,coincidence-he selects from the six the two species of necessity specified andrepudiated in the Confession, - viz. that arising from force, and thatarisingfromnecessityofnature,orphysicalnecessity,-andadmitsthattheseare contrary to thenature of thewill and tomoral responsibility,andare therefore tobe rejected;while at the same timehe strenuouslyadvocatesotherkindsofnecessity,andamongtherest,thatbaseduponthelastjudgmentofthepracticalintellect,whichisjustthesamethingasthe doctrine of philosophical necessity as taught by Edwards andChalmers.

Thisfactisreallyconclusiveuponthequestionwearenowconsidering,aquestionwhichjustamountsinsubstancetothis,-

Doesadenialofthedeterminationofthewillbyforceorbyanabsolutenecessity of nature - understood in accordance with the views midlanguageoftheCalvinisticdivinesoftheseventeenthcentury-involveorimply a denial of the doctrine of philosophical necessity? That the

repudiation of determination by force does not imply this, has alreadybeenproved,andis,indeed,perfectlymanifest.Thereismoredoubtastowhat ismeantbynecessityofnature,andas towhat thismightsuggestabout the point in dispute. A “necessity of nature,” and still more an“absolute necessity of nature,” - the phrase used in the Confession, -seems to describe something much more intrinsic and fundamental,bearingmoreupontheessentialqualitiesorconstituentelementsofwillas-will,-asapowerorfacultyessentiallydistinguishingthosewhohaveitfromthosewhohaveitnot,-thananythinginvolvedinthecontroversyaboutphilosophicalnecessity,whichmerelyrespectsoneofthelawsthatregulate the determination of the volitions. And accordingly, oninvestigatingtheususloquendiuponthispointoftheCalvinisticdivinesof the seventeenth century, - which must be the standard for theinterpretationoftheWestminsterConfession,-wefindthatbynecessityof nature, as applied to thismatter of the will, theymeant a necessityarising from, or connectedwith, those essential qualities of thewill, invirtueofwhich itbecomesoneof themain things thatdistinguishmenfrommere material objects, and from the irrational animals. It is thenatureofthewillofman,thatitimpliesthepossessionandexerciseofarational, deliberate, unconstrained, spontaneous choice. Without this,willwouldbenowill;andwithoutwill,inthissense,manwouldnotbearesponsiblebeing,andwouldsink to the levelofmerematter,orof thebeasts that perish.Calvindistinctly admitted that “a liberty or freedomfromnecessity, in thesenseofcoactionorcompulsion,didso inhere inmanbynaturethatitcouldnotinanywaybetakenawayfromhim.”ThispointofthenaturallibertywithwhichGodhasendowedthewillofman,isthusexplainedbyTurretine,withhisusualmasterlyability:-

“Cum ergo ratio formalis libertatis non posita sit in indifferentia, nonpotestalibiquseri,quaminhibentiarationali;perquamhomofacitquodluhetvrseviorationisjudicio:Uthienecessarioduoconjungendaveniantadearnconstituendam.1.προαιρετιχν,utquodfit,nonfiatcseceimpetu,etbrutoquodaminstinctusedχπροαιρέσεως,etprseviorationislumine,etintellectuspractici judicio.2.τχούσιον ,utquodfitsponteet libenterfiatetsinecoactione.

“Hanc antem esse rationem formalem liberi arbitrii, ex eo non obscure

colligitur,quodomni, soli, et semperconveniat. Itautnullumsit agensliberum, vel creatum, vel increatum, in quo duo isti characteres nondeprehendantur:nec ad tempus tantum, sed semper,utposita lubentiaista rationali ponatur libertas, et sublata tollatur. Unde sequituradjunctumesseinsepara-bileagentisrationalis,quodilludinquovisstatucomitatur, ut non possit esse rationale, quin eo ipso sit liberum, necspoliariqueat libertate,quinpriveturetiamratione.Quodevincit etiamliberum arbitrium absolute spectatum et in genere Entis nunquam abhominetolliposseinquocunqueverseturstatu.”

Andthenwithregardtothedifferentkindsof libertyandnecessitythatare or are not consistent with these views of the nature of the will, heselects,aswehavementioned,justthetwospecifiedintheConfession,asexcluded absolutely and universally by right views of the essentialqualities of the will, - viz. force and necessity of nature, or physicalnecessity. Force, or coaction, or compulsion, by an external power orpressure,needsnoexplanation;andtheother-thenecessityofnature,orphysical necessity, in conjunction with force, just as it is put in theConfession.-Turretineexplainsinthisway:-

“Ut duo sunt prsecipui characteres Liberi Arbitrii, in quibus ejus ratioformalisconsistit,1.προαίρεσις,utquodfit,prseviorationisjudiciofiat,2.χούσιον,utquodfit,sponteetsinecoactionefiat:prioradintellectum,posterioradvoluntatempertinet:Duseetiamnecessitatisspeciescumeapug-nant. Prima est necessitas physica et bruta, Altera necessitascoactionis; ilia προαίρεσιν tollit, ista vero χούσιον. Nam quae fiunt exnecessitate physica ab agentibus naturalibus, ad unum natura et sineratione determinatis, non pos-sunt censeri fieri libere, id est prseviorationislumine;etquaefiuntpervimetcoacte,nonpossuntdicispontefieri. Et de his nulla inter Nos et Adversarios est controversia. Hoctantum obitermonendumBellarminumf et alios ex Pon-tificiisNostroscalumniari, dum illis imponunt, quod sentiant libertatem a coactionesufficere ad constitutionem liberi arbitrii; Quia prseter illam requiruntetiamimmunitatemanecessitatephysica;Etsiquandodicunthominema coactione, non a necessitate liberum esse; necessitatis voce nonintelligunt earn quas dicitur physica, de qua nulla erat controversia, etquassatisperseexclu-ditur,turnconditionesubjecti,quodestrationale,

turn ex actibus judicanch et volench, qui cum ea sunt άσνστατοι; sednecessitatemdependentise,servitutis,etrationalem.

“Sedsiduasistsenecessitatisspecies,anobiscommemoratse,cumliberoarbitrio pugnant; non eadem est ratio aliarum, quae cum eo subsisterepossunt, et quibus non tam destruitur, quam conservatur et perficitur,quod sigillatimquoadquatuornecessitatis species ante notatas ostenchpotest.”

And one of these four species of necessity, which are not inconsistentwith thenatural liberty of thewill, orwithmoral agency, is thatwhichforms the subject of our present discussion; in explaining whichTurretinesaysthatthenatureofthewillissuch,“utnonpossitnonsequiultimmnintellectuspracticijudicium.”Hesaysfurther,inexplanationofthesameviews:-

“Unde Tertio sequitur, Cum Providentia non concurrat cum voluntatehumana, vel per coactionem, cogendo voluntatem invitam, veldeterminandophysice,utrembrutametcsecamabsqueullojudicio,sedrationaliter, flectendo voluntatem modo ipsi convenienti, ut seipsamdeterminet,utcausaproximaactionumsuarumpropriorationisjudicio,et spontanea voluntatis electione, earn libertati nostrse nullam viminferre, sed illam potius amice fovere. Quia duse istse tantum suntnecessitatisspecies,quselibertatemperimunt,etcumeasuntασύστατοι,necessitasnaturalis,etcoactionis;Cseterse,quseoriuntur,veladecretoDei,etcausseprimsemotione,velabobjectoetjudicioultimointellectuspractici,tantumabestutlibertatemevertant,uteammagistueantur,quiaflectunt voluntatem, non cogunt, et faciunt ex nolente volentem. Quis-quis enim facit sponte quod vult ex rationis judicio et pleno voluntatisconsensu, id non potest non libere facere, etiamsi necessario faciat,undecunquefluatilianecessitas,siveabipsareiexistentia,quiaquicquidest, quando est, necessario est, sive ab objecto mentem et voluntatemefficaciter movente [which is just philosophical necessity] sive a causaprima decernente et concurrente [that is, divine predestination andprovidence].”

We have had the less hesitation about laying before our readers thesequotations from Turretine, because, in plain terms, they settle

conclusivelythequestionwhichwehaveundertakentodiscuss;inotherwords,theyestablishbeyonddisputetheposition,thattherepudiationintheConfessionofthedeterminationofthewillbyanabsolutenecessityofnature, does not, any more than the repudiation of determination byforce, preclude the maintenance of the doctrine of philosophicalnecessity. Libertariansmay still assert that they regard the doctrine ofphilosophicalnecessityasimplyingadeterminationofthewillbyforceorbyanecessityofnature;buttheyhavenorighttothrusttheirinferencesor constructionsupon theiropponents, or tomake these inferences thestandard,ofwhattheiropponentsaretoanswerfor.Theallegationthatthe doctrine of philosophical necessity is in the face of the Confession,especiallywhen it is adduced as a personal charge,must be proved byhim who makes it. It can be proved only by producing from theConfession statements which, according to the ordinary recognizedmeaning of the words, or the known intention of the authors of thedocument, importadenialor rejectionof thedoctrine inquestion.Thequotations we have produced from Turretine prove, that, tried by theviews and the language of the Calvinistic divines of the seventeenthcentury,-theproperstandardapplicabletothismatter,-thefirstsectionoftheninthchapteroftheConfessioncontainsnothinginconsistentwiththe doctrine of philosophical necessity. The statement theremade wasmeanttobeintroductorytoadescriptionofthechangeswhichmanhasexperienced,oristoexperience,inregardtofreewillinhisfourfoldstate;and it was just intended to embody in substance a declaration to theeffect,thatwhateverchangeshadoccurred,ormightoccur,inthehistoryof man in this respect, the essential features of his will or power ofvolition had continued unchanged; that nothing had ever taken place,eitherofanexternalorinternalkind,whichinterferedwithhisdeliberateandspontaneouschoice,orwithhismoralresponsibility;thatthough,asis afterwards explained, man’s will in one condition or period of hishistoryhadbeendeterminedtogood,andinanotherconditionorperiodtoevil,thisdeterminationtogoodorevildidnotarisefromforce,orfromanabsolutenecessityofnature;forthat,ifthedeterminationtogoodorevil had originated in either of these causes, this would have beeninconsistentwiththenatureofwillaswill,orwithitsessentialfeatureasthecharacteristicofa rationaland responsiblebeing, - viz. adeliberateand spontaneous power of choice. The determination of man’s will to

good or evil by the application of external force, or by any necessityarisingfromthenaturalstructureandinherentcapacityof thepowerofvolition,areexpresslyshutout.There isnoappearanceof theexclusiongoing beyond this; and if so, the doctrine of philosophical necessity isuntouched.

Wecouldproduce,ifitwerenecessary,evidencefromotherauthorsthatthis was the sense in which the expressions under consideration weregenerallyemployedbytheCalvinisticdivinesoftheseventeenthcentury.WeshallgiveonlytwobriefextractsfromDr.Owen,oneoftheveryfewnamesintheologyentitledtostandsidebysidewithTurretine,-extractsinwhich itwill be observed that he uses thewords “outward coaction”and “inward natural necessity,” in the same sense in which the almostidentical expressions are used in the Confession; and plainly intimatesthatitisquitesufficient,inordertomoralresponsibility,toexcludethesetwo speciesofnecessity, and to retain thedeliberation and spontaneitywhich are inconsistent with them. They are taken from his “Display ofArminianism;beingadiscoveryoftheoldPelagianidolFreewill,withthenewgoddessContingency.”

“Yethereobservethatwedonotabsolutelyopposefree-will,asifitwerenomeninane,amerefigment,whenthereisnosuchthingintheworld;but only in that sense the Pelagians andArminians do assert it. Aboutwords we will not contend.We grant man, in the substance of all hisactions,asmuchpower,liberty,andfreedomasamerecreatednatureiscapable of. We grant him to be free in his choice, from all outwardcoactionor inwardnaturalnecessity, towork according to election anddeliberation,spontaneouslyembracingwhatseemethgoodtohim.Now,callthispowerfree-willorwhatyouplease,soyoumakeitnotsupreme,independent,andboundless,wearenotatalltroubled.”Andagain:“Wegrantaslargeafreedomanddominiontoourwills,overtheirownacts,asacreaturesubjecttothesupremeruleofGod’sprovidence iscapableof.Enduedweare.withsuchalibertyofwillasisfreefromalloutwardcompulsionand inwardnecessity,havinganelective facultyofapplyingitself unto that which seems good unto it, in which it is a free choice,notwithstandingitissubservienttothedecreeofGod.”

Thegreatestandbest-knownnamesamongtheCalvinisticdivinesofthe

seventeenth century thus furnishuswith satisfactory evidence, that theleading principle laid down in theWestminster Confession concerningthenatural libertyofthewilldoesnotexclude,andwasnotintendedtoexclude,thedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity;andofcourseaffordsnoevidencewhateverthatJonathanEdwards’theorytouchingthebondageofthewillisheretical.

Theonly thingelse in theConfession thatcanbesupposed tohaveanybearing upon the position taken up by Mr Stewart and Sir WilliamHamilton,isthestatementthatourfirstparentswerelefttothelibertyoftheirownwill,andthatintheexerciseofthislibertytheysinnedandfell.

In the section immediately following that on which we have beencommenting,andintendedtodescribehowthismatterstoodinregardtothe first period of man’s history - the first department of his fourfoldestate-itisputinthisw~ay:“Maninhisstateofinnocencyhadfreedomandpowertowillandtodothatwhichisgoodandwell-pleasingtoGod,butyetmutably, so thathemight fall from it.”This isavery importantfeatureofthetheologyoftheReformersandoftheCalvinisticdivinesoftheseventeenthcentury,andithasbeentoomuchoverlooked,asweshallafterwards explain, by Edwards and Chalmers; but it has no bearingwhateveruponthesubjectofphilosophicalnecessity.Thecomprehensivedoctrine, thatman before the fall had freedom or liberty of will in theexerciseofwhichhesinned,thatbyhisfallintoastateofsinhelostthisfreedom, and that men now in their natural state have it not, but arethrough regeneration to regain it, was during the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries reckoned a leading feature of Calvinism. But fornearlyacenturypastithas,chieflythroughtheinfluenceofthewritingsof Edwards, been too much thrown into the background, although achapter in the Westminster Confession has been devoted to theexpositionofit.Thisdoctrine,ofcourse, impliesthatthereisafreedomor liberty of will which man may have notwithstanding God’s decreesforeordainingwhatsoevercomestopass,notwithstandingHisprovidenceexercised in regulating and controlling all events, and notwithstandingany general laws which may have been impressed upon men’sconstitution for regulating their mental processes, and especially fordetermining their volitions. Calvinists have always held that all these

things - viz. the foreordination and providence of God, the generalstructure and framework ofman’smental constitution, and the generallawsthatdeterminehisvolitions-wereunaffectedbythefall; thattheystood in the same relation to the first sin of Adam as to any sinssubsequentlycommittedbyhimorhisposterity;and that they stood inthesamerelationtowhatwasgoodinourfirstparentsastowhatisgoodin regenerate men upon earth. All these things being the same bothbefore and after the fall, it follows that the liberty of will which theyascribedtomanunfallen,andwhichtheydeniedtomanafterhefell,aswellasthenecessityorbondageorservitudewhichtheyascribedtothewillofmenastheynowcomeintotheworld,mustbewhollydifferentintheirnatureandsourcefromlibertyandnecessity,inanyofthesensesinwhichtheyareusuallymadesubjectsofdiscussionamongphilosophers.Andthereisnodifficultyinascertainingwhatthisdifferenceis.Itstandsoutpalpably on the face of their systemof theology. The liberty ofwillwhichtheyascribedtomanunfallen,wastheeffectofthetendencyofhismoralnaturetowhatwasgoodinvirtueofhisoriginalrighteousness,sothathecouldperfectlydoGod’swill;whileatthesametimehepossessedthatcapacitymutably,sothathemightfall.The>necessityorservitudeorbondagewhichtheyascribedtothewilloffallenman,consistedinthelossofthelibertyabovedescribed,andintheactualprevailingtendencyofhismoralnaturetoevilbecauseofthedepravitywhichhadoverspreadit, so that he' could no longer will good, but could only will evil. Theliberty which they thus ascribed to man in his original condition theyregarded as entirely lost by the fall, and as havingnowno existence inmen in their natural condition, or until restored, in somemeasure, bydivineagencyinregeneration.

Libertyandnecessity,inthissenseandapplication,areentirelydifferent,intheirwholenatureandgrounds,fromlibertyandnecessityinthesenseinwhichthepositionofStewartandHamiltonhasrespecttothem.Theold Calvinistic divines - including the authors of the WestminsterConfession - all held, that the foreordination and providence of Godprecludedlibertyandestablishednecessityinsomesense,butinasensequitedifferent fromthat inwhichtheyareregardedasdependentuponrighteousnessordepravityofnature.ManyCalvinistshaveregardedtheforeordination and providence of God as establishing, or at least

countenancing,thedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity,andasof?courseshuttingoutlibertyofindifference,ortheself-determiningpowerofthewill.ButnointelligentCalvinisteverexistedwhothoughtthattherewasanythinginthedoctrinesofCalvinism,individuallyorcollectively,whichthrew any difficulty or obstacle in the way of men embracing andmaintainingthedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity.

For this reason we have not thought it necessary to dwell upon anyallegedinconsistencybetweenthegeneralprinciplesofCalvinismandthedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity.MrStewartdoesnotallegeanysuchinconsistency.SirWilliamhimself rather insinuates thanasserts it.Thepassages adduced from the Confession by Mr Stewart to prove hisposition, that the freedom of the human will (meaning thereby thelibertarianasopposedtothenecessitarianviewofthismatter)isassertedthere,arenotthosewhichcontainanythingdistinctivelyCalvinistic,butare statements which merely bear directly upon freedom or liberty insomesenseorother.OfSirWilliam’sbolderandmoreexplicitassertions,that the doctrine of philosophical necessity “is in the face of theConfessionasinthefaceoftheBible,”andthat“thetheoryofJonathanEdwardstouchingthebondageofthewillis,ontheCalvinisticstandardoftheWestminsterConfession,notonlyheterodoxbutheretical,”hehasnot attempted toproduceany evidence.We regret this; forweare veryconfident that no learning and ingenuity could have invested withplausibilityapositionsountenable.ItisquiteplainthattheonlypassagesintheConfessionwhichhaveanyappearanceofaffordingcountenancetohis assertions, are just those which are referred to byMr Stewart.Wehave adduced and considered all the passages in the ConfessionwhichcouldbypossibilitygiveanyappearanceofcountenancetoSirWilliam’schargeofheresy againstEdwards; andwehave shown thatwhen thesepassagesare interpretedaccording to thepropermeaningof thewords,and according to the recognized opinions and the established ususloquendioftheCalvinisticdivinesoftheseventeenthcentury,everytraceoftheevidencewhichcertainexpressionsinthemmightseemtofurnishinsupportofthechargedisappears,andthattheaccusationstandsoutinitstruecharacterasutterlygroundless.

Sir William, by alleging that Edwards’ doctrine, when tried by the

standardoftheConfession,wasnotonlyheterodoxbutheretical,becameboundtodoagreatdealmorethanmerelyproduceaproofthatthereisastatementintheConfessionwhich,whencarefullyexaminedandstrictlyinterpreted, is inconsistent with it. This, if he could have produced it,would have been enough to entitle him to pronounce the doctrineheterodox or erroneous. But the way in which he “signalizes” thedistinction between heterodox and heretical, shows that he was quiteconsciousthatheoughttodomorethanthis.Accordingtothereceivedmeaningof thewordheretical asdistinguished fromheterodox,hewasnot entitled to apply this epithet to Edwards’ doctrine, unless he waspreparedtoshowthatitrancountertoastatement.occupyingaplaceofprominence and of importance, and to establish this by evidence ofcommandingclearnessandcogency.Heresy,asdistinguishedfrommereheterodoxy,impliesapalpableanddecideddifferenceindegreebothwithrespecttothemagnitudeandprominenceoftheerror,andthecogencyoftheevidencebywhichitserroneouscharactercanbeestablished.

Even if the doctrine of philosophical necessity could be proved to beerroneous,itcouldnot,iftriedbyaCalvinisticstandard,beregardedasan error of such seriousmagnitude as to warrant the designation of aheresy.NoCalvinist believing in the divine foreordination of all eventscan possibly think the doctrine of philosophical necessity a great andserious error, or regard it as heretical. He may possibly believe thedoctrinetobeerroneous-tobedestituteofsufficientproof.ButifhebereallyanintelligentCalvinist,hemustseethatalltheleadingobjectionsagainstittellequallyagainsttheCalvinisticdoctrineswhichheholds,andthatitharmonizeswellwithhiswholesystemoftheology.

What is true of a Calvinist is true, mutatis mutandis, of a Calvinisticcreed.TheremaybenothingintheConfessiontofurnishdirectevidenceinsupportof thedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity -wedonotbelievethat there is; theremay even be statements in the Confession that areinconsistentwithitandexcludeit-wehaveprovedthatnonesuchhavebeenorcanbeproduced;buttheallegationofheresyasimplying,inallfairness, palpable and clearly proved opposition to the Confession in apointofvitalimportance,isperfectlypreposterous.

Thereisnothing,then,intheWestminsterConfessionthatneedoccasion

difficulty to any necessitarian acquainted with the way in which thesesubjects were discussed by the Calvinistic divines of the seventeenthcentury. If convinced of the truth of the doctrine of philosophicalnecessity, - whether upon the ground of the evidence directly andproperlyapplicabletoitasapsychologicalquestion,oronthegroundofits appearing tobe logicallydeducible from the theological doctrines ofGod’sforeordinationandprovidence,-thereisnothinginthisconvictionthatneedpreventhimfromassentingtotheWestminsterConfession,forassuredly there is nothing in that document which either is or wasintended to be inconsistent with it. Mr Stewart’s statement that thefreedomof the humanwill is asserted in the Confession is true in onesense, though not in that inwhich hemeant it. SirWilliam’s assertionthatEdwards’doctrineaboutthewillis,whentriedbythestandardoftheConfession,heretical, isnotonlydestituteofall solid foundation,but isdisproved by every fair and reasonable consideration bearing upon thesettlementofthepointindispute.

Wemustnowadvertbriefly to the secondpositionwe laiddown, - yiz.that there is nothing in the Calvinistic system of theology or in theWestminster Confession which requires men to hold the doctrine ofphilosophical necessity; or in other words, that a man mayconscientiouslyassenttotheWestminsterConfessionalthoughheshouldreject that doctrine. Edwards andChalmers seem to have regarded thedoctrine of necessity as an indispensable part of their Calvinism. Theyhavenot,indeed,formallylaiddownthispositionandattemptedtoproveit.Theyhaveratherassumeditasifitwereself-evident,andusuallywriteasifitwereamatterofcourse,thatmenholdingtheCalvinisticdoctrinesof predestination and providence must also hold their doctrine ofnecessity. Dr. Chalmers, speaking of the philosophical doctrine ofnecessityand the theologicaldoctrineofpredestination, says: “It is oneandthesamedoctrineindifferentaspectsandwithdifferentrelations;intheoneviewwithrelationtonature,andintheotherviewwithrelationtoGod.” And again: “Let the doctrine of philosophical necessity, or,theologically speaking, the doctrine of predestination, be as firmlyestablishedasitmay,”etc.

Wearenotpreparedtoconcurinthisidentificationof thephilosophical

doctrineofnecessitywiththetheologicaldoctrineofpredestination.Weregard it as unwarrantable and injurious.We are not satisfied that thedoctrineofnecessitycanbededuced, inthewayof logicalconsequence,from the doctrine of predestination. The doctrine of necessity, held incombinationwith thedoctrine of the providence ofGod as the creator,theupholder,andgovernoroftheworld,affordsaproofofthedoctrineofpredestination; for if such a system as necessity implies has beenestablished by God, and is constantly superintended and controlled byHim, thismusthavebeendone forsecuring theaccomplishmentofHispurposes;andHemustbeactuallyexecutingHisdecrees,orcarryingintoeffect His determinations, in those volitions which are the certain ornecessaryresultsoftheconstitutionofnature,initsrelationtothe lawsofman’sthinking,feeling,andacting.Butwhilethedoctrineofnecessity,if established, clearly and directly confirms the doctrine ofpredestination, it is not so clear that the doctrine of predestinationaffords ground for inferring or deducing the doctrine of necessity.Predestinationimpliesthattheendorresultiscertain,andthatadequateprovisionhasbeenmade for bringing it about.But it does not indicateanythingastowhatmustbethenatureofthisprovisioninregardtothedifferent classes of events which are taking place under God’sgovernment, including the volitions of rational and responsible beings.WereweintheconditionofbeingabletoprovethatGodcouldnothaveforeseen and foreordained the volitions of rational and responsiblebeings,andmadeeffectualprovision foraccomplishingHispurposes inthis most important department of His government, without havingestablished the system of necessity, - without having settled inaccordance with that doctrine the internal laws which regulate men’svolitions,-thiswouldprovethatpredestinationestablishednecessity,sothateverypredestinarianwasboundinconsistencytobeanecessitarian.Butwehavenotmaterials towarrantus inmaintaining thatGodcouldnothavecertainlyaccomplishedallHispurposesinandbythevolitionsofresponsiblebeings,unlessHehadestablishedtheschemeofnecessity.And if so, there is a hiatus in every process by which we attempt toestablish a logical transition from predestination to necessity, whichcannot be filled up. Predestination and necessitymanifestly harmonizewithandfit intoeachother.SirWilliam’sinsinuationthatnecessityisacorruptionofpureCalvinismispreposterous.Every intelligentCalvinist

must be disposed to regard the doctrine of necessity with favour, ashavingalargeamountofantecedentprobabilityattachingtoit.Hemustseethatthereisnoseriousobjectiontothedoctrineofnecessitythatdoesnotequallyapplytopredestination;andthatthedoctrineofnecessity,ifestablished, gives some confirmation to the doctrine of predestination,and throws some light upon the means by which God executes Hisdecrees or accomplishes His purposes, so far as the volitions ofresponsible beings are concerned. All this is true and very evident. Apredestinarian can scarcely avoid, perhaps, having a leaning to thedoctrineofnecessity;butunlesshecanfindsomeargumentorprocessofreasoningwhichwarrantshiminassertingthatGodcouldnothavemadeeffectual provision for accomplishing His purposes in this departmentexcept by means of the state of matters which necessity implies, hecannotpassdirectly,inthewayofinference,fromtheonedoctrinetotheother.

From the nature of the case, the truth of the doctrine of .necessity isproperlyandprimarilyaquestioninphilosophy.Itrespectsdirectlyonlythe laws which regulate men’s mental processes and determine theirvolitions.Inordertosettleit.wemustlookwithinourselves,andsurveyourownmentaloperations.Thematerialsthatlegitimatelybearuponthedecisionofitmustbeallderivedfromconsciousness,though,ofcourse,they may branch out into argumentations based upon the data whichconsciousness furnishes, and may thus pertain to the department ofmetaphysics aswell as psychology. The Bible does not tell us anythingaboutthecausesorprinciplesthatordinarilyregulateordeterminemen’sgeneral exercise of their natural power of volition. It affords us nomaterialsforascertainingwhetherthe lawsthatdetermineourvolitionspresupposethe libertarianor thenecessitarian theory. It leavesall suchquestionstobedeterminedbyaninvestigationoftheevidencenaturallyandappropriatelyapplicabletothem,-thatis,byanexaminationofmanhimself, of hismental constitution andordinarymental processes.Andnot only does the Bible not determine any such psychological andmetaphysical questions directly, but it does not teach any doctrineswhich, indirectly or by consequence, require ornecessitateus to take aparticular side in any of those questionswhich have been controvertedamongphilosophersuponphilosophicalgrounds.Ifphilosophersshould

profess to deduce, from a survey of men’s mental constitution,conclusions which contradict any doctrine revealed in Scripture, thisshouldbeattendedtoandanswered;andnogreatdifficultyhaseverbeenexperiencedindealingwithallegationsofthissort.Iftheyshouldprofessto find,ona surveyofmen’smental constitution,grounds foradoptingcertainviewsconcerningthelibertyorbondageofthewill,whichwouldprecludeorshutoutthescripturaldoctrines,thatGodhasforeseenandforeordainedwhatsoevercomestopass,-orthatHeiseverexercisingamostwise,holy,andpowerfulprovidenceoverallHiscreatures,andalltheir actions, - or that fallenman -man as he is - hathwholly lost allabilityofwilltoanyspiritualgoodaccompanyingsalvation,-itwouldbeneedfulandnotdifficulttoexposetheunsoundnessoftheseviews,orthefalsehoodof the inferencesdeduced fromthem.Butunlessmenprofessto have established something inconsistent with these theologicaldoctrines,wedonotknowthatthereisanyparticulartheoryconcerningthe will or the laws that regulate its operations, deduced uponphilosophicalgroundsfromanexaminationofmen’smentalconstitutionandprocesses,whichcanbeprovedtobeinconsistentwithanystatementinthewordofGod,orwithanyofthedoctrinestaughtthere,andwhichmusttherefore,onscripturalandtheologicalgrounds,berejected.

Calvinistsingeneral,whentheyhavebeenledtoattendtothisparticularsubject,haveadoptednecessitarianviews,asharmonizingmostfullyandobviously with their theological convictions. But this has not beenuniversally the case. Some Calvinists have rejected the doctrine ofphilosophicalnecessity,andmuchlargernumbershavedeclined togiveanydecisive or explicit deliverance concerning it. SomeCalvinists haveheldthatthetheologicaldoctrinesofpredestinationandprovidencelead,bynecessarylogicalsequence,tothedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity.But it cannotbeproved that either the certainty or immutability of theevent,or theagencyofGod inprovidence in regulatingand controllingmen’svolitions,necessarilyrequiresorimpliesthisnecessity,orwouldbecertainly precluded by a liberty of indifference, or the self-determiningpower of the will. •No doubt the doctrine of necessity affords someassistanceinformingaconceptionastohowitisthatGodaccomplishesHis purposes and controls our volitions without interfering with theessentialqualitiesof thewillorwithourmoralresponsibility;while the

self-determiningpowerofthewillseemstoinvolvethismatterinseriousdifficulties.Butitis,wethink,unwarrantedandpresumptuoustoassert,thatevenaself-determiningpowerinthewillwouldplaceitbeyondthesphereofthedivinecontrol,-wouldpreventHiminwhomwelive,move,and have our being, who is everywhere and at all times present in theexercise of all His perfections, who searcheth the heart and trieth thereins of the children ofmen, from superintending and directing all itsmovements according to the counsel of His own will. And unless thisunwarranted and presumptuous position be taken up, it seemsimpossibletoprovethatthereisanythingintheCalvinisticsystemwhichmakesitindispensableforitssupporters,inpointoflogicalconsistency,to adopt the doctrine of philosophical necessity. Until this position beestablished, it is still open to Calvinists as to others, to examine thequestion as between liberty and necessity upon its own properpsychologicalandmetaphysicalgrounds;andtoadopttheonesideortheother, accordingas theymay think that the evidence for theoneor theother, derived from an investigation into man’s mental constitution,preponderates.

We have not ourselves, in the course of this discussion, indicated anyopinionupon theprecisepoint involved in thecontroversybetween thelibertariansandthenecessitarians;andwereallycannotsaythatwehaveformedaverydecidedopinioninfavourofeitherside.Uponthewhole,we regard the evidence in favour of the doctrine of philosophicalnecessity as preponderating. In order to dispose of this doctrinesatisfactorily,itseemsnecessarythattheargumentofEdwardsinfavourof it, and against the self-determining power of the will, should beanswered.Wehaveneverseenthisdone,andwescarcelythinkthatitcanbedone.Wehaveread lately theablestandmostelaborateanswer thathasbeengiventoEdwards,viz.“Tappan’sTreatiseontheWill.”ButwehavenotbeenconvincedbyitthatEdwardshasfailedinestablishinghisleadingposition;onthecontrary,Tappan’s failurehasratherconfirmedusintheconvictionthatEdwardscannotbeanswered.Buttheonlypointwithwhichwehavetodoatpresentisthis,thatwedonotholdourselvestieduptotakeeithertheonesideortheother,byanythingcontainedinthe sacred Scriptures, in the Calvinistic system of theology, or in theWestminsterConfessionofFaith.

Sir James Mackintosh, in an article upon Stewart’s “PreliminaryDissertation,” asserted the identity of the subjects of necessity andpredestination, - agreeing in the main with the views indicated byEdwardsandChalmers,butgoingsofarastosayexplicitly,that“itisnotpossible, tomake any argumentative defence ofCalvinismwhich is notfoundedontheprinciplesofnecessity.”Hebecameconvinced,however,of the unsoundness of this view of the closeness of the connectionbetweenthetheologicalandthephilosophicaldoctrine,andretracteditinanotesubjoinedtohisownPreliminaryDissertation.Hesaysthere,fthat“morecarefulreflectionhadcorrectedaconfusioncommontohimwithmost writers upon these subjects.” But he now goes into the otherextreme; and besides, introduces some additional confusion, which itmay be proper to correct. He now brings in, in connection with thismatter, thedistinctionbetweenSublapsarianandSupralapsarianviews;andasserts that “Sublapsarianpredestination is evidently irreconcilablewiththedoctrineofnecessity,”butthat“theSupralapsarianschememaybebuiltuponnecessitarianprinciples.”AlthoughMackintoshhadnot,inall probability, turned over somany theological books asHamilton, hewaswell acquaintedwith theological subjects. But the statementwhichwehavequoted fromhimiscertainly inaccurate.ThereasonheassignswhySublapsarianpredestination is irreconcilablewithnecessity is, thattheSublapsariansadmitthatmenhadfree-willbeforethefall,whichhethinksSupralapsarianscannotdo.Theinaccuracyofthisnotionmustbeevidentfromtheexplanationgivenintheformerpartofthisarticle,astothe real nature, import, and grounds of the freedomofwillwhichmanhadbeforethefall,andwhichhelostbysin.Thefree-willwhichhasbeenrepresentedaspossessedbymanbeforethefallandaslostbysin,hasnoconnectionwhatever with the discussion about philosophical necessity,and may be, and has been held equally by Sublapsarian andSupralapsarianCalvinists.

ItismuchtoberegrettedthatStewart,Mackintosh,andHamiltonshouldhaveall concurred inputting fortherroneousrepresentationsupon thissubject.Theerrorsofsuchmenitisanimperativedutytopointoutandto correct. But it is stillmore imperative to point out the oversights orerrorsofmenwhoaremuchhigherauthoritiesupontheologicalmatters,suchasEdwardsandChalmers.Wehavealreadyexplainedthegrounds

onwhichweholdtheassumptionbythesegreatmenof the identity,orthe necessary connection, of the theological doctrine of predestinationand of the philosophical doctrine of necessity, to be unwarranted. Wehaveindicated,thoughverybrieflyandimperfectly,theconsiderationsbywhich we think it can be shown, that the Calvinistic doctrines ofpredestination and providence, as taught in Scripture, do not eitherinclude,ornecessarilyleadto,thedoctrineofnecessity;andmaybefullyexpounded and applied by men who refuse to admit, or who evenpositively reject, that doctrine. The doctrine of necessity, when onceestablished,leadsbystrictlogicalsequencetopredestination,unlessmentakerefugeinatheism.Butitdoesnotseemtofolloweconverso,thatthedoctrineofpredestination leadsnecessarily to thedoctrineofnecessity;as men may hold that God could certainly execute His decrees andinfallibly accomplishHispurposes inandby thevolitionsofmen, eventhoughHehadnot impressedupontheirmentalconstitutionthe lawofnecessity, as that bywhich its processes are regulated and its volitionsdetermined.

We would now advert very briefly to the injurious tendency andconsequencesofthisassumedidentityornecessaryconnectionofthetwodoctrines - the theological andphilosophical. It tends to throw into thebackground the true scriptural, theological doctrine of necessity, - thedoctrineoftheservitudeorbondageofthewilloffallenman-manasheis - to sin, because of the depravity which has overspread his moralnature. Not that Edwards or Chalmers have denied or rejected thisdoctrine.Thiswouldcertainlyhavebeenheresy;forthedoctrine isveryprominentlyandexplicitlyassertedintheWestminsterConfession.Itis,indeed, plainly involved in what they were accustomed to teachconcerning the entire corruption and depravity of human nature; andtheywould have had no hesitation in admitting this, and in professingtheirbeliefinthedoctrineasaportionofGod’srevealedtruth.Still,itispalpable that the doctrine of the bondage of the will of man to sin,becauseofdepravity,hasnoprominencewhateverintheirwritingswhentheytreatofthedoctrineofphilosophicalnecessity.Thisweregardasanevil; andwe have no doubt that it is to be ascribed to the fact of theirminds being engrossed, when they contemplated man’s naturalcondition,bytheideaofanecessityofadifferentkind,butoffarinferior

importanceinitself,andrestinguponlowerandmoreuncertaingrounds.

Thepracticeofdistinguishing, intheexpositionof thissubject,betweenthefreedomofman’swillinhisunfallenandinhisfallencondition,andindeedofviewingitdistinctivelywithreferencetothedifferentstagesorperiodsofhisfourfoldstate,-asunfallen,fallen,regenerate,orglorified,-hasprevailed in the church in almost all ages.These viewswere fullybrought out and applied by Augustine. They had a place in thespeculationsof theschoolmen,asmaybeseeninPeterLombard’sFourBooks of Sentences, and in the commentaries upon it. They wereembraced and promulgated by the whole body of the Reformers, bothLutheranandCalvinistic.Theyhaveaprominentplaceinthewaitingsofthe great systematic divines of the seventeenth century. They have aprominent place in the Westminster Confession, - the ninth chapter,entitled “Of free-will,” being entirely devoted to the statement of them.Andwhat is in some respectspeculiarly interesting, the doctrine of thelossofman’sfree-willbythefall,andoftheservitudeofthewilloffallenman to sin because of depravity, was held by Baius, Jansenius, andQuesnel,andtheirfollowers,-thebestmenandthebesttheologianstheChurch ofRomehas ever produced; - and in themwas condemned bypapalbulls,-afactwhichconfirmsourconviction,thatthisisoneofthegreat cardinal doctrines of Scripture, which may be said to have thesupportoftheconcurrenttestimonyoftheuniversalchurchofChrist-ofthegreatbodyofthosewhomChristhasenlightenedandsanctified.Thisservitudeorbondageofthewillofmantosinbecauseofdepravity,wastheonlynecessitywhichthegreatbodyofthemostcompetentjudgesinallageshaveregardedasbeingtaughtinScriptureasaportionofGod’srevealed truth,orasbeingnecessary for the fullexpositionof theothercognatedoctrinesofChristiantheology.Thisnecessitynowattachingtothehumanwilltheyregardedasapropertyofman,viewednotsimplyasa creature, but as a fallen creature, - not as springing from his mererelationtoGodastheforeordainerofallthingsandtheactualrulerandgovernorof theworld,nor from themereoperationof lawswhichGodhas impressed upon the general structure and framework of man’s'mental constitution, - but from a cause distinct from all these, that is,fromthedepravity,orprevailingaversionfromGodandtendencytoevil,superinduced upon man’s character by the fall. If this be indeed the

scripturalviewofthebondageofman’swill,itoughtsurelytobeopenlyproclaimed, and pressed prominently upon our attention, instead ofbeing overlooked or thrown into the background, in favour of anotherkind of necessity, as it certainly is in the waitings of Edwards andChalmers on that subject. They would no doubt have admitted thedoctrineanddefendedit,ifithadbeenpressedupontheirattention;butin point of fact theyhave scarcely ever adverted to it. It seems to havebeen in theirmindsabsorbedor thrown into thebackground, and keptout of view, by themore general subject of liberty andnecessity in theform inwhich ithasbeencommonlydiscussedbyphilosophers, and inwhich it is held to apply to man at all times, and irrespectively of hishistoryandpositionas fallenandsinful. InEdwards’greatworkon the“Freedomof theWill,” there isno reference to thisdistinctionbetweenthe liberty of the will in man unfallen and in man fallen, or to thebondageofthewilloffallenmantosinbecauseofdepravity.Itcontainsonly an elaborate proof of the doctrine of philosophical necessity, asopposed to a self-determining power of the will and a liberty ofindifference,withananswertotheobjectionscommonlyadducedagainstit.Thiswecannotbutregardasaseriousdefect;whileatthesametimeitis important to observe, that his proof of the compatibility of thephilosophicaldoctrineofnecessitywithresponsibilityandmoralagency,is at least equally applicable to the defence of the scriptural andtheological doctrine of man’s inability because of depravity to willanythingspirituallygood;andespeciallythegreatprinciplewhichhehassoconclusivelyestablished,viz.“thattheessenceofthevirtueandviceofdispositions of heart and acts of thewill, lies not in their cause but intheirnature.”TheinfluenceofthewritingsofEdwardshas,tendedgreatlytothrowthis importantscripturaldoctrineof thebondageof thewill ofmantosinbecauseofdepravity intothebackground;andDr.Chalmershavinginthisrespectwalkedverymuchinhisfootsteps,hasthrowntheinfluence of hiswonderful powers and great name into the same scale.Edwards and Chalmers have not gone in face of the Confession, orafforded any plausible ground for stamping upon them the brand ofheresy. But they have certainly, in their engrossment with thisphilosophicaldoctrineofnecessity,aboutwhichtheConfessionofFaithsaysnothing,leftoutofviewahimportanttheologicaldoctrine,towhichthe Confession gives prominence, and which certainly ought to have a

distinctanddefiniteplaceassignedtoitintheexpositionoftheschemeofChristiantheology.

Notonly,however,hasthetheologicaldoctrineoftheservitudeofthewillof man to sin, or the inability of man in his natural condition to willanything spiritually good because of depravity, been thrown into thebackgroundbytheundueexaltationofamerelyphilosophicaltopic;buttheimpressionhasbeenproduced,thatthemaintenanceofsomeoftheleading and peculiar doctrines of Christianity is most intimatelyconnectedwith,or ratherdependentupon, theestablishmentof certainphilosophicaltheories;andthisimpressionisneithertruenorsafe.

Edwards and Chalmers seem always to assume that the theologicaldoctrineofpredestinationandthephilosophicaldoctrineofnecessityareidentical, or at least are so connected that they must stand or falltogether; and the impression thus produced is fitted to lead men toregard the proof or evidence of the one doctrine as bound up with, ordependentupon, theprooforevidenceof theother.Andwecannotbutdeprecate this result, as fitted to elevate the doctrine of necessity to aplaceandinfluencetowhich,howeverfullyitmaybeestablishedastrueby its ownappropriate evidence, ithasnot,andcannothave,a rightfulclaim; and as fitted also to lay upon the scriptural doctrine ofpredestination a burden or servitude towhich it cannot be legitimatelysubjected. The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination has a sufficientlystrongfoundationindirectevidence,bothfromreasonandScripture,tomaintainitselfinoppositiontoallinferentialobjectionstoit,-andthereare really no others, - and to bear up along with it every position,theologicalorphilosophical,thatcanbereallyprovedtobeinvolvedinordeducible from it. But still, as it is a doctrinewhich usually calls forthstrongprejudices,andisassailedbyplausibleobjections, it is right thatweshouldbewareofattemptingtoburdenitwithanyweightwhichitisnotbound to carry;or representing it as obliged to standor fallwith adoctrinesomuchinferiortoit,atonceinintrinsicimportance,andinthekindanddegreeofevidenceonwhichitrests.

It has never been alleged that there is anything in the WestminsterConfession,apartfromitsstatementofthegreatdoctrinesofCalvinism,which seems to require men to hold the doctrine of philosophical

necessity;sothatthispointdoesnotrequireanyseparatetreatment.

Beforequittingthissubject,wewouldliketogivesomelittleexplanationof the remaining portion of the ninth chapter of the WestminsterConfessiononfree-will.Thechapter,asawhole,isaveryremarkableandimpressive-wemightalmostcalliteloquent-statementofthescripturaltruths bearing upon this subject, through all the leading stages in theeventful history of man, or of the human race. We have alreadyconsidered the first section, setting forth the general doctrine of thenaturallibertyofthewill,whichitmustalwaysretain,andwhichitcouldnot lose without ceasing to be will, viewed as an essential quality of arationalandresponsiblebeing;andexcluding thedeterminationof it togoodorevilbyforceorbyanyabsolutenecessityofnature.Althoughthewillhasanaturallibertywhichpreventsitfrombeingdeterminedtogoodor evil by such causes or influences as would manifestly excludedeliberatechoiceandspontaneousagency,yet ithas, inpointof fact,atdifferentperiodsorindifferentconditions,beendeterminedbothtogoodandtoevil.Toeachofthefourgreaterasinthismatter,orthedifferentaspectsinman’sfourfoldstate,oneofthefourremainingsectionsinthischapterisdevoted.Tothefirstofthese,orsection2d,-describingman’sfreedomofwillinhisstateofinnocency,-wehavealreadyadverted,andweneednotnowdwelluponit.The3dsection-describingtheconditionofmenastofree-willintheirnaturalfallenstate-isinsomerespectsthemostimportant,asbringingoutaleadingandmostinfluentialfeatureinthe character of all men as they come into the world; and it is mostintimatelyconnectedwiththesubjectwehavebeendiscussing,inasmuchas it describes the only necessity which the Scripture represents asattachingtomanbynature,andtheonlynecessitythereforewhichcanbeheld as needful to be taken into account in expounding the generalschemeofChristiandoctrine.Itisthis:-“Man,byhisfallintoastateofsin,hathwhollylostallabilityofwilltoanyspiritualgoodaccompanyingsalvation,soasanaturalmanbeingaltogetheraversefromthatgood,anddead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or toprepare himself thereunto.” The fundamental proposition here is, thatmanhathwhollylostallabilityofwilltoanyspiritualgoodaccompanyingsalvation; and the remainder of the statement is intended partly toindicate the leading ground on which this doctrine rests, viz. that a

naturalman is altogether averse from spiritual good anddead in sin, -andpartlytobringoutthegreatpracticalconclusionwhichresultsfromit, viz. that he is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or topreparehimselfthereunto.Thefundamentaldoctrineis,thatman,byhisfall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to anythingspirituallygood;and,ofcourse, is inentirebondageorservitudetosin,thatis,tohisownnaturalsinfuldispositionsortendencies.Thequestionis, - Is this really the view which the word of God gives us of man’snaturalconditionandcapacitiesinregardtospiritualobjectsandresults?and this question is to be decided by a careful investigation andapplicationof all the scriptural statements andprinciplesbearinguponthe subject. Does the Scripture teach us that man, in his naturalcondition,andantecedently tohisbecoming the subject of the graciousoperations ofGod’s Spirit, cannot reallywill anything spiritually good?and,moreespecially;thatheisunabletowilltoturnfromsinuntoGod,or to prepare himself for so turning? It seems plain enough that thisdoctrineisinvolvedin,orclearlyandcertainlydeduciblefrom,thatofthecomplete and entire corruption or depravity of human nature. Thedoctrineoforiginalsinorofnativedepravity, inthesenseinwhichit isheldbyorthodoxdivines,impliesthatman,inhisnaturalcondition,hasnotendencyorinclinationtowardswhatisspirituallygood,-thatallhistendenciesorinclinationsaretowardswhatisevil,-andthathedoesandcan do nothingwhich is really pleasing and acceptable toGod. If he iswhollyaversefromallgoodandwhollyinclinedtoallevil,itwouldseemthathecannotwillanythinggood;because thewillorpowerofvolitionmust be determined and characterized by the general tendency ordispositionofthemoralnatureofthebeingwhopossessesandexercisesit.Godcanandmustalwayswillwhatisgood,becauseHismoralnatureis essentially and unchangeably holy. Man in his unfallen state couldalways will what is good, or as the Confession says, had freedom andpower to will and to do what was acceptable to God, because he waspossessed of a pure and holy moral nature, endowed with originalrighteousness. And upon the same ground, because man now has awhollydepravedorcorruptednature,withoutanyoriginalrighteousness,hehasnoabilityofwilltoanythingspirituallygood.

This doctrine of the utter bondage of thewill ofmen to sin because of

depravity, or of the inability ofmen in their natural fallen condition towill or todoanything spiritually good, isnot entirely dependent for itsscriptural evidence upon its being involved in, or necessarily deduciblefrom, the doctrine of the entire and total, and not merely partial orcomparative,corruptionofman’smoralnaturebythefall.Fortherearescriptural statementsaboutmen’snatural statewhichbeardirectly andimmediatelyuponthemorelimitedtopicoftheirinabilitytowillwhatisspirituallygood.Stilltheconnectionbetweenthetwodoctrinesissuchastoremindusof thevast importanceofbeing thoroughlydecided inourconvictionsas towhatScripture teachesconcerning thenatural stateofman as a fallen and sinful creature, and thoroughly familiar with thescriptural materials by which our convictions may be established anddefended.ItwasaserviceofinestimablevaluewhichEdwardsrenderedtosoundChristiantheology,when,inhisworkupone(OriginalSin,”hesoconclusivelyandunanswerablyestablishedfromScripture,reason,andexperience, the great doctrine - u that all mankind are under theinfluenceofaprevailingeffectualtendencyintheirnaturetothatsinandwickedness which implies their utter and eternal ruin.” The conclusivedemonstration of this “great Christian doctrine,” or the unanswerableestablishmentofthisgreatfactasanactualfeatureintheconditionofallmenastheycomeintothisworld,entitlesEdwards’workupon“OriginalSin,” notwithstanding somemeasure of obscurity and confusion on thesubject of imputation, to be regarded as one of the most valuable,permanent,possessionsoftheChristianchurch.

Thenextstageinthehistoryofthehumanracewithrespecttofree-will,viewedasbeingvirtuallythehistoryofaman,-ofoneman,-atdifferentperiods(andthisisthelightinwhichthematterisreallyrepresentedtousinScripture),isthusdescribedintheConfession:“WhenGodconvertsasinner,andtranslateshiminto thestateofgrace,He freethhimfromhisnaturalbondageundersin,andbyHisgraceenableshimfreelytowillandto,dothatwhichisspirituallygood.Yetsoas thatbyreasonofhisremainingcorruption,hedothnotperfectly,noronly,will thatwhichisgood,butdothalsowillthatwhichisevil.”Hereagainthereisfreedomofwill ascribed toman in his regenerate state, - that is, an ability towillgoodaswellastowillevil.Intheregenerationofhisnaturethereigningpowerofdepravity issubdued,andall theeffectswhichitproducedare

moreorlessfullytakenaway.Oneoftheprincipaloftheseeffectswastheutterbondageorservitudeofthewilltosin,becauseoftheungodlyanddepraved tendency of the whole moral nature to what was displeasingand offensive to God. This ungodly and depraved tendency is now, inconversion, to a large extent removed, and an opposite tendency isimplanted. Thus the will is set free or emancipated from the bondageunderwhichitwasheld.Itisnolongersubjectedtoanecessity-arisingfromthegeneralcharacterandtendencyofman’smoralnature-towillonlywhat isevil,but isnowablealso freely towillwhat isgood;and itdoesfreelywillwhatisgood,though,fromtheremainingcorruptionanddepravity of man’s nature, it still wills also what is evil. It is notemancipatedfromtheinfluenceofGod’sdecreesforeordainingwhatevercomes to pass. It is not placed beyond the control of His providence,wherebyintheexecutionofHisdecreesHeeverrulesandgovernsallHiscreatures and all their actions. It is not set free from the operation ofthose general laws which God has impressed upon man’s mentalconstitution,fordirectingtheexerciseofhis facultiesandregulatinghismentalprocesses.But it isset freefromthedominionofdepravity;andtherebyitisexemptedfromthenecessityofwillingonlywhatisevil,andmadeequallyablefreelytowillwhatisgood.Ithasrecoveredtoalargeextenttheonlylibertyiteverlost;anditisdeterminedandcharacterizednow - as it had been in all the previous stages of man’s history, bothbeforeandafterhisfall-byhisgeneralmoralcharacterandtendencies;-freetogood,whenmanhadtheimageofGodandoriginalrighteousness,butyetmutablesothatitcouldwillevil,-inbondage,whenmanwastheslaveofsin,sothat it .couldwillonlyevilandnotgood,-emancipated,whenmanwasregenerated,sothatitcouldfreelywillgoodaswellasevil,though still bearing many traces of the former bondage and of itsinjurious effects, - and finally, to adopt again the language of theConfessioninclosingtheadmirablechapteronthissubject,“tobemadeperfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory.” Theextract from Sir William Hamilton, on which chiefly we have beencommenting, occurs in connection with a discussion embodying someimportant and valuable truth, - truth which admits of an obviousapplication to theexpositionanddefenceofChristian,andespeciallyofCalvinistic,doctrines.Hedeclareshissatisfactioninbeingabletoshow~,thathisdoctrineof“theconditioned”harmonizeswiththegeneralspirit

of divine revelation, by inculcating humility in our speculations in theinvestigation of truth because of the imperfection and limitation of ourfaculties, - by showing the unwarrantableness and absurdity ofmakingourcapacityofdistinctlyconceivingandfullycomprehendingdoctrines,themeasure or standardof their absolute truth, or of their consistencywith each other; and the perfect reasonableness of believing, uponsufficientgrounds, thingswhichinsomerespectsarebeyondourgrasp,and cannot be fully taken in or comprehended by the exercise of ourfacultieswhenbroughtdirectly tobearupon them.Nowall this is veryimportant truth in connection with the exposition and defence of thegreat doctrines of revelation, and especially of the profound andmysterious doctrines of Calvinism. Sir William has not here put forthanything which is not in substance to be found in the waitings oftheologians, andwhich, indeed, has not been brought forwardmore orless fully,andestablishedmoreor lessconclusively,byevery intelligentdefenderofCalvinism.But it isnotverycommon to findmatterof thissort in the writings of philosophers; and Sir William, by giving it hissanction,hasdonearealservicetothecauseoftruthandorthodoxy.Hecouldnot,however,letthistopicpasswithoutindulginghimselfinsomecharacteristicstatements,towhichitmaybeproperbrieflytoadvert.Inhis usual spirit he labours to convey the impression, that these viewsabout the limitation of our faculties, and the bearing of this upon thediscussionofmysteriousdoctrines,havenotingeneralbeenunderstoodand applied aright by theologians.He seems half inclined to insinuate,thattheseprincipleswerelittleknowntillhepromulgatedthem.Butthiswasrathertooabsurd;andaccordinglyhefeelsconstrainedtomakethefollowingconcession:-“Itmust,however,beadmitted, thatconfessionsof the total inability of man to conceive the union of what he shouldbelieve united, are to be found, and they are found not perhaps lessfrequently, and certainly in more explicit terms, among Catholic thanamong Protestant theologians.” It is certainly quite true, as is hereasserted, that such statements “are to be found” - and indeed theyconstitute a perfectly familiar commonplace - among orthodoxtheologians.TheallegedgreaterexplicitnessofCatholicsthanProtestantsin stating these principles, is a mere gratis dictum, which has nofoundationintherealitiesofthecase.ThisstatementseemstohavebeenhazardedforthemerepurposeofusheringinaquotationfromCardinal

Cajetan, which, though about the best thing ever written upon thesubject, SirWilliam felt confident was wholly unknown to theologiansnow-a-days. He described the quotation as “the conclusion of what,though wholly overlooked, appears to me as the ablest and truestcriticismof themany fruitless, ifnot futile, attempts at conciliating thewaysofGodtotheunderstandingofman, inthegreatarticlesofdivineforeknowledge and predestination (which are both embarrassed by theself-same difficulties) and human free-will.” Sir William describes thepassage as “wholly overlooked,” notwithstanding its superlativemerits.Nowitsohappensthatweremembertwoinstances-andthereareinallprobabilitymore - inwhich this very quotation fromCajetan had beenproduced and commended by eminentwriters, - one of them being nootherthanBayle,whosooftenfurnishespassagesto“personsofordinaryinformation.” Gisbertus Voetius, one of the best known names in thetheology of the seventeenth century, - a man who was at least asthoroughlyversantintheliteratureoftheologyasSirWilliamwasinthatofphilosophy,andwhoknewasmuchof the literatureofphilosophyasSirWilliamdidofthatoftheology,-hasquotedwithapprobationapartof this passage from Cajetan, in a “Dissertatio Epistolica de TerminoVitas,”originallypublishedin1634,andrepublishedatUtrechtin1669,intheAppendixto the fifthvolumeofhis “SelectseDisputationes.”Thepassage inBayle is tobe found in thesecondpartofhis“ResponseauxQuestions d’un Provincial,”!where the extract fromCajetan is given asquotedwithapprobationbyaneminentDominican theologian,Alvarez,ina“TreatisedeAuxiliisDivineGratise.”SirWilliam,then,wasmistakeninrepresentingthispassageinCajetanas“whollyoverlooked.”Wedonotsuppose, indeed, that itwas suggested to him byVoet or Bayle, forwerather suspect, especially as the passage after all contains nothing veryextraordinary,thatitwasproducedandparadedinthehonestbeliefthatnooneknewanythingaboutitbuthimself.

Itmaybeworthwhiletomention,thatthediscussioninconnectionwdthwhichthispassageisintroducedbyBayle,isverysimilartothatinwhichSirWilliambrings it in.Baylewasdoingon thatoccasion justwhatSirWilliam did in the immediately following part of his Appendix, - viz.collectingwhathe calls “testimonies to the limitation of our knowledgefromthelimitationofourfaculties.”Baylehadoftenspokenverymuchto

the same effect as SirWilliam has done, about the reasonableness andobligationofbelievingwhenwecannotknowandfullycomprehend.Butthis,comingfromBayle,wassuspectedofbeing intendedtounderminethefoundationsofarationalfaith;andtoamountinsubstanceverymuchto the same thing asHume’swell-known sneer about our holy religionbeingfoundednotonreasonbutonfaith.Bayledefendedhimselfagainstthesechargesinthesecondandthirdofthe“Eclaircissemens,”subjoinedtohisDictionary;andmoreformallyandelaboratelyinthesecondpartofhise(ResponseauxQuestionsd’unProvincial.”Hewascontendingthenagainst M. Jacquelot, who was a minister of the French ProtestantChurch, and, after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, settled asministeroftheFrenchChurchinBerlin.JacquelotwroteaseriesofthreeworksagainstBayle;andthoughhewasamanofrealability,hecertainlygave his skilful adversary some advantage over him, by taking groundwhich in thepresentdaywewoulddescribeas toorationalistic.Severalother eminentmen tookpart in the controversy, especially LaPlacette,who,aftertherevocationoftheEdictofNantes,becameministeroftheFrenchProtestantChurchatCopenhagen.DifferentgroundsweretakenbythedifferentcombatantsinopposingBayle;andthensomeinterestingdiscussionsaroseamongthemselves,astothebestgroundtobetakenindealingwith thegreatsceptic.Thecontroversy thus,viewedasawhole,becameextremelycuriousandinteresting.Wecannotdwelluponit;andcan only remark, that Bayle had no difficulty in producing frommanyeminent men, both theologians and philosophers, quotations whichcertainly seemed very much the same in substance with his ownstatements,howeverdifferenttheymightbeinspiritandobject;andthatthesequotationsareinsomeinstancesidenticalwith,andingeneralverysimilar to, thosewhich SirWilliamhas collected as “testimonies to thelimitationofourknowledgefromthelimitationofourfaculties.”

CalvinismandItsPracticalApplication

One of the leading formswhich, in the present day, aversion to divinetruth exhibits, is a dislike to precise and definite statements upon thegreatsubjectsbroughtbeforeusinthesacredScriptures.Thisdisliketoprecision and definiteness in doctrinal statements sometimes assumesthe form of reverence for the Bible, as if it arose from an absolutedeference to the authority of the divine word, and an unwillingness tomixupthereasoningsanddeductionsofmenwiththedirectdeclarationsofGod.Webelieve that it arisesmuchmore frequently, and to amuchgreaterextent, fromadislike to thecontrolling influenceofScripture, -fromadesiretoescape,asfaraspossiblewithoutdenyingitsauthority,fromthetrammelsofitsregulatingpowerasaninfallibleruleoffaithandduty.Itisabundantlyevident,fromthestatementsofScriptureaswellasfromtheexperienceofeveryageandcountry, thatmenintheirnaturalcondition, unrenewed by divine grace, have a strong aversion to rightviewsofthedivinecharacterandofthewayofsalvation,ortothegreatsystemofdoctrinesrevealedtousintheBible;andareanxioustoescapefrom any apparent obligation to believe them. The most obvious andeffectual way of accomplishing this, is to deny the divine origin andauthorityofthesacredScriptures,-theirtitleandtheirfitnesstobearuleoffaithorstandardofdoctrine.Andwhenmen,fromwhatevercause,donotseetheirwaytodothisplainlyandopenly,theyoftenattemptit,orsomething like it, in an indirect and insidious way, by distorting andpervertingthestatementsofScripture,byevadingtheirfairmeaningandapplication, or by devising pretences for declining to turn them to fullaccountasarevelationofGod’swilltomen,ortoderivefromthemthewholeamountofinformationaboutdivineandeternalthingswhichtheyseemfittedandintendedtoconvey.

Ithasbeenthegenerallyreceiveddoctrineoforthodoxdivines,anditisinentireaccordancewithreasonandcommonsense, thatweareboundto receive as true, on God’s authority, not only what is “expressly setdowninScripture,”butalsowhat,“bygoodandnecessaryconsequence,

maybededucedfromScripture;”andheretics,ineveryageandofeveryclass, have, even when they made a profession of receiving what isexpresslysetdowninScripture,shownthegreatestaversiontowhataresometimes called Scripture consequences, - that is, inferences ordeductions from scriptural statements, beyond what is expresslycontainedinthemerewordsofScripture,astheystandinthepageofthesacred record. Some interesting discussion on the subject of thewarrantableness, the validity, and the binding obligation of Scriptureconsequences took place in the early part of last century among theEnglishPresbyterians,whensomeofthemhadbeenledtoembraceArianviews.Withthedishonestywhichthehistoryofthechurchprovestohavebeen so generally a marked characteristic of heretics and men ofprogress, thoseof themwhohadreally, intheirconvictions,abandonedthegenerallyreceiveddoctrineoftheTrinity,professedatfirsttoobjectonly to the unscriptural terms in which the doctrine was usuallyembodied; declaimed about freedom of thought and ecclesiasticaltyranny; and denounced all Scripture consequences as unwarrantableandprecarious,while theywere,of course,quitewilling to subscribe totheipsissimaverbaofScripture.Buttheprogressofthediscussionsoonshowed that these were hypocritical pretences; and that the men whoemployed them had deliberately adopted opinions in regard to theFather, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which have been generallyrepudiatedbythechurchofChrist,andwhichcouldnomorebebroughtout fully and distinctly as opposed towhat they reckoned error, in themerewordsofScripture,thanthesounderviewswhichtheyrejected.

Upon the occasion to which we have referred, the repudiation ofScriptureconsequences,andtheoppositiontopreciseanddefiniteviewson doctrinal subjects, were directed chiefly against the doctrine of theTrinity.Inthepresentdaytheseviewsandtendenciesaredirectedchieflyagainstthedoctrineofarealvicariousatonementforthesinsofmen,andagainst thepeculiardoctrinesof theCalvinistic systemof theology.NotthatthetruescripturaldoctrineoftheTrinityismorerelishedbymenofrationalistic and sceptical tendencies, than itwas in former times. It isnotso.Butmenofthisstampseemgenerally,now-a-days,tobedisposedto favour the attempt to evade or explain away this great doctrine, byadoptingakindofPlatonicSabellianism;andemployingthisasasortof

warrant forusingnot only the ipsissima verba of Scripture, but even agreat deal of the language which has been commonly approved of byorthodoxdivines,asembodyingthesubstanceofwhatScriptureteachesuponthissubject.Thedoctrineoftheatonementstandsinthissomewhatpeculiar predicament among the great fundamental articles of revealedtruth,thatitwasneversubjectedtoathorough,searching,controversialdiscussion till the time of Socinus. The consequence of this is, that,thoughthereissatisfactoryevidencethatitwasheldinsubstancebytheuniversal church ever since the apostolic age, there is a considerableamountofvaguenessandindefiniteness,andaconsiderabledeficiencyofprecise and accurate statement upon it, in the symbols of the ancientchurch and in the writings of the Fathers; and that even in theconfessions of theReformed churches, - there being no controversy onthis topicwith theChurchofRome, - it isnotbroughtout so fully andprecisely as most of the other fundamental doctrines of the Christiansystem.Thesefactshavetendedsomewhattoencouragethepractice,socommon in thepresentday,ofexplainingaway the truedoctrineof theatonement,byconcealing it invagueandindefinite language,underthepretence of repudiating Scripture consequences and adhering to theipsissima verba of revelation. The leading presumption, so far asmerehuman authority is concerned, in opposition to these latitudinariantendencies, is this, - that they virtually resolve into a defence ofSocinianism; and that Socinus and his followers have been alwaysregarded, both by the Church of Home and by the great body of theProtestant churches, as deniers and opposers of the great fundamentalprinciples of the scheme of revealed truth, and as unworthy of thedesignationofChristians.

ThedoctrinesofCalvinismare,asmightbeexpected,dealtwith, inthisrationalistic and sceptical age, very much in the same way as thedoctrines of the Trinity and the atonement. It is, indeed, only in theCalvinistic system of theology, that the doctrines of the proper divinityandvicariousatonementofChrist,andof theagencyof theHolySpirit,are fully developed in their practical application. Arminians admit thedoctrinesofthedivinityandatonementofChrist,and‘theagencyoftheSpirit,intotheirsystemoftheology.Buttheydonotfullyapplytheminsomeoftheirmostimportantpracticalbearingsandconsequences.And,

more especially, the general principles of their system preclude themfromadmittingthecertainandinfallibleefficacyofthesegreatprovisionsin securing the results which they were intended to accomplish. If theeternal and only-begotten Son of God assumed human nature intopersonalunionwiththedivine;ifHesufferedanddiedasthesuretyandsubstituteofsinners,thatHemightsatisfydivinejusticeandreconcileustoGod; and if, as one leading result ofHismediation,He has broughtintooperationtheagencyofthethirdPersonoftheGodheadinordertocompletetheworkofsavingsinners,-itseemsacertainandunavoidableinference, that such stupendous arrangements as thesemust embody aprovision for certainlyeffecting thewhole result contemplated,whetherthatresultwasthesalvationofall,oronlyofaportion,ofthefallenraceofman.Now,theArminiansystemoftheologynotonlydoesnotexhibitany provision adequate to secure this result, but plainly precludes it;inasmuchasitisquitepossible,foranythingwhichthatsystemcontains,thatthewholehumanracemightperish-thatnosinnermightbesaved.Arminianism thus tends to depreciate and disparage both the work ofChristandtheworkof theSpirit, in theirbearinguponthegreat objecttheywereintendedtoaccomplish,thesalvationofsinfulmen.It isonlytheCalvinisticviewsoftheworkofChristandoftheHolySpirit,thatarefreefromthegreatfundamentalobjectiontowhichwehavereferred,ofmakingnoadequateprovisionforsecuringtheresultintended.

TheCalvinisticdoctrinesinregardtotheworkofChristandtheagencyofthe Spirit are thus in beautiful harmonywith the other departments ofthat system of theology, - with those doctrines which are commonlyregardedasthespecialpeculiaritiesofCalvinism.Itis,wearepersuaded,insomemeasure,becauseof thevagueand indefinitepositioninwhichthe other departments of theArminian system require its adherents toleavethesubjectsoftheworkofChristandtheworkoftheSpirit,viewedintheirrelationtothepracticalresultcontemplated,,thattheyhavebeenabletoretainaprofessionofthedivinityandatonementofChristandofthe agency of the Spirit, notwithstanding the rationalism on which theArminian system of theology is really based. The tendency ofArminianism is to throw the work of the Son and of the Spirit in thesalvation of sinners into the background, and to lead to vagueness andindefiniteness in the statement of the truth concerning them; while in

regard to those great doctrineswhichCalvinists andArminianshold incommon, in opposition to the Socinians, as well as in regard to thepeculiardoctrinesoftheirownsystem,Calvinistsholdclear,precise,anddefinite opinions. This, in right reason, ought to be held to be apresumptionoftheirtruth;althoughwithmany,especiallyinthepresentday, it is held to furnish a plausible argument against them.Calvinismunfoldsmostfullyandexplicitlythewholesystemofdoctrinerevealedinthe sacredScriptures. Itbringsoutmostprominentlyandexplicitly thesovereignagencyofGod,theFather,theSon,andtheHolyGhost,inthesalvationofsinners;while itmostthoroughlyhumblesandabasesmen,astheworthlessandhelplessrecipientsofthedivinemercyandbounty.

Calvinismthuscomesintofullanddirectcollisionwithall thestrongesttendenciesandprepossessionsofungodlyandunrenewedmen,andhas,ofcourse,beenassailedwitheveryspeciesofobjection.Itcannot,indeed,withanygreatplausibility,bealleged,thatitisfoundedonlyonScriptureconsequences, - that is, inferences or deductions from scripturalstatements. For Calvinists undertake to produce from Scripture,statementswhichdirectlyandexplicitly assert all their leadingpeculiardoctrines;andiftheCalvinisticinterpretationofthesestatementsbejustandwellfounded,itisplainthattheirfundamentalprinciplesaredirectlyandexplicitly sanctionedby thewordofGod.Thecase is verydifferentwith theiropponents.Arminians,of course,undertake to show that thestatementsfoundedonbyCalvinistsareerroneouslyinterpretedbythem;and that,whenrightlyunderstood, they furnishnoadequatesupport toCalvinism. But they scarcely allege that there are any scripturalstatements which directly and explicitly either assert Arminianism, orcontradict Calvinistic doctrines. The defence of Arminianism, and theoppositiontoCalvinism,arebasedchieflyuponinferencesordeductionsfromScripturestatements;andstatements,too,itisimportanttoremark,which do not bear directly and immediately upon the precise pointscontroverted. The scriptural argument for Arminianism and againstCalvinismconsistschieflyinaproofthatGodisholy,andjust,andgood;thatHe isnot theauthorof sin, and isnot a respecterofpersons; thatmenare responsible forall theiractions,andare justly chargeablewithguiltandliabletopunishment,whentheyrefusetoobeyGod’slawandtobelieveintheLordJesusChrist;andthen,intheinferenceordeduction,

that the undeniable truth of these views of God and man. excludesCalvinism, and establishesArminianism.This is really the substance ofthescripturalargumentforArminianismandagainstCalvinism;whileitisscarcelyallegedbyArminiansthatthereareanyscripturalstatementswhich directly and immediately disprove or exclude the doctrines ofCalvinism. On the other hand, it is contended by Calvinists that theirviews are not only directly and explicitly asserted in many scripturalstatements, but are also sanctioned by inferences or deductions fromscriptural viewsof theattributesandmoral government ofGod, and ofthenaturalconditionandcapacitiesofman.

But though on these grounds, and by these processes, an impregnableargument can be built up in favour of Calvinism, yet it has manyformidabledifficultiestocontendwith.Theviewswhichitunfoldsoftheattributes andmoral government of God, of the natural condition andcapacities of man, and of the way of salvation as regulated anddeterminedbytheseviewsofwhatGodisandofwhatmanis,areutterlyopposed to all the natural notions and tendencies of ignorant andirreligiousmen;andtheveryclearness,definiteness,andprecisionwithwhich all these views are brought out and applied, are felt by many,especially in the present day, as strengthening and aggravating all theobjections against them. The leading objections against Calvinism,though based principally upon inferences or deductions from admittedtruths, are so obvious as to occur at once to every one, whenever thesubjectispresentedtohim;andtheyarepossessedofveryconsiderableplausibility. They are just in substance those which the Apostle Paulplainlygivesustounderstandwouldcertainly,andasamatterofcourse,be directed against the doctrine which he taught. The apostle had laiddownandestablished thegreat principle, “It is not of him thatwilleth,nor of him that runneth, but of God that showethmercy,” - “He hathmercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth.” He thenassumesthat,asamatterofcourse,thisprinciplewouldbeobjectedto,-thatmen’s natural notionswould rise up in rebellion against it. “Thouwiltsaythenuntome,WhydothHeyetfindfault?ForwhohathresistedHis will?” - which is just, in plain terms, alleging that the apostle’sdoctrinemadeGodtheauthorofsin,anddestroyedman’sresponsibility.And the apostle, in dealing in the following verses with this objection,

makesnoattempttoexplainawaythedoctrinewhichhehadlaiddown,or to back out of it; he does not withdraw or qualify the outspokenCalvinismwhichhehad soplainly enunciated, and substitute for it thesmoothandplausibleArminianism,whichwouldatoncehavecompletelyremovedallappearanceofgroundfortheobjection.Onthecontrary,he,withoutqualificationorhesitation,adherestothedoctrinehehadstated;anddisposesoftheobjectionjustasCalvinists-followinghisexample-have alwaysdone, by resolving thewholematter into the unsearchableperfections and the sovereign supremacy of God, and the naturalignorance,helplessness,andworthlessnessofman.

The whole substance of what has been, or can be, plausibly allegedagainst Calvinism, is contained in the objection which the apostleexpected to be adduced against the doctrine he taught; and the wholesubstanceofwhat isnecessaryfordefendingCalvinism, iscontained in,orsuggestedby, theway inwhichhedisposedof theobjection.But thesubject has given rise in every age to a great deal of ingenious andelaboratespeculation;andthisspeculationhasbeenfrequentlyofaveryunwarranted, presumptuous, and even offensive description, - thepresumption and offensiveness being principally, though we admit notexclusively,exhibitedonthesideoftheArminians.Wedonot intendtoenter upon a general discussion of the great leading objections whichhavebeenadducedagainsttheCalvinisticsystemoftheology,andoftheway and manner in which these objections should be dealt with anddisposedof.Wehavealreadyindicatedbrieflytheleadingconsiderationswhich should be brought to bear upon this subject, and which, whenexpoundedandapplied,arequitesufficienttodisposeofalltheplausible-and,atfirstsight,apparentlyformidable-objectionsthatarecommonlyadducedagainstCalvinism;andthustoshowthatthewholeofthestrong,positive evidence in support of it - founded both ondirect and expressstatements of Scripture, bearing immediately upon the pointscontroverted,andalsoonclearandsatisfactoryinferencesordeductionsfrom the great general principles unfolded there, concerning God andman,theworkoftheSonandtheSpirit,andthewayofsalvation-standsuntouched and unimpaired, and ought to command the assent andconsent of our understandings and our hearts. We mean to confineourselves, in a great measure, to a consideration of some

misapprehensionswhichhavebeenputforthinthepresentdayinregardtothepracticalapplicationofCalvinism;andtoanattempttoshowthatthese misapprehensions arise from partial, defective, and erroneousconceptionsonthiswholesubject.

There is only one topic connectedwith themore speculative aspects ofthe question, on which we wish to make some observations, viz. theconnectionbetweenelectionandreprobation,-asitisoftencalled,-andtheusewhichtheArminianscommonlyattempttomakeincontroversialdiscussionof the latterof thesedoctrines.Wehadoccasion formerly tocensurethecourseofprocedureusuallyadoptedbytheArminiansinthismatter.Butwethinkitdeservingofsomewhatfurtherdiscussion,asthiswillaffordusanopportunityofexposingaveryunfair,butveryplausible,controversial artifice, which we fear has donemuch injury to what webelievetobethecauseofGodandtruth.

It is the common practice of theologians - though there are somediversities in this respect - to employ the word predestination ascomprehendingthewholeofGod’sdecreesorpurposes,Hisresolutionsor determinations, with respect to the ultimate destiny, the eternalcondition, of mankind; and to regard election and reprobation as twodivisionsofthesubject,fallingunderthegeneralheadofpredestination,andexhaustingit.ElectioncomprehendsthedecreesorpurposesofGodin regard to those of the human race who are ultimately saved; whilereprobationiscommonlyusedasageneraldesignationofHisdecreesorpurposes in regard to those men who finally perish. It is admitted byArminians as well as Calvinists that God decreed or resolved frometernity todowhateverHedoesoreffects in time;andconversely, thatwhateverHe does in time,He from eternity decreed or resolved to do.This is not, on the part of the Arminians, anything tantamount to anadmission of the great fundamental principle of Calvinism, - viz. that“Godfromalleternitydid,bythemostwiseandholycounselofHisownwill,freelyandunchangeablyordainwhatsoevercomestopass;”fortheyhold thatmany things come to pass, - such as the actions of free andmorally responsible beings, - of which God is not the author or cause.These things, Arminians allege, God does not do or effect; andconsequentlyHedidnot frometernityresolve todooreffect them.But

whateverGodreallydoesoreffectsintime,-whatevercomestopassbyHisagency,sothatHeistoberegardedastheauthororefficientcauseofit,-theyadmitthatHemustberegardedashavingfrometernitydecreedor resolved todoor effect. It is important to remember that intelligentArminians concede thisgeneralprinciple; for it is very commonamongthe lower class ofArminianwriters to talk as if therewas some specialandpeculiardifficulty in theeternityof thedivinedecrees orpurposes,beyondand in addition towhat is involved in the executionof them intime.Butthisisamerefallacy,intendedtomakeanimpressionuponthemindsofunreflectingmen.Itcannotbedisputed,thatwhateverGoddoesor effects in time,He frometernitydecreedor resolved todoor effect;andthereisplainlynogreateroradditionaldifficulty,nodeeperormoreinexplicablemystery,attachingto theeternalpurpose todoa thing- toeffectaresult,-thantotheactualdoingoreffectingofitintime.IfGoddoes or effects anything in time, - such as the production of faith andrepentanceintheheartofamoralandresponsiblebeing,-therecanbenogreaterdifficulty,sofarasconcernseitherthecharacterofGodorthecapacities of men, in His having resolved from eternity to effect thisresult.WhateverGodreallydoesintime,Henotonlymay,butHemust,frometernityhaveresolvedordeterminedtodo.

Arminians do not deny this general principle; but they are commonlydisposed to throw it into the background, or at least to abstain fromgivingitprominence;partlyinordertoleaveroomforappealingtomen’sfeelings, as if therewas something specially harsh and repulsive in theeternityofthedecreeasdistinguishedfromtheexecutionofitintime,-andpartlytokeepoutofsightthecompoundorduplicateevidencewhichCalvinists can produce from Scripture in support of their leadingdoctrines,bythelegitimateapplicationofthisprincipleofthecertainandnecessary identity of the purpose and the execution of it. WhateverindicationsaregivenusinScripture,astowhatGoddecreedorpurposedinregardeithertothosewhoaresavedorthosewhoperish,goequallytoestablishwhat it is thatHedoes in time in regard to these two classesrespectively;andwhateverinformationisgivenusastowhatHedoesintimewithreferencetothesalvationofmenindividually,equallyindicateswhatwemustregardHimashavingfrometernitydeterminedtodo.Andthus the scriptural evidence bearing upon both of these topics goes

equally, and with combined force, to establish one great generalconclusion, which is just the fundamental principle of the Calvinisticsystem of theology. But this by the way, - for we are not at presentattempting a general discussionof predestination.Wehave adverted tothistopicchieflyforthepurposeofremindingourreaders,thatthewordselection and reprobation may be used, correctly enough, as generaldesignations,eitherofwhatGodpurposedfrometernitytodo,orofwhatHedoes in time, in relation to the saved and the lost respectively; andthat,sofarasourpresentobjectisconcerned,itisnotnecessarytohaverespecttothisdistinctionbetweentheeternalpurposeandtheexecutionofit.

Election, then, may be regarded as descriptive generally of what Godpurposed from eternity and does in time, in regard to the salvation ofthosewhoaresaved;andreprobationasdescriptiveofwhatHepurposedand does in regard to the fate of those who ultimately perish. And asthosewhoaresavedandthosewhoperishcomprehendalltheindividualsofthehumanrace,itisevident,fromthenatureofthecase,thatelectionandreprobationmuststandinaverycloseandintimatemutualrelation;so that, if we have full and accurate conceptions of the one, we musttherebynecessarilyalsoknowsomethingoftheother.Election,takeninthis wide and general sense, is evidently a subject of much greaterpractical importance than reprobation; and, accordingly, there ismuchfullerandmoredirectinformationgivenusaboutitinScripture.Thereisa great deal told us there about God’s purposes and procedure withrespect to those who are saved; and there is very little, comparatively,told us aboutGod’s purposes and procedurewith respect to thosewhoperish.Wehave,indeed,full informationsuppliedtous,astowhatit isthatmenmustdotobesaved,-astowhatisrequiredofthemthattheymayescapeGod’swrathandcurseduetothemfortheirsins;andweareassuredthatthosetowhomthisinformationiscommunicated,andwhofailtoimprove it fortheirownsalvation,arethemselvesresponsible forthefearfulresult.Thisinformationisofthelastimportance,anditisfullyfurnished to us in Scripture. But beyond this there is little told us inregard to those who perish, - very little, especially, in regard to anypurposes or actings of God bearing upon their ultimate destiny asindividuals.WehavemuchinformationgivenusinScriptureaboutGod’s

purposes and actings in regard to those who are saved. We are toldplainlyofHiseternalchoiceorselectionofthemforsalvation,outofthehuman race all equally sunk in guilt and depravity; of His absolute,unconditionaldeterminationtosavethesepersonssochosenorselected,in accordancewith theprovisions of a great scheme,which secures theglory of the divine character, the honour of the divine law, and theinterests of personal holiness; and of the execution of this decree - theaccomplishmentofthispurpose-bygivingtothesepersons,oreffectingin them, faith and regeneration, with all their appropriate results, bywatchingoverthemwithspecialcareafterthesegreatchangeshavebeeneffected,byupholdingandpreservingthemintheexerciseoffaithandinthepracticeofholiness,andbypreparingthemfullyfortheinheritanceofthesaints in light.By theapplicationof theseprinciples,weareable togiveafullaccountofthegreatleadingfeaturesandeventsinthehistoryofeverysoulthatissaved,fromtheeternalsovereignpurposeofGodtosavethatsoultillitsfinaladmissiontoglory.

Calvinistscontendthatalltheseprinciplesaresetforthverydirectlyandexplicitly in the statements of Scripture; and in this state of things,commonsenseandcommonfairnessplainlydictate,thatthefirstthingtobedoneistoinvestigateandascertainwhetherornotScripturesanctionsthem; and if the result of the inquiry be a conviction that it does, toreceive them as true and certain, along with all that is involved in, orresults from them. Arminians, of course, deny that Scripture sanctionstheseprinciples,andendeavourtoshowtheinsufficiencyofthegroundsonwhichscripturalsupportisclaimedforthem.Buttheyoftenprefertoconductthediscussioninadifferentway.Theyareusuallyanxioustogivepriority and prominence to the subject of reprobation; and havingrefuted, as they think, the Calvinistic doctrine upon this subject, theythendrawtheinferenceordeduction,thatsinceelectionandreprobationare correlatives, and necessarily imply each other, the disproof ofreprobation involves a disproof of election. Their reasons for adoptingthis lineof policy in conducting thediscussion are abundantlyobvious,and somewhat tempting, but very far from being satisfactory orcreditable.TheCalvinisticdoctrineofreprobationadmitsmoreeasilyofbeingdistortedandpervertedbymisrepresentationthanthedoctrineofelection; andof this facilitymanyArminianshavenot scrupled to avail

themselves.Theawfulandmysterioussubjectofreprobationcanlikewisebeeasilypresentedinlightswhichmakeitappearharshandrepulsivetomen’snaturalfeelings;andthisisonemainreasonwhyArminiansaresofondofdwellinguponit,andlabouringtogiveitgreatprominenceinthediscussionofthiswholematter.Theinjusticeandunfairnessofthismodeofdealingwith thequestion is establishedby the consideration alreadyadvertedto,-viz.thatthereismuchfullerandmoreexplicitinformationgivenusinScriptureonthesubjectofelectionthanofreprobation.Ifthisbe so, then it is plainly the dictate of common sense and commonfairness, that we should investigate the evidence of the doctrine ofelectionbeforeweproceed to consider thatof reprobation;and thatweshouldnotallowtheconclusionswemayhavereached,uponsatisfactoryevidence,withrespect to thesubject that ismoreclearlyrevealed, tobedisturbed by difficulties with respect to a subject which God has leftshroudedinsomewhatgreatermystery.

Calvinistsnotonlyadmit,butcontend, thatbothastotheir importandmeaning,andastotheirprooforevidence,thedoctrinesofelectionandreprobationarecloselyconnectedwitheachother;andthatinferencesordeductionswithrespecttotheonemaybe legitimatelyandconclusivelyderived from the other. In the nature of the case, God’s purposes andprocedure in regard to thosewhoare savedmustaffector regulateHispurposes and procedure in regard to those who perish; and theknowledgeof theonemust throwsome lightupon theother. Calvinistshave alwaysmaintained that the whole of what they believe and teachupon the subject of reprobationmaybededuced, byundeniable logicalinference, from the doctrine which they hold to be clearly taught inScriptureonthesubjectofelection;andthat it isalsoconfirmedbythemore vague and imperfect information given us in Scripture, bearingdirectlyupon the subject of the fateof thosewhoperish.No intelligentCalvinisthaseverdisputedtheposition,thatelectionnecessarilyimpliesand leads to a corresponding reprobation. No Calvinists, indeed, haveever disputed this; except some of the weaker brethren among theevangelical churchmen in England, who have professed to believe inCalvinisticelectionasplainlysetforthintheir17thArticle,butwhohavedeclined to admit the doctrine of reprobation in any sense. We cansympathize with the feeling which leads men to shrink from giving

prominence to this awful and mysterious subject, and even with thefeelingwhichledtotheomissionofanyformaldeliveranceregardingit,bothintheArticlesoftheChurchofEnglandandintheoriginalScotchConfessionof1560,thoughbothpreparedbyCalvinists.But there isnoreason why men, in their investigation of divine truth, should notascertainandstate,andwhennecessarymaintainanddefend,thewholeofwhatiscontainedin,ormaybededucedfrom,Scriptureonthisasonothersubjects.

Arminians, for controversial purposes, have frequently given great andundue prominence to this subject of reprobation; and some Calvinists,provoked by this unfair and discreditable procedure, have beenoccasionally tempted to follow their opponents into a minuteness andrashnessofspeculationthatwaspainfulandunbecoming.ButCalvinistsingeneral,whilenotshrinking fromthediscussionof thissubject,havenever shown any desire to enlarge upon it, beyondwhat was renderednecessary by the importunity of their opponents; and have usuallyconductedthediscussionundertheinfluenceofasenseoftheimperativeobligation to keep strictly within the limits of what is revealed, and tocarry on thewhole investigation under a deep feeling of reverence andholy awe. Very different have been the spirit and conduct of manyArminians in dealing with this mysterious subject. They often shrinkfrommeeting fairly andmanfully the greatmass of direct and positiveevidence which can be produced from Scripture in support of theCalvinistic doctrine of election. They prefer to assail it indirectly by anattack upon the doctrine of reprobation; and they adopt this coursebecause, as we have said, there is much less information given us inScripture about reprobation than election, and because it is easier todistort andmisrepresent the Calvinistic doctrine upon the one subjectthan theother,and toexciteaprejudiceagainst it.Nomanofordinarycandourwill deny, that a great deal of evidence, which is at least veryplausible,hasbeenproducedfromstatementscontainedinScripture,insupportoftheCalvinisticdoctrineofelection.Andifthisbeso,Calvinistsareentitled to insist, thatmenwhoprofess tobeseeking the truth,andnotmerelycontendingforvictory,shall, inthefirstplace,dealwiththisdirect and positive evidence, and dispose of it, by either admitting ordisprovingitsvalidity;andshallnot, inthefirst instance,haverecourse

toanyindirect,inferential,andcircuitousprocessfordecidingthepointatissue.Butthismodeofprocedure,thoughplainlydemandedbysoundlogicandanhonest loveof truth, isonewhichArminiansratherdislikeandavoid;andhencetheanxietytheyhaveoftenshowntogivepriorityandprominencetothesubjectofreprobation,andtoattempttosettlethewholequestionaboutpredestinationbyinferencesdeducedfromit.

When the Remonstrants or Arminians were cited before the Synod ofDort, they insisted that, under the first article, which treated ofpredestination in general, the discussion should begin with aninvestigationof thedoctrineof reprobation;andwhen theSynod,uponthe obvious grounds of sound logic, common sense, and ordinaryfairness,towhichwehavereferred,-andwhicharefullysetforthintheJudgmentsofthedifferentCollegesoftheForeignDivines,embodiedintheActsof theSynod,- refusedtoconcedethisdemand, theArminiansloudlycomplainedof thisasanactofgreathardshipand injustice.Theexcuse they gave formaking this demandwas this: that the difficultieswhichtheyhadbeenledtoentertaininregardtothetruthofthesystemof doctrine generally received in the Reformed churches, were chieflyconnectedwiththesubjectofreprobation;andthatifthispointcouldbecleared up to their satisfaction, there might be some hope of the twopartiescomingtoanagreement.Butthis,besidesbeingamerepretence,was,uponthegroundswhichwehavealreadyadduced,plainlyuntenableuponanyrightbasisofargument.Itisconclusivelyansweredbythefairapplicationof theconsiderations, - that there ismuchfullerandclearerinformationgivenusinScriptureaboutelectionthanaboutreprobation;thatCalvinistsreallyholdnothingonthesubjectofreprobationbutwhatisvirtuallycontainedin,andnecessarilydeducible from,what isplainlytaught in Scripture on the subject of election; and that the scripturalevidence for the doctrine of reprobation is, mainly and principally,thoughnotexclusively,tobefoundinthescripturalproofofthedoctrineof election, - that is, in the fair and legitimate application of the viewsrevealed to us as to what God has purposed and does with respect tothosewhoare saved, to the investigationof thequestionas towhatHehaspurposedanddoes,orratherhasnotpurposedanddoesnotdo,withrespecttothosewhoperish.

Thisunreasonable,unfair,anddiscreditablemodeofprocedure,adoptedby Episcopius and his associates at the Synod of Dort, has been oftensinceexhibitedbyArminiancontroversialists,at leastpracticallyand insubstance; though perhaps it has not been so explicitly stated, and soopenly defended, as upon that occasion.Wemay refer to two or threeinstancesofthis.

The first work that appeared in England containing a formal andelaborate attackupon theCalvinistic systemof theology,was publishedanonymously in1633. ItsauthorwasSamuelHoard, rectorofMoreton,and its titlewas, “God’sLove toMankindmanifestedbydisprovingHisAbsoluteDecreefortheirDamnation.”Andinaccordancewiththistitle,the work just consists of an attack upon the Calvinistic doctrine ofreprobation,grosslydistortedandmisrepresented;withoutanattempttoanswerthegreatmassofdirectandpositiveproof,whichCalvinistshaveproduced from Scripture, in support of their doctrine of election. Thiswork of Hoard’s had the honour of being formally answered by threegreat theologians, - Davenant, Twisse, and Amyraut, - the diversity ofwhose views upon some points, while they agreed in the main, gave,perhaps, to the discussion as a whole, additional interest and value.Davenant’s answer to Hoard was published in 1641, and is entitled,“Animadversions written by the Right Rev. Father in God, John, LordBishopofSalisbury,uponaTreatiseentitled, ‘God’sLove toMankind.’”Amyraut’s answer toHoardwasalsopublished in 1641, and is entitled,“Doctrinae J. Calvini de Absoluto Reprobationis Deere to Defensio.”Hoard’s work had been translated into Latin, and published atAmsterdam,under theauspicesofGrotius.Amyraut,whohad incurredthe suspicion of orthodox divines, by advocating - in his treatise onpredestination,publishedin1634-thedoctrineofuniversalredemption,seized this opportunity of showing that he zealously maintained thefundamentalprinciplesoftheCalvinisticsystemoftheology,bypreparingandpublishingareplytothiswork,indefenceofthedoctrineofCalvin.Twisse’sreplytoHoard,,thoughwrittenbeforeanyoftheotheranswers,and, indeed, principally before the publication of Hoard’s work, whichhadbeen sent to him inmanuscript,was not published till some yearsafteritsauthor’sdeath.Itisentitled,“TheRichesofGod’sLoveuntotheVesselsofMercyconsistentwithHisAbsoluteHatredorReprobationof

the Vessels ofWrath.” It was published in 1653, andwas licensed andrecommendedbyDrOwen,at that timeViceChancellorofOxford.Thefirst sentence of Owen’s prefatory recommendation of Twisse’s work isadmirably pertinent to our purpose, and, indeed, brings out the onlypointwithwhichwehaveatpresenttodoinconnectionwiththismatter.Itisthis:-

£‘Ofall thoseweightyparcelsofgospel truthwhichtheArminianshavechosentooppose, there isnotanyaboutwhichtheysomuchdelight totryandexercisethestrengthoffleshlyreasonings,asthatofGod’seternaldecreeofreprobation;partly,because theScripturedothnotsoaboundin the delivery of this doctrine, as of some others lying in a moreimmediate subserviency to the obedience and consolation of the saints(thoughitbesufficientlyrevealedinthemtothequietingoftheirspiritswhohave learned to captivate theirunderstandings to theobedienceoffaith),-andpartly,becausetheyapprehendthetruththereoftobemoreexposed to the riotous oppositions of men’s tumultuating, carnalaffections,whosehelpandassistancetheybyallmeanscourtandsolicitintheircontestsagainstit.”

These three replies to Hoard rank among the most important andvaluable works in this department of controversial theology. But atpresentwehave todowith themonly in this respect, that theyall fullyexposetheerroneousanddistortedaccountwhichHoardgivesofwhatitis thatCalvinists reallyholdupon thesubjectof reprobation, andbringout the absurdity and unfairness of giving somuch prominence to thistopic in discussing the general question of predestination, - instead ofbeginningwiththemuchmoreimportantsubjectofelection,aboutwhichwehavemuch fuller informationgivenus inScripture; and then,whenthe doctrine of Scripture upon the subject of election has beeninvestigatedandascertained,proceedingtoapplythis,inconnectionwiththe fewer and obscurer intimations given us directly concerningreprobation, in determiningwhat we ought to believe regarding it.Wemaygive twoor three extractson thesepoints fromDavenant,whom -notwithstanding his somewhat unsound views as to the extent of theatonement - we consider one of the greatest divines the Church ofEnglandhaseverproduced.Hethuspointsouttheunfairnessofthetitle,

andof thegeneralscopeandobject,ofHoard’swork,whileadmitting -as, of course, every intelligent theologianmustdo - that the election ofsomemen necessarily implies a corresponding reprobation of the rest;andindicating,atthesametime,thetrueuseandapplicationthatshouldbemadeofthefact,thatthe17thArticleoftheChurchofEngland,thoughexplicitly asserting the Calvinistic doctrine of election,makes no directmentionofreprobation.

“. . . Obliquely to oppose the eternal, free, and absolute decree ofpredestination or election, under colour of disapproving an absolutedecree for any man’s damnation, befitteth not any divine whoacknowledgeth the truth of that doctrine which the Scriptures havedelivered,St.Augustinecleared,andtheChurchofEngland establishedinthe17thArticle.Butiftheauthorofthistreatisehadnootheraimthanthe overthrowing of such an eternal decree of predestination andpreterition,as is fondlysupposedwill savemenwhether they repentornotrepent,believeornotbelieve,persevereornotpersevere;andsuchanabsolute decree of reprobation as will damn men, though they shouldrepentandbelieve,orwillhinderanymanfromrepentingorbelieving,orwill causeandworkanyman’s impenitencyor infidelity;webothwish,andshallendeavourtogetherwithhim,torootsucherroneousfanciesoutofallChristianminds.”

“The title of the book justly rejecteth an absolute decree for thedamnationofanyparticularperson:forsuchadecreewasneverenactedinGod’seternalcounsel,noreverpublishedinHisrevealedword.Butforabsolute reprobation, - if by this word be understood only thatpreterition, non-election, or negative decree of predestination,which iscontradictorilyopposedtothedecreeofelection,-theoneisasabsoluteastheother,andneitherdependethupontheforeseendifferenceofmen’sactions, but upon the absolute will of God. For if God from eternityabsolutelyelectedsomeuntotheinfallibleattainmentofgraceandglory,we cannot but grant that those who are not comprised within thisabsolutedecreeareasabsolutelypassedby,astheotherarechosen.Thedecreeofdamnation,therefore,mustnotbeconfoundedwiththedecreeofnegativepredestination,which(accordingto thephraseof theschoolrather than of the Scripture) is usually termed reprobation. By which

term of reprobation some understand only the denial of election orpredestination. And because the negation is to be measured by theaffirmation,unlesswebeagreedwhat ismeantwhenwesay,Peterwaspredestinatedbeforethefoundationsoftheworldwerelaid,wecanneverrightlyjudgewhatismeantwhen,onthecontrary,weavouch,Judaswasreprobatedbefore the foundations of theworldwere laid. Someothers,under thenameof reprobation, involve not only the negative decree ofpreparingsucheffectualgraceaswouldbring themmostcertainlyuntoglory,butanaffirmativedecreealsoforthepunishingofmeneternallyinhell-fire.

“So far forth as this author seemeth to oppose the absolute decree ofpredestination,and theabsolutedecreeofnegative reprobationornon-election, reducing them to the contrary foreseen conditions of good orbad acts in men, he crosseth the received doctrine of the Church ofEngland.Butifheintendonlytoprovethattheadjudicationofmenuntoeternal lifeoreternaldeath,and the temporal introductionofmen intothekingdomofheaven,orcastingofmen into the tormentsofhell, arealways accompaniedwith the divine prescience or intuition of contraryactsorqualitiesinthosewhicharetobesavedorcondemned,weholditand acknowledge it a most certain truth. Yet we must here add, thatpredestination and preterition are eternal acts immanent in God theCreator, whereas salvation and damnation are temporal effectsterminateduntothecreature:andthereforethelattermaybesuspendeduponmanyconditions,thoughtheformerbeinGodneversoabsolute.

“The treatise ensuing would have had much more perspicuity if theauthorhadbriefly andplainly set downwhatheunderstandeth by thisword predestination or election, and whether he conceive it to be anabsoluteoraconcditionaldecree.Ifconditional,heshouldhaveshowedus with whom God conditioned, upon what terms, and where theconditions stand upon record. If he grant absolute predestination, hispleaforconditionatepreteritionwillbetolittlepurpose,withthosewhounderstand that the absolute electionof sucha certainnumberdoth ineodem signo rationis as absolutely imply a certain number ofmen notelected.

“Thewisdomof ourChurchofEngland in the 17thArticle layethdown

the doctrine of predestination, and doth not so much as in one wordmeddlewith thepoint of reprobation; leavingmen to conceive that theoneisthebarenegationordenialofthatspecialfavourandbenefitwhichisfreelyintendedandmercifullybestowedintheother.WouldtoGodthechildrenofthischurchhadimitatedthewisdomoftheirmother,andhadnot taken a quite contrary course, baulking the doctrine ofpredestination, and breaking in abruptly upon the doctrine ofreprobation.

“IknownotwhetherIshouldthinkhimmoredefectivewho,indisputingabout reprobation, runneth out into impertinent vagaries, or him thatunder -taketh the handling of this question without premising andopeningthetruenatureofpredestination.

“And no man need fear but (with all that are judicious, religious, andlovingtheirownsalvation)thatmannerofhandlingthiscontroversywillbebestaccepted,whichsoreducethman’ssinanddamnationtohimself,as withal it forgetteth not to reduce his justification, sanctification,glorification, not to any foreseen goodness springing out ofman’s free-will, but to the free mercy of God, according to His eternal purposeeffectually working inmen those gifts and acts of grace which are themeanstobringthemuntoglory.”

“Ifstrivingtobecloseheaprobableargumentofabadcause,thosewhoareafraidtodealwiththemorelightsomepartofthiscontroversywhichconcerneth election and predestination, and thrust themselves,withoutborrowing any light from this, into the other (which, taken by itself, ismuch more dark and obscure), are the men who strive to wrapthemselves and others in an obscure and ‘dark cloud. Our Church ofEngland was more willing and desirous to set down expressly thedoctrine of absolute predestination, I mean of predestination causingfaith and perseverance, than it was of absolute negative reprobation, Imeanof such reprobationas implieth inGodawill of permitting somemen’s final impietyand impenitency,andof justlyordaining themuntopunishmentforthesame:andyetthelatterdothplainlyfollowuponthetruthoftheformer.Itwaswisdom,andnotJewishorTurkishfear,whichmadeourchurchsoclear in thearticle forabsolutepredestination,andyetsoreservedintheother;easilyperceivingthatpredestinationofsome

men cannot be affirmed, but non-predestination or preterition ornegative reprobation (call it as you please) of some othersmust needstherewithbeunderstood.

“Though truth be best uncovered, yet all truths are not of the samenature, nor alike profitable to be debated upon: yet for the truth ofabsolute reprobation, so far forthas it is connectedandconjoinedwithabsolutepredestination,whenthemainintentoftheRemonstrantsisbyopposing of the former to overthrow the latter, it importeth thosewhohave subscribed to the 17th Article not to suffer it to be obliquelyundermined.”

“The opinion here aimed at is the doctrine of absolute reprobation,concerningwhichalldisputesarefrivolous,ifitbenotfirstagreeduponwhatisunderstoodbythesetwowords,absolutereprobation.

“For the understanding whereof, observe first, what our churchconceiveth under the term of predestination. If a decree of God firstbeholding and foreseeing certain particular persons as believing andconstantly persevering unto the end in faith and godliness, andthereuponelectingthemuntoeternalhappiness,thenwewillgrantthattheRemonstrants(whomthisauthorfolloweth)embracethedoctrineofthe Church of England. But if, in our 17th Article, God in His eternalpredestination beholdeth all men as lying in massa corrupta, anddecreethoutof thisgeneralityofmankind,beingall ina like damnablecondition, toelectsomebyHissecretcounsel, todeliverthemfromthecurse and damnation by a special calling according to His eternalpurpose,andbyworkinginthemfaithandperseverance;thenitisplainthat the Remonstrants and this author have left the doctrine of theChurchofEnglandinthepointofpredestination,andthereforemaywellbe suspected also in thepoint of reprobation,whichmusthave its truemeasuretakenfromthatother.

“Secondly, take notice, what the word absolute importeth when it isapplied unto the eternal and immanent acts or decrees of the divinepredestination. Not (as the Remonstrants continually mistake it) aperemptorydecreeofsavingpersonselected,whethertheybelieveornotbelieve,noryetadecreeofforcingornecessitatingpredestinatepersons

untotheactsofbelieving,repenting,persevering,orwalking inthewaywhichleadethuntoeverlastinglife;butagraciousandabsolutedecreeofbestowing as well faith, repentance, and perseverance, as eternal life,uponall those towhom, inHis everlastingpurpose,He vouchsafed thespecialbenefitofpredestination.AndthatGodcananddothaccordingtoHis eternal purpose infalliblywork faith and perseverance in the elect,withoutanycoactionornecessitationofman’swill,isagreeduponbyallcatholic divines, and was never opposed but by Pelagius. And thisabsolute intending of eternal life to persons elected, and absoluteintendingofgivinguntosuchthespecialgraceofaperseverant faith, isthat absolute predestination which our mother the church hathcommendeduntous,andwhichwemustdefendagainsttheerrorofthesemi-PelagiansandRemonstrants,whostrivetobringinapredestinationor election wherein God seeth faith and perseverance in certain mengoingbeforepredestination,anddothnotprepareitforthemineternitybyHisspecialactofpredestination,norbestowitupontheminduetime,asaconsequenteffectofHiseternalpredestination.

“Thirdly,itistobeobserved,thatourchurch,innotspeakingonewordofreprobationintheArticle,wouldhaveustobemoresparingindiscussingthispointthanthatotherofelection;quitecontrarytothehumouroftheRemonstrants, who hang back when they are called to dispute uponpredestination, butwill byno authoritybebeat off from rushing at thefirstdashuponthepointofreprobation.

“Butfurther, fromhencewemaywellcollect,thatourchurch,whichbypredestination understandeth a special benefit out of God’smercy andabsolute freedom, absolutely prepared from all eternity, and in timebestowedinfalliblyupontheelect,wouldhaveusconceivenofurtherofthe silenced decree of reprobation, than the not preparing of sucheffectual grace, the not decreeing of such persons unto the infallibleattainment of glory, the decreeing to permit them through their owndefaultdeservedlyand infallibly toprocure theirownmisery.All this isno more than God himself hath avouched of himself, ‘miserebor cuivoluero, et clemens ero in quem mihi placuerit.’ And that which theapostleattributethuntoGod.

Fourthly, this non-predestinatio, non-electio, prseteritio or negatwa re-

probatio (forbyall thesenamesdivines speakof it), doth as absolutelyleavesomeoutofthenumberofthepredestinate,aspredestinationdothinclude others within the same number. And the number of both,formally and materially, is so certain, that the diminution oraugmentation of either is, by the general consent of orthodox divines,condemnedforanerroneousopinion:thoughthesemi-Pelagiansspurnedagainst this truth. If, under the name of absolute predestination, anyconceiveaviolentdecreeofGodthrustingmenintoastateofgraceandglory, and under the name of absolute reprobation, a violent decree ofGod thrustingmen into sin andmisery, let who will confute them: fortheir opinion is erroneous concerning the one, and blasphemousconcerning the other. But under colour of opposing such imaginarydecrees,tobringinaconditionatepredestination,toexcludethisnegativereprobation, to settle them both upon provision of human acts, isopposite to the doctrine of St Augustine, approved anciently by thecatholic church, and till this new-fangled age, generally and commonlyallowed and embraced both by the Romanists and by the Protestants.”Arminians, in more modern times, have not been slow to follow theexamplesetthembytheirpredecessors,inthemodeofdealingwiththissubject.Whitby,inhisDiscourseontheFivePoints,-which,thoughnotawork of any great ability, was for a century, and until superseded byTomline’s“RefutationofCalvinism,”thegreatoracleandtext-bookoftheanti-evangelicalArminiansof theChurchofEngland, - devotes the twofirst chapters to the subject of reprobation. But perhaps the folly andunfairness of the Arminianmode of dealing with this subject, may beregardedashavingreached itsacme inJohnWesley’s treatise, entitled,“Predestination calmly considered,” which was published about themiddle of last century, and is contained in the tenth volume of thecollected edition of his works. Wesley, in this treatise, begins withproving-whatnointelligentCalvinistdisputes-thattheelectionofsomemen to everlasting life, necessarily implies what may be called areprobationoftherest;or,asheexpressesit,that“unconditionalelectioncannot appear without the cloven foot of reprobation.” And havingestablished this, he straightway commences an elaborate and violentattack upon reprobation, which he describes as “that mil1stone whichhangsabouttheneckofyourwholehypothesis,”!withoutattempting tograpplewiththedirectpositivescripturalevidence,bywhichthedoctrine

of unconditional election has been established. Dr Gill, in an excellentreply to this treatise, entitled, “The Doctrine of Predestination stated/’truly describes it in this way: - “Though he calls his pamphlet‘Predestination calmly considered,’ yet it only considers one part of it,reprobation;andthatnotinawayofargumentbutharangue,nottakingnotice of our argument from Scripture or reason, only making somecavillingexceptionstoit.”Wesley,indeed,issoengrossedandexcitedbyreprobation, thathecallsout, inasortof frenzy,“Findoutanyelectionwhich does not imply reprobation, and I will gladly agree to it. Butreprobation I can never agree to,while I believe the Scripture to be ofGod.” This mode of contemplating and dealing with the subject ismanifestly inconsistentwith sound reason and an honest love of truth.ThefirstdutyincumbentuponWesley,anduponallmen,inthismatter,wasjustto“findout”whatScripturetaughtuponthesubjectofelection,to receive its teachingupon thatpointwith implicit submission, and tofollowoutthedoctrinethusascertainedtoallitslegitimateconsequences.He tells us, indeed, that he could not find the Calvinistic doctrine ofelectioninScripture;buthehasnotexplainedtoushowhemanagedtodisposeofthedirectpositiveevidenceusuallyadducedfromScriptureinsupportofit.AndweventuretothinkthatifhehadexaminedScripturewith due impartiality, without allowing himself to be scared by thebugbearofwhathecalls“theclovenfootofreprobation,”hewouldhavefound,asCalvinistshavedone,thiselectiontobetaughtthere,-viz.,thatGodfrometernity,outofthegoodpleasureofHisownwill,electedsomemen,absolutelyandunconditionally, toeverlasting life;andthat, in theexecutionofthispurpose,Heinvariablyandinfalliblybestowsuponthesemen that faith, regeneration, and perseverance, which He alone canbestow, and without which they cannot be saved. We admit that thiselection necessarily implies a corresponding reprobation; but we reallybelieve nothing more upon the subject of reprobation than what theelection plainly taught in Scripture necessarily implies, - viz. this, thatGod passes by the rest ofmen, the non-elect, and leaves them in theirnatural stateofguiltanddepravity,withholding fromthem,orde factonotconferringuponthem,thatspecialgrace,which,asHeofcoursewellknows, is necessary to the production of faith and regeneration; anddoing this, as well as ultimately punishing them for their sin, inaccordancewithadecreeorpurposewhichHehadformedfrometernity.

We find in Scripture an election which necessarily implies thisreprobation; and thereforewebelieve bothupon the testimony ofGod.We do not consider ourselves at liberty to agree to “any election,” asWesley says, but what we find taught in Scripture; and we regardourselves as bound to agree to this election because taught there, eventhough it necessarily involves all that we believe on the subject ofreprobation.

Butwe have said enough,we think, to show the unreasonableness andunfairness of the course frequently pursued by the Arminians, inlabouringtoexciteaprejudiceagainstthedoctrineofelection,bygivingpriorityandprominencetothediscussionofreprobation;andtoenforcetheobligationof thedutyplainly imposedby logic, commonsense,andcandour, todeal in the firstplace,deliberatelyandimpartially,withthemassofdirectandpositivescripturalevidencewhichCalvinistsadduceinsupport of their doctrine of election, - without being prepossessed orprejudicedby any inferences or deductions thatmay be drawn from it,whetherwarrantablyor thereverse,orbyanycollateralandextraneousconsiderations,Withoutpretendingtodiscussthissubject,wewouldlike,before leaving it, to make a few explanatory remarks, in the way ofguarding against misapprehensions and misrepresentations of thedoctrinegenerallyheldbyCalvinistsregardingit.

OOThesumandsubstanceofwhatCalvinistsbelieveuponthesubjectisthis,thatGoddecreedorpurposedfrometernitytodowhatHeactuallydoesintime,inregardtothosewhoperishaswellasinregardtothosewhoare saved;and that this is in substancewithholding from them,orabstainingfromcommunicatingtothem,thosegraciousandinsuperableinfluences of His Spirit, by which alone faith and regeneration can beproduced,leavingthemintheirnaturalstateofsinandmisery,andthenatlastinflictinguponthemthepunishmentwhichbytheirsintheyhavedeserved. In stating and discussing the question about reprobation,Calvinistic divines are careful, as may be seen in the extracts quotedabovefromDavenant,todistinguishbetweentwodifferentacts,decreedorresolvedonbyGodfrometernityandexecutedbyHimintime;theonenegativeandtheotherpositive,-theonesovereignandtheotherjudicial,- and both frequently comprehended under the general name of

reprobation. The first of these, the negative or sovereign, - which iscommonly called nonelection, preterition, or passing by, - is simplyresolving to leave (and in consequence leaving) some men, those notchosen to everlasting life, in their natural state of sin andmisery, - towithhold from them, or to abstain from conferring upon them, thosesupernaturalgraciousinfluenceswhicharenecessarytoenableanymantorepentandbelieve;sothattheresultis,thattheycontinueintheirsin,withtheguiltofalltheirtransgressionsupontheirhead.Thesecondact-the positive or judicial - is more properly that which is called in theWestminster Confession of Faith, “foreordaining to everlasting death,”and“ordaining”thosewhohavebeenpassedby“todishonourandwrathfor their sin.” God ordains nomen to wrath or punishment except onaccountof theirsin;andmakesnodecree, formsnopurpose, tosubjectany topunishment,butwhathas reference to, and is foundedon, theirsin,asathingcertainandcontemplated.But the firstornegativeactofnon-election - preterition, or passing by - may be said to be absolute,since it is not founded on sin, and perseverance in it, as foreseen. Sinforeseencannotbethepropergroundorcausewhysomemenareelectedandothersarepassedby, forallmenaresinners,andwere foreseenassuch.Itcannotbeallegedthatthosewhowerenotelected,andwhoarepassed by in the communication of special supernatural grace, havealways been greater sinners than those who have been chosen andbroughttoeternallife.Andwithrespecttotheideawhichmightnaturallysuggestitself,-viz.thatfinalimpenitence,orunbeliefforeseenmightbethe ground or cause, not only of the positive or judicial act offoreordinationtopunishmentandmisery,butalsoofthenegativeactofpreterition, - this Calvinists hold to be inconsistent with the scripturalstatements which so plainly ascribe the production of faith andregeneration, and of perseverance in faith and holiness, wherever theyare produced, solely to the good pleasure of God and the efficaciousoperation ofHis Spirit, viewed in connectionwith theundoubted truththatHecould,ifHehadchosen,haveaseasilyproducedthesameresultsinothers;andinconsistentlikewisewiththeintimationsplainlygivenusin Scripture, that there is something inGod’s purposes and procedure,eveninregardtothosewhoperish,whichcanberesolvedonlyintoHisowngoodpleasure,intothemostwiseandholycounselofHiswill.

TheleadingobjectionsagainsttheCalvinisticdoctrineofreprobationarefounded upon misapprehensions and misrepresentations of its realimportandbearings.Theobjectionsusuallyadducedagainstitarechieflythese; that it implies,1st,ThatGodcreatedmanymen inorder thatHemightatlastconsignthemtoeverlastingmisery;and2d,ThatHisdecreeof reprobation, orHis eternal purpose concerning thosewho perish, isthepropercauseorsourceof thesinandunbelief,onaccountofwhichthey are ultimately condemned to destruction. Now Calvinists do notteachthesedoctrines,butrepudiateandabjurethem.Theymaintainthatthesedoctrinescannotbeshowntobefairly involvedinanythingwhichtheydo teachupon this subject.Theanswer toboth theseobjections ismainlybasedupon the viewsweholdwith respect to the original stateandconditionofmanathiscreation,andthesinandmiseryintowhichhe afterwards fell. God made man upright, after His own image, inknowledge,righteousness, andholiness, - fitted anddesigned to glorifyandenjoyhisMaker;andthisbringsouttheonlytrueandproperendforwhich man was created. Calvinists have always not only admitted butcontended,that there are important differences between the relation inwhichthedivineforesightoftheunbeliefandimpenitenceofthosewhoperishstandstothedecreeofreprobation,andthatinwhichtheforesightofthefaithandperseveranceofthosewhoaresavedstandstothedecreeofelection;andbetweenthewayandmannerinwhichthesetwodecreesoperate in the production of the means by which they are executed,meanswhichmay be said to consist substantially in the character andactions of their respective objects. We cannot dwell upon thesedifferences.Itissufficienttosay,thatwhileCalvinistsmaintainthatthedecree of election is the cause or source of faith, holiness, andperseverance, in all in whom they are produced; they hold that thepreteritionofsomemen-thatis,thefirstornegativeactinthedecreeofreprobation, based uponGod’s good pleasure, the counsel ofHiswill -puts nothing inmen, causes or effects no change in them, but simplyleavesthemasitfoundthem,inthestateofguiltanddepravitytowhichtheyhadfallen;while theyadmit that thesecondorpositivepartof thedecree of reprobation, the foreordination to wrath and misery, asdistinguished from preterition, is founded upon the foresight of men’scontinuanceinsin.God,inthepurposeandactofpreterition,tookfromthemnothingwhichtheyhad,withheldfromthemnothingtowhichthey

had a claim, exerted upon them no influence to constrain them tocontinueinsin,ortopreventthemfromrepentingandbelieving;andinfurtherappointingthemtodishonourandwrathfortheirsin,Hewasnotresolving to inflict upon them anything but whatHe foresaw that theywouldthenhavefullymerited.

Theconsiderationswhichhavenowbeenhintedatareamplysufficient,whenexpoundedandapplied,astheyhavebeenbyCalvinisticdivines,toanswer theobjectionsof theArminians, - that is, the special objectionswhich they usually adduce against the doctrine of reprobation, asdistinguished from the more general objections commonly directedagainst theCalvinisticsystemof theologyasawhole;andtoexpose theinjusticeandunfairnessofthemisrepresentationswhichtheyoftengiveof our sentiments, that they may give greater plausibility to theirobjections.

WehavestatedthatwedonotmeantoenterintotheconsiderationofanyofthegreatleadingobjectionsagainstCalvinism,baseduponitsallegedinconsistencywith themoralattributesofGodand the responsibilityofman; or of themore abstract theoretical speculationswhich have beenbrought to bear upon the investigation of this subject. We propose toconsider only some of themisapprehensions that have been put forth,and some of the difficulties that have been started, in regard to itspracticalapplication.

There is one general form ofmisrepresentationwhich Arminians oftenemploy indealingwiththedoctrinesofCalvinism.It isexhibited in thepractice of taking a part of our doctrine, disjoined from the rest,representing itas thewholeofwhatwe teachupon thepoint;and thenshowing, that thus viewed it is liable to serious objections and leads toinjurious consequences. It is by a process of this sort that they giveplausibility to their very common and favourite allegation, that theCalvinisticdoctrineofpredestinationdiscouragesorrendersunnecessarytheuseofmeans, theemploymentofefforts fortheattainmentofends,whichwemaybeunderanobligationtoaimat,orinfluenced,byadesireto effect, - that it tends to discourage or preclude the steady pursuit ofholiness, the conscientious discharge of duty, and the diligentimprovement of the means of grace. Now this common allegation is

possessed of plausibility, only if it be assumed as the doctrine ofCalvinists, that God has foreordained the end without having alsoforeordainedthemeans;andwhentheirtrueandrealdoctrineuponthesubjectisbroughtoutinallitsextentandcompleteness,theplausibilityoftheobjectionentirelydisappears.

ThedoctrineoftheWestminsterConfessionuponthispointisthis,-thatbyGod’sdecreeordainingfrometernitywhatsoevercomethtopass, theliberty or contingency of second causes is not taken away but ratherestablished; and that “although in relation to the foreknowledge anddecree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably andinfallibly, yet by the same providence He ordereth them to fall outaccording to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, orcontingently;”! - that is, necessary things - things necessary from thenatureorconstitutionwhichHehasconferredonthem,orthelawswhichHe has prescribed to them - He ordereth to fall out, or take place,necessarily,orinaccordancewiththeirconstitutionandlaws;andinlikemanner, He ordereth free things, as men’s actions, to fall out or takeplace freely, and contingent things contingently, according to theirrespectivenaturesandproperregulatingprinciples.TheConfessionalsoteaches,withmorespecial reference tomen’seternaldestinies, “thatasGodhathappointedtheelectuntoglory,sohathHe,bytheeternalandmost freepurpose ofHiswill, foreordained all themeans thereunto.” {And these means, of course, comprehend their faith, conversion,sanctification, and perseverance, - means indispensably necessary inevery instance to the attainment of the end. Now, this doctrine of theforeordinationof themeansaswellas theend-a foreordinationwhichnotonly leavesunimpaired to secondcauses theoperationof theirownpropernature,constitution,andlaws,butpreservesandsecurestheminthepossessionandexerciseofallthese-isnotonlyquiteconsistentwiththe Calvinistic scheme of doctrine, but forms a necessary andindispensablepartofit.Nodoctrinedoesorcanestablishsofirmlyasthistheactualinvariableconnectionbetweenthemeansandtheend;andnodoctrineisfittedtopreserveinthemindsofmensodeepasenseoftherealityandcertaintyofthisconnection.NoCalvinistwhounderstandsthedoctrineheprofessestobelieve,andwhotakesit inandappliesit inallitsextent,canbeinanydangerofneglectingtheuseofmeans,whichhe

knows to be fitting, in their own nature or by God’s appointment, asmeans, for the attainment of an end which he desires to haveaccomplished;becausehemustsee,thattoactinthiswayispracticallytodenyapartofthetruthwhichheprofessestohold,-thatis,todenythatGod has foreordained the means as well as the end, and has thusestablishedacertainandinvariableconnectionbetweenthem.Calvinistsareindangerofbeingtemptedtoactuponthisprinciple,onlywhentheycherish defective and erroneous views of. the doctrines which theyprofesstobelieve;andinlikemannerit isonlyfromthesamedefectiveanderroneousviewsofthetruenatureandthefullimportandbearingofthe Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, that Arminians are led tocharge itwithatendencyto leadmentoneglectordisregard theuseofappropriateorprescribedmeans,inordertotheattainmentofends.

All this is quite clear and certain, and it is perfectly conclusive as ananswer to the objectionwe are considering.But howdo theArminiansdealwiththisanswertotheirobjection?Theycommonly just shut theireyes to theanswer,ordisregardorevade it, andcontinue to repeat theobjection, as if it had not been, and could not be, answered. A veryremarkable and honourable exception to this common policy ofArminiansindealingwiththismatter,hasoccurredinthepresentdayinthecaseofArchbishopWhately.Hehasadmittedthatthewordelection,as used in Scripture, relates in most instances “to an arbitrary,irrespective, unconditional decree;” and he has also admitted that thearguments commonly directed against Calvinism, from its allegedinconsistencywith themoralattributesofGod,ought tobeset asideasinvalid; inasmuchas, inrealityandsubstance, theyaredirectedagainstfactsorresults,whichundoubtedlyoccurunderGod'smoralgovernment,andmust thereforebeequallydealtwithanddisposedofbyallparties.He has made a concession equally important to us, and equallyhonourabletohim,uponthepointwhichweareatpresentconsidering.HehasdistinctlyadmittedthatthecommonallegationoftheArminians-thattheCalvinisticdoctrineofpredestinationoverturnsthenecessityofmeansandefforts,andtherebytendstoleadtoasinful,ortoacarelessand inactive, life - is unfounded; and is, indeed, disproved by theapplicationwhichall intelligentCalvinistsmakeof thisessentialpartoftheirgeneraldoctrine-viz.thatGodhasforeordainedthemeansaswell

as the end, and has thereby established and secured a certain andinvariable connection between them. He has, indeed, coupled thisadmissionwiththeallegationthat,bytheverysameprocessofargumentand exposition by which, as he concedes, Calvinism can be vindicatedfrom the charge of having an immoral or injurious tendency, bydiscouraging the conscientious discharge of duty and the diligentimprovement of means, it can be shown that it admits of no practicalapplication whatever, but is a mere barren, useless speculation. Thisallegationweproposenowtoconsider,andwehope tobeable to showthatitisfoundeduponmisconceptionandfallacy.Butbeforedoingso,itmaybepropertogiveaspecimenortwoofthewayinwhichthetopicwehavebeenconsideringisdealtwithbyArminianswhohavelesssagacityand candour thanDrWhately.We shall take our specimens frommenwho have sounder and more evangelical views of some of thefundamental principles of Christian theology than he has, and fromwhom,therefore,betterthingsmighthavebeenexpected,-JohnWesley,the founderof theMethodists;andRichardWatson,perhaps theablestandmost accomplished theologian that important and useful body hasyetproduced.

Wesley,. certainly,w?asnot a great theologian, and in that character isnotentitledtomuchdeference.Histreatiseon“OriginalSin,”inreplytoDr John Taylor, is perhaps his best theological work, - and it is arespectablespecimenofdoctrinalexpositionanddiscussion.Mostofhisother theological productions are characterized by inadequateinformation,andbyhasty,superficialthinking;andthesequalitiesweremostconspicuouslymanifestedwhenhewasdealingwiththedoctrinesofCalvinism.HisleadingobjectionstoCalvinismhewasaccustomedtoput,compendiouslyandpopularly, in this formatThesumofall this is this:One in twenty,suppose,ofmankindareelected;nineteen in twentyarereprobated. The elect shall be saved, do what they will; the reprobateshallbedamned,dowhattheycan.”

Thefirstpartofthisstatementaboutthecomparativenumberoftheelectandthereprobate,thesavedandthelost,thoughnotverycloselyrelatedto the subject at present under consideration, may be adverted to inpassing,assuggestingatopicwhichArminiansoftenadduceinorderto

excite a prejudice against Calvinism, though it is really altogetherirrelevant.Adogmaticassertionastothecomparativenumbersofthoseofthehumanracewhoaresaved,andofthosewhoperishintheultimateresultofthings,certainlyformsnopartofCalvinism.ThereisnothingtopreventCalvinists, as such, frombelieving that, as the resultofChrist’smediation, a greatmajorityof thedescendantsofAdamshallbe saved;nothing that should require them to deny salvation to any to whomArminianscouldconsistentlyconcedeit.Theactualresultofsalvationinthecaseofaportionofthehumanrace,andofdestructioninthecaseoftherest,isthesameinbothsystems,thoughtheydifferintheexpositionof theprinciplesaccording towhich the result is regulatedandbroughtabout.Insurveyingthepasthistoryoftheworld,orinlookingaroundonthose who now occupy the earth, with the view of forming a sort ofestimateofthefatethathasovertaken,orthatyetawaits,thegenerationsoftheirfellow-men,Calvinistsintroducenootherprinciple,andapplynootherstandard,thanjustthewillofGodplainlyrevealedinHiswordastowhatthosethingsarewhichaccompanysalvation;andconsequently,ifindoingso,theyshouldformadifferentestimateastothecomparativeresult from what Arminians would admit, this could not arise fromanythingpeculiartothemasholdingCalvinisticdoctrines,butonlyfromtheir having formed and applied a higher standard of the personalcharacter, that is, of the holiness andmorality, which are necessary topreparemenforadmissiontoheaven,thantheArminiansarewillingtocountenance.AndyetitisverycommontorepresentCalvinisticdoctrinesas leading, or tending to lead, those who hold them, to consign toeverlasting misery a large portion of the human race whom theArminianswouldadmittotheenjoymentofheaven.

NeitheristhereanythinginCalvinismnecessarilyrequiringorimplyingamore unfavourable view than Arminianism exhibits, of the ultimatedestiny of those of the human racewho die in infancy, without havinggiven any palpablemanifestation of 'moral character. Calvinists believethat no one of the descendants of Adam is saved, unless he has beenchosen of God in Christ before the foundation of the world, redeemedwithChrist’spreciousblood,andregeneratedbythealmightyagencyoftheHolySpirit.AndwhileallCalvinistsholdthatmanyinfants,baptizedandunbaptized,aresavedinthisway,thereisnothingintheirCalvinism

topreventthemfrombelieving,thatallwhodieininfancymayhavebeenelected,andmaybesavedthroughChrist.Theyarenot, indeed,soboldanddogmaticastheiropponents, inpronouncingwhatisorwhatisnotconsistentwith thedivine character in thismatter.They aremore fullyalivetothefairinfluenceoftheconsideration,thatthissubjectis,fromitsvery nature, an inscrutablemystery, and that very little light is thrownupon it by any information given us in Scripture.Upon these grounds,Calvinists have thought it right to abstain from dogmatic deliverancesuponthissubject;butmanyofthemhavebeenofopinionthatthereareindications inScripture, thoughnot very clear or explicit,which favourthe idea, that all dying in infancy are elected and saved, and there isnothingintheirCalvinismtopreventthemfrombelievingthis.

But this topic is only incidental to the statement ofWesley, which weproposed to consider. The main point of it is, that he asserts that theCalvinisticdoctrineofpredestinationnecessarilyimpliesathattheelectshallbesaved,dowhattheywill,andthereprobateshallbedamned,dowhattheycan.”Topladypublishedanexcellentexposureofthisoffensivemisrepresentation, based, of course, upon the principle which we havebeenexplaining, that themeanshavebeenordainedaswellas theend.Wesley attempted to defend himself in a small tract called "TheConsequenceProved,” contained inhis collectedworks. In this tractheundertakestoshowthatthesentencewequotedfromhiminintroducingthistopic“isafairstateofthecase,thisconsequencedoesnaturallyandnecessarily follow from the doctrine of absolute predestination.” Hisdefenceofhimselfjustconsistsofaproof,whichofcoursewasveryeasy,that the Calvinistic doctrine implies, that the end in both cases wasforeordained,andthereforeinfalliblycertain,-ofanassertion,thatfromthisprinciple“thewholeconsequencefollowsclearasthenoondaysun,”f-andofanattempttoexciteodiumagainstthedoctrineofreprobation,byallegingthatitnecessarilyproducedorimpliedaputtingforthofGod’sagency in the actual production of depravity and unbelief in thosewhoperish.Hedoesnotventuretolookevenattheprinciple,thatthemeansare foreordained as well as the end, or attempt to show theinconclusiveness of this principle as an answer to his allegation. Hesimplyrepeatshisallegationwithincreasedaudacity,andassertsthatthe“consequencefollowsclearasthenoondaysun.”Itistruethat,inregard

to the elect, the end is in each case foreordained, and of course theirsalvationisinfalliblysecured.Butitisalsotruethatthisisonlyapartofour doctrine, - that we hold also that themeans are foreordained andsecured aswell as the end, - and that thesemeans, asGod has plainlydeclared,andasallmen,Calvinistsaswellasothers,admitandbelieve,arefaithinChrist,repentanceuntolife,holiness,andperseverance.Godhas justas fullyandcertainlyprovided forsecuring thesemeans,as forsecuringtheultimateendofsalvation,inregardtoeveryoneoftheelect;and has made provision for all this in a way fully accordant with thenature of the subject, - viz. man as he is, with all his capacities andincapacitiesastheyare.Tosupposethatanyelectpersonshould,infact,continuetilltheendofhislife,inastateofungodlinessandunbelief,istosuppose an impossibility. Our opponents have no right to make thissupposition, because our doctrine, when fully apprehended and fairlyapplied, not only does not admit of it, but positively and infalliblyprecludesit,-thatis,demonstratesandestablishesitsimpossibility.Itistruethatallwhoareelectedtoeternallifeshallcertainlybesaved.Butitis also true, and it is equally a part of our doctrine, that all who areelected to eternal life shall certainly repent and believe, and shallcertainlyenteron,andpersevere in,acourseofnewobedience.Wecanthushold,andinentireconsistencywithallourpeculiarprinciples,thatno man shall be saved unless he repent and believe, and unless heperseveretotheendinfaithandholiness.Andinthiswayitismanifestthat - notwithstanding the truth of the doctrine, that all the elect shallinfalliblybesaved,andinperfectconsistencywithit-alltheobligationsincumbentuponmentobelieveandtopersevereinfaithandholiness,-of whatever kind these obligations may be, and from whatever sourcethey may arise, - and the consequent obligations to use all the meanswhich,accordingtoGod’srevealedarrangements,maycontributetotheproductionoftheseintermediateresults,continue,tosaytheleast,whollyunimpaired.

The same principles apply, mutatis mutandis, to the case of thereprobate, thoughhere,aswehaveexplained, thesubject is involved indeeper andmore inscrutablemystery, and the information given us inScripture is much less full and explicit; considerations which havegenerallyledCalviniststotreatofitwithbrevity,caution,andreverence,

while they have too often tempted Arminians to enlarge upon itpresumptuously and offensively. We have already explained thatCalvinistsrepudiatetherepresentationwhichWesleyheregivesof theirdoctrineofreprobation,asimplyingthatGod’sagencyisthepropercauseor source of the depravity and unbelief, on account of which thereprobatearefinallyconsignedtomisery.Theydenythattheyholdthis,andthatanythingtheydoholdcanbeprovednecessarilytoinvolvethisconsequence. Calvinists believe that men in their natural state of guiltanddepravityarenotable,bytheirownstrength,torepentandbelieve;and thatGodbestowsonly on the elect, andnot on the reprobate, thatspecial supernatural gracewhich is necessary, in every instance, to theproduction of faith, holiness, and perseverance. They admit that theycannot give a full and adequate explanation of the consistency of thesedoctrines, withmen’s undoubted and admitted, responsibility for theircharacter and destiny. The doctrines ofmen’s inability in their naturalconditiontorepentandbelieve,andofthenonbestowaluponallmenofthe supernatural gracewhich is necessary to enable them to do so, arejuststatementsofmattersoffactastowhatmanis,andastowhatGoddoes,andcanbefullyprovedtobetrueandrealbothfromScriptureandobservation;anditisnotasufficientreasonforrejectingthesedoctrinesor facts, which can be satisfactorily established by their appropriateevidence,thatwecannotfullyexplainhowtheyaretobereconciledwiththedoctrineorfactofman’sresponsibility.Allthatislogicallyincumbentupon us in these circumstances is just to prove, that the allegedinconsistency cannot be clearly and conclusively established; and thisCalvinists undertake to do. And this being assumed, all that is furthernecessary inorder toanswer theArminianobjection, -asdirected evenagainstthismostprofoundandmysteriousdepartmentofthesubject,-istoshow,ascanbeeasilydoneupontheprinciplesalreadyexplained,thatwhile men are responsible for not repenting and believing, there isnothinginourCalvinisticprincipleswhichprecludesusfrommaintainingthateverymanwhorepentsandbelievesshallcertainlybesaved.

So far then from Wesley’s assertion, that the Calvinistic doctrine ofpredestinationnecessarilyimpliesthat“theelectshallbesaved,dowhattheywill,andthereprobateshallbedamned,dowhattheycan,”giving“afair state of the case,” it is evident that we can maintain, in full

consistencywithall ourpeculiarprinciples, thatnoman shall be savedunless he repent and believe, and persevere to the end in faith andholiness;andthateverymanwhodoessoshallcertainlybeadmittedtotheenjoymentofeternallife.

The other instance we have to adduce, of an evasion of the fairapplicationofthedoctrine,thatthemeansareforeordainedaswellastheend, is connected, notwith predestination, as bearingupon the eternaldestiniesofman,hurtwiththewidersubjectoftheforeordinationofallevents, - of “whatsoever cometh to pass - and it is taken fromRichardWatson,thegreattheologianof theWesleyanMethodists.Itoccurs inareview, contained in the seventh volume of the collected edition of hisworks, of a volume of sermons by Dr Chalmers, published originallyunder the title “Sermonspreached inSt John’s Church,Glasgow.” Thisvolume of sermons contains a masterly discourse upon Acts xxvii. 31,“Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, Except these abide in theship, ye cannot be saved;” andMr.Watson’s review is chiefly occupiedwith an attempt to answer it. Dr Chalmers’ discourse is virtually anexposition and defence of the Calvinistic doctrine, that God hathunchangeably foreordainedwhatsoever comes to pass. It is based uponthe assumption that the ultimate result in this matter, viz. thepreservationofthewholeship’scompany,hadbeenabsolutelypredictedand promised byGod to the apostle, and, of course, was infallibly andinfrustrablycertain;and it ismainlyoccupiedwithanexpositionof thegroundswhichbringouttheconsistencyof theabsolutecertaintyof theresult with the conditionality, contingency, or uncertainty which mayseemtobeimpliedintheapostle’sstatement,thatthisresultcouldnotbeeffected, unless another event, dependent apparently upon the freeagencyofresponsiblebeings,viz.thecontinuanceofthecrewintheship,had previously taken place. The apparent inconsistency of theabsolutenessandunconditionalityofthefinalresult-decreed,predicted,promised - with the seeming contingency or uncertainty of theintermediatestep-thecontinuanceofthecrewintheship-isexplained,ofcourse,bytheapplicationoftheprinciple,thatGodhadforeordainedthemeansaswellastheend;hadforeordained,andmadeprovisionforcertainlyeffectingorbringingabout, thecontinuanceof thecrew in theship,aswellastheultimatepreservationofallwhowereonboard.There

was then no strict and proper conditionality - no real and ultimatecontingencyoruncertainty-attachingtothisintermediateevent.Itwas,equallywiththeultimateresult,comprehendedinGod’splanorpurpose;andequallycertainprovision,adaptedto thenatureof thecaseandtheposition and relations of all the parties concerned, had beenmade forsecuring that it should come to pass. The hypothetical or conditionalstatementof theapostledoesnotnecessarily implymorethanthis, thatan indissolubleconnectionhadbeenestablished,anddid reallysubsist,betweenthetwoevents, theoneasameansandtheotherasanend. Ifthis connection really subsisted in God’s purpose and plan, then theapostle’s hypothetical statement was true; while it did not imply orassume real or actual uncertainty as attaching to either event, andwasindeed fitted and intended, in accordance with the natural andappropriateoperationofsecondcauses,tocontributetobringabouttheresultwhichGodhad resolved should come to pass. Thewhole historythen of this matter, and all the different statements put on recordregarding it, are fully explained by the doctrine, that the means areforeordained as well as the end; while in their turn they confirm andillustrate that doctrine, and confirm and illustrate also the principleformerly explained, which may be regarded as an expansion andapplication of that doctrine, - viz. that “although in relation to theforeknowledgeanddecreeofGod,thefirstcause,allthingscometopassimmutablyandinfallibly,yetbythesameprovidenceHeordereththemto fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily,freely,orcontingently.”

The apostle’s hypothetical or conditional statement here is to beexplainedanddefendedintheverysamewayassuchstatementsasthese,- “Except ye repent, ye shall perish;” “Whosoever believeth shall besaved.”Thesestatementsarevirtuallyhypotheticalorconditionalintheirform; they assert an invariable connection between themeans and theend,and theexistenceof this connection is sufficient to show that theyare true and warrantable. The statements being thus true andwarrantable in themselves,are fitted to leadmenwhodesire theendtoadoptthemeanswithoutwhichitcannotbeattained;whiletheyarenotinthe least inconsistentwiththedoctrine-restinguponitsownproperscriptural grounds - that God alone can produce faith and repentance,

andthatHe.certainlyandinfalliblybestowsthemonallwhomHehathchosentosalvation.

This is the substance of the common Calvinistic argument; and it isbrought out by Dr Chalmers in this sermon in a very powerful andimpressive way. How is it met by Mr. Watson? He first of all tries tothrow doubt upon the import and bearing of God’s declaration to theapostle,ofHispurposeorresolutiontosavethelivesofallwhowereintheship.Hesays,“Thedeclarationwasnotthatofapurpose,inthesenseofadecree,atall,butofapromise.”Butthisisreallynothingbetterthana quibble. God had said to the apostle, “There shall be no loss of anyman’s life among you, but of the ship.” Thiswas both a purpose and apromise,-itwastheonejustasmuchastheother;anditmightalsoberegardedasaprediction,forapredictionisjustarevelationofapurposewhichGodhasformedinregardtoathingyetfuture.ThewordsplainlyimportadeclarationofanabsoluteandunconditionalpurposeofGod,-anexplicitpredictionandpromiseofadefiniteeventascertainlyfuture,asinfalliblyandinevitablytotakeplace.Andthisissoclearandcertain,thatitmustbetakenasafixedprincipleintheinterpretationofthewholenarrative. Nothing must be admitted which contradicts this; andeverything must, if possible, be so explained as to accord with it. Mr.Watsonventures to say, that thehistory shows that theapostledidnotunderstand this as an absolute purpose on God’s part; for, “if he had,there was no motive to induce him to oppose the going away of themariners in the boat.” This is amelancholy specimenofwhat able andupright men are sometimes tempted to do by the exigencies ofcontroversy.Thattheapostlebelieved,uponGod’sauthority,thatitwasHisabsolute, irrevocable,andinfrustrablepurpose,thattherewastobenolossoflife,ismadeasclearandcertainaswordscanmakeanything.Hehadalsobeen told,upon the same infallible authority, that itwasapartofGod’splanthatthecrewweretocontinueintheship;notasifthiswere a condition on which the ultimate result was really and properlysuspended, but as an intermediate step, through means of which thatresult was to be brought about. He knew that this mean had beenforeordained aswell as that end; and that thus a necessary connectionhadbeenestablisheddefactobetweenthem.Thisisallthatisnecessarilyimpliedinthishypotheticalstatement,“Excepttheseabideintheship,ye

cannot be saved;” and he was guided to put the matter in this form,because this was the provision best fitted in itself, and was alsoforeordainedinGod’spurpose,forbringingaboutthisintermediateeventas a mean, and thereby effecting the end. Mr. Watson holds that thecontinuanceofthecrewintheshipwasaconditiononwhichtheresultofthe preservation of the lives of all was, strictly and properly speaking,suspended; and infers from this that there was no absolute purpose tosavethem.Thattherewasanabsolutepurposetosavethem,is,tosaytheleast, muchmore clear and certain than that there was any condition,strictly and properly so called, upon which the accomplishment of theresultwassuspended.And,independentlyofthis,hisargumentisamerequibbleonthemeaningofthewordcondition.Hejustasserts,overandoveragain,thatanabsolutepurposeisanunconditionalpurposeassumesthat a condition is something on which the result purposed orcontemplatedisreallysuspended;andtheninfersthat,whereverthereisaconditionattached,therecanbenoabsolutepurpose.Thisishiswholeargument;anditisreallynothingbetterthanaquibble,combinedwitharesolute determination to refuse to look at the explanations andarguments which Calvinists have brought forward in expounding anddefendingtheirviewsuponthissubject.

Calvinistsadmitthattheterms“absolute”and“conditional,”asappliedtothe divine decrees, are contradictory, or exclusive the one of the other;and that absolute and unconditional, in this application of them, aresynonymous.Buttheydenythatthereareanydivinedecreesorpurposes,oranypredictionsorpromises,whichcan, instrictproprietyofspeech,becalledconditional;whiletheyadmitthattherearesensesinwhichtheword“condition”maybelooselyandimproperlyappliedtothem.Thereare few words, indeed, which admit of, and have been employed in, agreatervarietyofsensesandapplications,thantheword“condition.”Somuch is this the case, that Dr. Owen, in treating of the subject of thealleged conditions of justification, lays it down, as a sort of canon oraxiom,“Wecannotobtainadeterminatesenseofthiswordcondition,butfrom a particular declaration of what is intended by it wherever it isused.” Accordingly, the exposition of the ambiguity of this word“condition,”withanexactspecificationofthedifferentsensesinwhichitmay be and has been employed, - in relation to the divine purposes,

predictions, and promises, - forms one of the best known and mostimportant commonplaces in this controversy, and has been fully andlargely handled by all the leading Calvinistic divines. But all this Mr.Watson resolutely ignores. He just assumes that a condition is acondition, as if it had only one meaning or signification; and as theapostle’s statement plainly implies, that in some sense or other thecontinuance of the crew in the shipmight be called a condition of theresultofsavingthelivesofall,andasCalvinistsadmitthis,heinfersthat,asanabsoluteandaconditionalpurposearecontradictories,Godcouldnot have formed and declared an absolute purpose in thematter; andthat, of course, notwithstanding anything which He had eitherforeordainedorforeseen,thecrewmighthavesucceededintheirpurposeofleavingtheship,andthushavefrustratedthepurpose,andpreventedtheresult,whichtheapostle,speakinginGod’sname,hadabsolutelyandunconditionallypredicted.Calvinistsdonotdenythatthereisalooseandimpropersenseinwhichthecontinuanceofthecrewintheshipmightbecalledaconditionofthesavingofthelivesofallonboard;inasmuchasitwasGod’spurposeorplan that theoneevent shouldprecede,andbeamean of bringing about, the other, - an indissoluble connection beingthusestablishedandsecuredbetweenthem.But theydeny that theonewasaconditionoftheother,inthestrictandpropersenseofthatword.Torepresentitasacondition,strictlyandproperlysocalled,impliesnotmerely that the ultimate result was suspended upon it, - for this, in asense, might be said to be true, in virtue of the connection de factoestablishedbetweenthemasmeansandend, -butalso, thatGodcouldnotmake,orat leasthadnotmade,anycertainandeffectualprovisionforbringingitabout;sothatthefirstevent,andofcoursethesecondalso,was left inapositionofabsolutecontingencyoruncertainty,dependentfor its coming intoexistenceuponcausesor influencesoverwhichGodcouldnot,oratleastdidnot,exertanyeffectualcontrol.Itisonlywhenthewordacondition”istakeninthis,itsstrictandpropersense,thatanabsoluteandaconditionalpurposearecontradictories;andinthissenseCalvinistsdenythataconditionalpurposewaseverformedinthedivinemind,orwaseverembodiedinadivinepredictionorpromise.Thereareno conditions, properly so called, attaching to the divine purposes,predictions, and promises. God has, absolutely and unconditionally,foreordained certain ends or ultimate results; and He has, with equal

absolutenessandunconditionality,foreordainedthemeans- that is, theintermediatestepsorstages-bywhichtheyaretobebroughtabout.Andtheconditionalorhypothetical form inwhichpredictionsandpromisesare often put in Scripture, simply implies the existence of a de factoconnection, or interdependence of events, as means and end; and isintendedtooperateuponmen’sminds inthewayofbringingabouttheaccomplishmentof ends,by leading to theuseand improvementof thenatural,ordinary,andappropriatemeans.

Mr. Watson refers to the great principle by which we answer theArminian objection about the practical application of the Calvinisticdoctrineofpredestination,-viz.thatGod.hasforeordained,themeansaswell as the end.; but he does somerely for the purpose of throwing itasideasirrelevantandfallacious.Hedoesnotventuretolookitfairlyinthe face, or to realize its true import and bearing. He does not evenattempttopointouteitheritsfallacyoritsirrelevancy.Hedisposesofitjust by repeating his favourite axiom, - which is really the sum andsubstance of all that he has been able to produce upon this importantdepartment of the argument, - “It follows, if the predestination beabsolute, that thereareno conditionsat all,” - apositionwhichwecanadmittobetrueasitstands,buttheambiguityandfutilityofwhich,initsbearinguponthisbranchofthecontroversy,wethinkwehavesufficientlyestablished.

Thediscussions inwhichwehavebeen engagedmay serve to illustratethe unfairness often practised by Arminians in basing their objectionsupondefectiveanderroneousnotionsoftherealdoctrinesofCalvinism;andmaybeuseful,also,inremindingCalvinistsoftheimportance,withaviewatoncetothedefenceoftruthagainstopponents,andthepersonalapplication of it in their own case, of seeking to form full andcomprehensiveviewsofthewholesystemofChristiandoctrine,andofitsdifferentpartsinalltheirbearingsandrelations.

The misrepresentations and evasions which we have pointed out inWesley and Watson, are fair specimens of what is to be found in thegeneralityofArminianwriters,intreatingofthissubject;anditissurelynotwonderfulthatthepenetrationandsagacityofArchbishopWhately-thoughhimselfanArminian-shouldhaveenabledhimtoperceive,and

thathiscandourandcourageshouldhaveledhimtoproclaim,thefollyandfutilityofall this.Hehas,aswehaveexplained,distinctlyandfullyadmittedthatthedoctrinethatGodhasforeordainedthemeansaswellas the end, and has thereby established a certain and indissolubleconnection between them, as expounded and applied by Calvinisticdivines, furnishes a conclusive answer to the common allegation, thatCalvinismisinjuriousinitsmoralbearingandtendency,byleadingmentoneglectthedischargeofdutiesandtheuseandimprovementofmeans.The Calvinistic argument, indeed, upon this point, is so clear andconclusive,thatthewonderisnotthatWhatelyshouldhaveadmittedittobe satisfactory, but that Wesley, Watson, and Arminians in generalshouldhavedeniedit.Theadmission,however,isnotthelesshonourabletoWhately’s sagacityandcandour;because, so far aswe remember,hewas the first Arminian who fully and openly made this importantconcession. If we could have believed that Whately’s example, on thispoint,wouldhavebeenfollowedbyArminians,andthattheywouldhaveadmitted,ashehasdone,thatthecommonallegationabouttheinjuriousmoral bearing of Calvinism is answered or neutralized by a fairapplication of thewhole ofwhat Calvinists teach upon this subject, wewouldscarcelyhavetakenthetroubletoexposethestatementsofWesleyandWatson.Butthewholehistoryoftheologicalcontroversypreventsusfrom cherishing this expectation, and constrains us to fear that thegeneralityofArminianwriterswillcontinuetoreiteratetheoldobjection,andtodisregardorevadetheconclusiveanswerwhichhasbeensooftengiventoit.

Whately, as we have stated, while admitting that Calvinism can besuccessfully vindicated from the charge of having an injurious moraltendency,maintainsthat,bythesameprocessbywhichthisallegationisrefuted, it can be proved that our doctrine has no practical bearing oreffectwhatever,but isaperfectlyuseless,barrenspeculation.Hisviewsuponthispointarebroughtoutinthisway:“Itmaybeadmittedthatonewho does practically adopt and conform to this explanation of thedoctrine,willnotbeledintoanyevilbyit,sincehisconductw~illnotbeinany respect influencedby it.When thusexplained, it is reduced to apurely speculative dogma, barren of all practical results.” “It is notcontended that the doctrines in question have a hurtful influence on

human conduct, and consequently are untrue, but that they have,according to the soundest exposition of them, no influence on ourconduct whatever, and consequently (revelation not being designed toimpart mere speculative knowledge) that they are not to be taught asrevealedtruths.”“Thedoctrineis,ifrightlyviewed,ofapurelyspeculativecharacter,not6belongingtous’practically,andwhichoughtnot,atleast,in any way to influence our conduct.” “Taking the system, then, asexpounded by its soundest advocates, it is impossible to show any onepoint in which a person is called upon either to act or to feel in anyrespectdifferently inconsequenceofhisadopting it.” “Thepreacher, inshort,istoactinallrespectsasifthesystemwerenottrue.”Thegeneralprincipleherelaiddown,ofjudgingwhetheradoctrineberevealedornotbyanapplicationof thetestwhether itbemerelyspeculative,orhaveapractical bearing upon conduct, is a very unsound and dangerous one.Eventhoughweweretoconcedethetruthofhisabstractposition,thatetrevelation is not designed to impart mere speculative knowledge,” - aposition which is obscure and ambiguous, and the truth of which,consequently, is at least very doubtful, - we would still dispute thesoundnessandvalidityof theapplicationhemakesof it asa test. IfwehavearevelationfromGod,surelytherightandreasonablecourseis,thatwe should do our utmost to ascertain correctly the whole of what itteaches upon every subject which it brings before us; assured that,whateveritreveals,itisincumbentuponustobelieveandproclaim,and,insomewayorother,usefulorbeneficialforustoknow.Andiftherebefairgroundforbelieving that, insomesenseorother, “revelation isnotdesigned to impart to usmere speculative knowledge,” thenwe shoulddrawfromthistheinference,thatthedoctrinewhichwehaveascertainedtoberevealed isnotmerelyspeculative,buthas -moreor lessdirectly,and more or less obviously - some practical bearing or tendency. Thesoundnessofthisgeneral inferenceisnot intheleast invalidatedbythedifficultywemay feel, in particular instances, in pointing out any verydirect or obvious practical application of which a doctrine admits.Revelationwasundoubtedlyintendedtoconveytouswhatmaybecalledspeculativeortheoreticalknowledge;andthoughitmaybeadmittedthatthe general and ultimate bearing and tendency of the whole system ofrevealeddoctrineistotellpracticallyuponcharacterandconduct,itdoesnotfollowthateveryparticulardoctrinemusthaveadirect,andstillless

anobvious,practicalapplication.Somedoctrinesmayhavebeenrevealedto us chiefly, or even solely, for the purpose of completing the generalsystemofdoctrinewhichGod intended to teachus, andof aidingus informingmoreclearandenlargedconceptionsofotherdoctrinesofmorefundamental importance, without having by themselves any direct andimmediatepracticalbearing.

SuchdoctrinesmightwithsomeplausibilityberankedundertheheadofwhatWhatelycalls“merespeculativeknowledgeandyetthereisplainlynogroundforregardingthisasaproof,orevenapresumption,thattheyhave not been revealed, - if there be adequate ground, on a carefulexamination of the statements of Scripture, for believing that they aretaughtorindicatedthere.Tosetupournotionsorimpressionsuponthequestion, whether a particular doctrine, alleged to be revealed inScripture,ispurelyspeculativeorhasapracticalinfluenceuponconduct,as furnishing anything like a test of the sufficiency of its scripturalevidence, isnothingbetterthanpresumptuousrationalism,andis fittedto undermine the supreme authority and the right application ofScripture as the infallible standard of truth. Dr. Whately, to do himjustice,hasexhibitedagooddealofobscurityandconfusionintreatingofthispoint.Hesays:“IhavewaivedthequestionastothetruthorfalsityoftheCalvinisticdoctrineofelection,inquiringonlywhetheritberevealed;”andthenhegoesontoassert,that“oneofthereasonsfordecidingthatquestion in thenegative” is, that “thedoctrine is, if rightly viewed,ofapurelyspeculativecharacter;”andagain,“Ipurposelyabstainthroughoutfromenteringonthequestionastowhatisabsolutelytrue,inquiringonlywhatisorisnottobereceivedandtaughtasaportionofrevealedgospeltruth.” Now we may surely assume that whatever is really taught inScriptureistobereceivedas“revealedgospeltruth;”andifso,thenthisforced and arbitrary distinction between the absolute truth of theCalvinisticdoctrine,anditsclaimasarevealedtruth,entirelydisappears.Thewholequestionresolvesintothis,WhatsaiththeScripture1andthisquestion must be determined upon its own proper grounds. If theScripture sanctions the Calvinistic doctrine of election, then thisestablishes both its absolute truth and its position and claims as arevealed truth. If theScripturedoesnot sanction it, then it isnot tobereceived either as true or as revealed; for Calvinists,whilemaintaining

that the fundamental principles of their system derive support andconfirmationfromthedoctrinesofnaturaltheology,haveneverimaginedthattheirdoctrineofelection,withallthatitnecessarilyimplies,couldbeconclusivelyprovedtobetrue,exceptfromthetestimonyofrevelation.Itwouldalmostseem(forthisisreallytheonlysuppositionwhichcangiveanythinglikeclearnessorconsistencytohisstatement)thathehadasortofvaguenotion-akindoflurkingsuspicion-thattheCalvinisticdoctrineof election, though not revealed in Scripture, might or could beestablishedbyevidence derived from some other source,might be truethough not revealed. But this is a position which probably he will notventureopenlytoassume;and,therefore,wemustcontinuetoadheretotheconviction,thathisstatementsuponthissubjectarecharacterizedbyobscurityandconfusion.

We have thought it proper to animadvert upon the fallacious anddangerous notionswhich seem to be involved inDr.Whately’s generalviewsuponthesubjectofapplyingthepracticalinfluenceofdoctrinesasatest,notofwhethertheyaretrue,butofwhethertheyarerevealed.Butwe have no hesitation in denying his more specific position, that theCalvinisticdoctrineof election,when soexpoundedas to stand clearofany injurious tendency,hasnopracticalbearingoreffect,but isamereuseless,barrenspeculation.Allthathasbeenorcanbeproveduponthispoint is simply this, that the practical application of the Calvinisticdoctrine does not extend over so wide a sphere, and does not bear sodirectly upon certain topics, as has sometimes been alleged both by itssupportersanditsopponents.

The alleged practical tendencies and effects of Calvinism have always,entered very largely into the discussion of this whole controversy.ObjectionstothetruthofCalvinismonthegroundofitspracticalmoraltendency, very obviously suggest themselves tomen’sminds, and carrywiththemaconsiderablemeasureofplausibility;andmenprofessingtobelieveCalvinisticdoctrineshaveoccasionallyspokenandactedinsuchaway as to afford some countenance to these objections of opponents.Consideringtheobviousnessandtheplausibilityoftheseobjections,andthe prominent place they have usually occupied in the writings ofArminians,itisofgreatimportancethatwehaveitnowconcededbyso

ableanopponentasWhately,thattheyareutterlybaseless.Indiscussingthis subject of the practical tendency of their system, Calvinists haveacted chiefly upon the defensive. They have usually contentedthemselves, in a great measure, with repelling these objections, andproving that they are destitute of all solid foundation; and havingaccomplishedthis,theyhavethenfallenbackagainuponthedirectandpositivescripturalproofoftheirdoctrineasestablishingatonceitstruth,its importance, and its practical usefulness. The two principal rules bywhichweoughttobeguidedindiscussingthisbranchofthesubject,bothwithaviewtothedefenceofourdoctrineagainstopponents,andalsotothe discharge of the duty of making ourselves a right and profitableapplicationof it,are these: -1st,That thewholeof thedoctrine,andallthat itnecessarily involves,be fairlyand fully taken intoaccount,andadueapplicationmadeof everypartof it; andespecially that itneverbeforgotten that God’s decrees and purposes, in reference to the eternaldestiniesofmen, comprehendor include themeansaswell as theend,andthusprovideforandsecureaninvariableconnectioninfactbetweenthemeansandtheend-aconnectionwhichisnot,andcannotbe,inanyinstancedissolved;and2d,Thatwefullyandfreelyadmit,andapplyatthesametime,allotherdoctrinesandprincipleswhichareestablishedbysatisfactoryscripturalevidence,eventhoughwemaynotbeablefullytoexplain how they can be shown to be consistent with the peculiardoctrinesofoursystem.Acarefulattentiontothesetworuleswillenableuseasilyandconclusivelytorepeltheobjectionsofouropponents;andatthe same timewill effectually preserve us from falling into any seriouserror, in our own personal practical application of the doctrines weprofesstobelieve.

Thisisquitesufficientforallmerelycontroversialpurposes.Butitisdueto Dr. Whately, who has shown so much candour and fairness inadmitting the insufficiency of several arguments generally employedbythe Arminians, to advert somewhatmore particularly to his allegation,that the Calvinistic doctrine of election, though admitted to be, whenrightly and fully explained, harmless and unobjectionable, is shown bythe same process to be a mere barren, useless speculation, having nopractical influence whatever; or, as he puts it, that “it is impossible toshowanyonepoint inwhichaperson is calleduponeither toactor to

feel in any respect differently in consequence of his adopting it.”Calvinists do not profess to foundmuch upon the practical applicationwhichmaybemadeof theirdoctrineofelection,asaffordingapositiveargument in support of it. They areusually satisfiedwithproving fromScripturethatitistrue;thatitisrevealedthereasanobjectoffaith;andthat,withrespecttoitspracticalapplication,itcanbeshowntobeliableto no serious or solid objection. They admit that it is not fitted orintended to exert so comprehensive and so direct an influence uponcharacter and conduct, as the great fundamental doctrines revealed inScriptureconcerningtheguiltanddepravityofmenintheirnaturalstate,thepersonandworkoftheRedeemer,andtheagencyoftheHolySpirit;and therefore should not hold so prominent a place as these in theordinary course of public instruction.But theydeny that it is a barren,useless speculation. Theymaintain that it has an appropriate practicalinfluence,initsownproperplaceandsphere;andthatthisinfluence,initsowndepartment,andwheneveritcomeslegitimatelyintooperation,ismost wholesome and beneficial. There are, as all intelligent Calvinistsadmit, important departments of the duties imposed upon us byScripture, - important steps which men must take in order to thesalvationoftheirsouls,-onwhichtheCalvinisticdoctrineofelectionhasnodirectpracticalbearing.Itisuponaperversionorexaggerationofthisfact, admitted by us, that thewhole plausibility ofWhately’s allegationrests;anditwillbeasufficientanswertothesubstanceofhisstatementsuponthissubject,andmayatthesametimeserveotherusefulpurposes,if-whileindicatinghowfarandinwhatsensehisallegationistrue-webriefly point out some legitimate practical applications of this doctrine,which are peculiar to it, and which cannot be derived from any othersource. Indoing so,we shall restrict our attention, asWhatelydoes, tothesubjectofpredestinationin itsbearingupontheeternaldestiniesofmen, without including the more comprehensive subject of theforeordination of whatsoever comes to pass; and shall of course nowassume that theCalvinistic doctrine is true, and is held intelligently bythosewhoprofesstobelieveit.WehopetobeabletoshowthatWhately’serroruponthispointistraceableprincipallytothis,thathehasnotheremadethesamefullandcandidestimate,asinsomeotherbranchesoftheargument, of thewhole ofwhatCalvinists usually adduce in explainingthepracticalapplicationoftheirdoctrine,andconfineshisobservationto

someofthefeaturesofthesubject,andthesenotthemostimportantandpeculiar.

TheCalvinisticdoctrineofpredestinationcastsimportantlightuponthecharacter andmoral governmentofGod, aknowledge ofwhichmaybesaidtobethefoundationofallreligion.GodmakeshimselfknowntousbyallthatHedoes,andbyallthatHepermitstotakeplace;andifitbetruethatHehasfrometernityformedcertaindecreesandpurposeswithregardtotheeverlastingdestiniesofmen,andisexecutingthesedecreesorpurposes intime,and ifHehasmadeknowntous thatHehasdoneandisdoingso,thismust,fromthenatureofthecase,affordimportantmaterials for knowing Him, and for understanding the principles thatregulate His dealings with His creatures. Whatever He does or haspurposedtodo,mustbeinentireaccordancewithalltheattributesandperfections of His nature, and is thus fitted to afford us materials forformingrightapprehensionsof their truebearingand results.Wemustform no conceptions of the supposed holiness, justice, or goodness ofGod,orofthewayandmannerinwhichtheseattributeswouldleadHimto act, inconsistent with whatHe has done or purposed to do. On thecontrary,wemustemployallthatweknowconcerningHisproceduretoregulateourviewsofHisattributesandcharacter.Itisverycommonformen,especially thosewhoreject thedoctrinesofCalvinism, to frametothemselves certain conceptions of the divine attributes, and then todeducefromthemcertainnotionsastowhatGodmustdoorcannotdo.Butthismodeofreasoningisunphilosophicalanddangerous,unsuitedtoourpowersandcapacities,whichmanifestlyrequireofusthatweshouldadoptanoppositecourseofprocedure,andformourconceptionsof thedivineattributesfromwhatweknowofthedivinepurposesandactions;and at least admit nothing into our conceptions of God’s character,inconsistentwithwhatweknowthatHehasdoneorhaspurposed.Thedoctrineofpredestinationistoberegardedasservingapurpose,inthisrespect,analogousto thatof the fallof theangels,-aneventwhichhasoccurredunderGod’smoralgovernment,andisfittedtothrowimportantlight uponHis character. The fact revealed to us, that some angels fellfrom their first estate, and that all who fell were left to perishirremediably, without any provision having been made for restoringthem, or any opportunity of repentance having been allowed to them,

refutessomeoftheconceptionswhichmenareapttoforminregardtothedivinecharacter;anditshouldberememberedandappliedinthewayofleadingustoformjusterconceptionsuponthissubjectthangenerallyobtainamongus.Thefactthat,fromtheraceofman,-allofthemequallyfallenandinvolvedinguiltanddepravity,-GodofHisgoodpleasurehaspredestinated somemen to everlasting life, and passed by the rest andleft themtoperish in theirsins, suggestsnothingconcerningthedivinecharacterinconsistentwithwhatis indicatedbythehistoryof thefallenangels;butwhile,insofarasconcernsthosemenwhoperish,itconfirmsall theviewsofGodwhichthehistoryof the fallenangelssuggests,andwhichweareusuallymostunwillingtoreceive,itsupplies,inthepurposeto save some men with an everlasting salvation, a new and mostimpressivemanifestationofthedivinecharacterandmoralgovernment,whichcouldnot,sofaraswecansee,havebeenfurnished inanyotherway. It is important then that we should realize what the Calvinisticdoctrine of predestination, as a general truth revealed in Scripture,representsGodashavingpurposedfrometernity,bothinregardtothosewhoaresavedandthosewhoperish;andthatweshouldapplythis,asagreat reality, in forming our conceptions of God’s character andmoralgovernment,thatthuswemayknowHimasfullyasHehasmadehimselfknown to us; and may be enabled to glorify Him, by cherishing andexpressingemotions,correspondingineveryrespecttoalltheperfectionswhichHepossesses,andtoalltheprincipleswhichactuallyregulateHisdealingswithHiscreatures.

Dr. Whately might probably call this 66 mere speculative knowledge.”But this would be an abuse of language; for it is certain that all theknowledgewhichGodhasbeenpleasedtocommunicatetousconcerninghimself, concerning the perfections ofHis nature and the principles ofHismoral government, is both fitted and intended to exert a practicalinfluenceuponthefeelingsandconductofmen.

ButwhileitisthusplainthattheCalvinisticdoctrineofpredestination-contemplatedsimplyasatruthaboutGodrevealedinScripture-isfittedtoexertageneralpractical influenceuponmen’sviewsand feelings,wehavefurthertoinquire,whethertherebeanydirectpersonalapplicationwhichmen can legitimatelymake of it, in its bearing upon themselves

singlyandindividually.Anduponthisquestion,thesubstanceofwhatwebelieve to be true is this, - 1st, Thatmen cannot legitimatelymake anydirect personal application of this doctrine to themselves individually,unless and until they have good reason to believe that they themselvesindividuallyhavebeenelectedtoeternallife,-thatis,ofcourse(forthereisnootherwayofascertainingthis),goodreasontobelievethattheyhavebeenenabledtoreceiveandsubmit toChristas theirSaviour,andhavebeen born again ofHis word and Spirit; and 2d, That whenmen havecome to believe, upon good grounds, that they have been elected, thepersonalpractical applicationof thedoctrine ismost obvious andmostwholesome.

Men cannot make any direct personal application of the doctrine ofpredestination to themselves individually, so long as they continue intheir natural state of guilt and estrangement fromGod, andwhile theyhave not yet embraced the offers and invitations of the gospel andentered the service of Christ; and therefore, with reference to all thedutiesandobligationsattachingtothisconditionofthings,thedoctrineisnottobetakenintoaccount,ortoexertanydirectpracticalinfluence.Weadmit, nay, we contend, that this doctrine has no immediate practicalbearing upon the process of setting before sinners, and urging uponthem, the commands and invitations addressed to them in connectionwiththeschemeofsalvation,orontherightregulationoftheirconductindealingwiththesecommandsandinvitations.Thisarisesmanifestlyfromthe very nature of the case. Preachers of the gospel are not onlywarrantedbutboundtoaddresstheoffersandinvitationsofGod’swordtomen indiscriminately,without distinction and exception; and havingGod’s sanction and command for this, they should do”it withouthesitationandwithout restriction.Goddoes this, in order thatHemaytherebyexecute thepurposewhichHe formed frometernityconcerningthe everlasting destinies ofmen; and thatHemay do so in accordancewiththeprinciplesofman’smoralconstitution,andwithallhiscapacitiesandresponsibilities;andministersarebound todo this inGod’sname,just because He requires it at their hands. Those who have not yetsubmitted to, or complied with, the commands and invitations of thegospel, cannot, in their present state, - though they may know, andprofess to believe, the general doctrine of predestination as a part of

God’srevealedtruth,-knowanythingwhateverbearinginanywayuponthequestion,whethertheythemselves individuallyhavebeenelectedornot;andthereforetheyhavenorighttotakeanyopinionor impressionupon this point into account, in dealing with the commands andinvitationswhichareaddressedtothem.Astheycanknownothingaboutit, they should in the meantime leave it out of view, and give it nopractical weight or effect whatever. The general doctrine ofpredestination- thetruththatGodhaschosensomementoeverlastinglife,andhasresolved topassby the restand to leave themtoperish intheirsins-istaughtinScripture;andthereforeallwhohaveaccesstotheBibleoughttobelieveit.Butmenaretoapplyandtoactupononlywhatthey do know; and as, at the time when they are in the condition ofconsideringhowtheyshoulddealwiththecommandsandinvitationsofthegospel,addressedtothemandpresseduponthem,theycannotknowwhethertheythemselveshavebeenelectedornot,theyarenotatlibertyto takeeither an affirmative or a negative opinion upon this point intoaccount,and toactupon it asa reality -asa thingknown.Thegeneraltruth, that God has elected some and passed by others, - which is thewholeofthedoctrineofpredestinationastaughtinScripture,-doesnotfurnish anymaterialswhatever for practically influencing their conductintheirpresentcircumstances,orwithreferencetothepointwhichtheyhaveatpresentunder consideration, andwithwhich theyareboundtodeal; and therefore their duty, in right reason, is just to abstain fromapplying it to theparticularmatter onhand, and toproceedat once toobeythecommandandtoacceptoftheinvitationaddressedtothem.Anyothercourseofprocedure,inthecircumstancesismanifestlyirrational,asresting upon no actual ground of knowledge; and as the doctrine ofpredestinationtaughtinScripturedoesnotrationallyproduce,ortendtoproduce,ahesitationorarefusaltoacceptoftheoffersandinvitationsofthegospel,soitisinnowaylegitimatelyresponsibleforthisresultinanyinstanceinwhichitmayhavebeenexhibited.

All this is abundantly evident; and though denied by most Arminians,who would fain represent the doctrine of predestination as throwingrational and legitimate obstacles in the way of men receiving andsubmittingtothegospel,itisadmittedbyDr.Whately,whomakesitanobjection to our doctrine, that “the preacher” (and, of course, also the

hearer)“istoactinallrespectsasifthesystemwerenottrue.”Thisisnotacorrectrepresentationofthestateofthecase.Thepreacherisboundtostate thewhole truthofGod, as it is revealed inHisword; and tourgeuponeverymantoapplyeverytruthaccordingtoitstruenatureandrealimport,viewedinconnectionwithhisactualcircumstances.Thedoctrineofpredestination,aswehaveseen,castsmuch lightupon thecharacterandmoral governmentofGod;and itmustalwaysbeamatterofgreatpractical importance, that men have full and correct views andimpressions upon these points. Whenever they have learned thisdoctrine, theyareboundtoapply it,accordingto its truenatureandallthat it fairly involves.Butat the timewhentheyhavenotyetembracedtheoffersandinvitationsofthegospel,andareonlyconsideringhowtheyshould deal with them, they have not yet any materials whatever forapplying it, inthewayofbearinguponthequestion,whether theyhavebeenelectedornot;andtherefore,sofarasthatpointisconcerned,'theyaretoact,notasDr.Whatelysays,asifthesystemorgeneraldoctrineofpredestinationwere not true, butmerely (for this is evidently the truestateofthecase)asifitdidnotthen,atthattime,affordanymaterialsfordeterminingoneparticularquestionconcerningthemselvesindividually;andthusdidnotaffordanymaterialsfordecidingupontheonepointofhow they should dealwith the commands and invitations addressed tothem. Thus far, and to this extent, it is true that neither preacher norhearercanmakeadirect,personal,individualapplicationofthedoctrine;butthisisveryfarfromwarrantingWhately’sassertion,thatthedoctrinedoesnotadmitofanypersonalpracticalapplicationwhatever.

Formenmaycomeat lengthtoknowuponsoundandrationalgroundsthat they have been elected to everlasting life; and it is then, and thenonly, that the practical personal application of the doctrine to menindividually is brought out.Arminians are accustomed to represent thematter as if the belief of the general scriptural doctrine, that God haselectedsomementolifeandpassedbytherest,mustnecessarilyincludein it the means of knowing directly and immediately what menindividuallyhavebeenelected,andwhathavebeenpassedby;andtheyofteninsinuate,moreover,thatallwhoprofesstobelieveinthedoctrineofelection,imagine,uponthemeregroundofthetruthofthisdoctrine,and without any intermediate process, that they themselves have been

elected.Godmighthaverevealedtousthisgeneraldoctrine,andrequiredus to apply it in the way of regulating our general conceptions of Hischaracter and moral government, and yet might have afforded us nomaterialsfordecidingcertainlyatanytime,whetherweindividuallyhadbeen elected or not. And in connection with this point, it is mostimportant to remember that He has not provided any materials fromwhich any man upon earth can ever, without a special revelation, bewarrantedindrawingtheconclusionthathehimself,orthatanyoneofhis fellow-men, has not been elected; and that consequently noman iseverwarranted to act upon this conviction as certainly true of himself.Arminians are fond of representing the doctrine of predestination asfitted to throwmen intodespair, bymaking thembelieve that they areforeordainedtoeverlastingdeath.Butwhilethedoctrineimpliesthatthisis trueofsomemen, inthesensewhichhasbeenexplained, itdoesnotcontaininitself,orwhenviewedinconnectionwithanymaterialswhichare within our reach, any ground to warrant anyman to come to thisconclusionwithrespecttohimself.And, therefore,despair isnot inanycase theproper legitimate result of the applicationof thisdoctrine, butmust arise,wherever it exists, from the perversion or abuse of it, or ofsomeotherprincipleconnectedwithit.Menmay,indeed,haveabundantgroundfortheconclusionthattheirpresentconditionisoneofguiltanddepravity; and that, consequently, if they were to die now, they wouldinevitablybeconsignedtomisery.But there isevidentlynothing in thisthataffordsanylegitimategroundfortheconclusionthatGodhasfrometernitypassed thembyandresolved towithhold fromthemHisgrace.This was once the condition of all men; and many have been rescuedfromitwhohadgonetoafearfulexcessofdepravity.Ifmen,indeed,didorcouldknowthattheyhadbeenguiltyofthesinagainsttheHolyGhost,orofthesinuntodeath,theymightthenlegitimatelydrawtheinference,thattheireternaldoomwasfixedandcouldnotbechanged.Butwhileweknow the general truth that such sinsmay be committed, there are nomaterialsprovided inScripture,by theapplicationofwhichanyman iswarranted in coming to the certain andpositive conclusion thathehascommitted them. And, in like manner, while we know that God hasresolvedto leavesomementoperish in theirsin,wehavenomaterialsprovided by which any man is warranted, while he is upon earth, incoming to the conclusion that he belongs to this number; and

consequently there is no legitimate ground in the doctrine ofpredestination,orinanyotherdoctrinetaughtinScripture,whyanymanshoulddespair,-shouldrenounceallhopeofsalvation,-shouldactasifhis condemnationwere unchangeably determined, and on this accountshouldrefusetocomplywiththeoffersandinvitationsofthegospel.

But although noman while upon earth can have any good ground fordespairingofsalvation,-asifhehadfullwarrantfortheconclusionthathehasnotbeenelected,-menmayhavegoodgroundforbelievingthattheyhavebeenfrometernityelectedtoeverlastinglife;andofcoursearecalled upon to apply this conviction according to its true nature andbearings. This important point is thus admirably stated in theWestminster Confession: - “The doctrine of this high mystery ofpredestinationistobehandledwithspecialprudenceandcare,thatmenattendingtothewillofGodrevealedinHisword,andyieldingobediencethereunto,may,fromthecertaintyoftheireffectualvocation,beassuredof their eternal election. So shall this doctrine affordmatter of praise,reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, andabundantconsolation,toallthatsincerelyobeythegospel.”Nomanhasany ground to conclude that he has been elected, merely becauseScriptureteachesthegeneraldoctrine,thatGodhaschosensomementoeverlasting life. Othermaterialsmust be furnished and applied, beforeanyman iswarranted to cherish this conviction. Some changemust beeffected in him, which is a necessary or invariable accompaniment orconsequenceofeternalelection,andwhichmaythustestandestablishitsrealityinreferencetohim.Itisapartofourdoctrine,thateverymanwhohasbeenelectedtolifefrometernity is intimeeffectuallycalled,orhasfaithandregenerationproducedinhimbytheoperationofGod’sSpirit.Nomanhasorcanhaveanysufficientground forbelieving thathehasbeen elected, unless and until he has been enabled to believe in ChristJesus,andhasbeenbornagainofthewordofGodthroughthebeliefofthetruth;andwhereverthesechangeshavebeeneffected,thismusthavebeendoneintheexecutionofGod’seternalpurpose;andthus, takeninconnection with the Scripture doctrines of election and perseverance,they afford satisfactory grounds for the conclusion, that every one inwhomtheyhavebeenwroughthasbeenfrometernityelectedtolife,andshall certainly be saved. It is only from the certainty of their effectual

vocation thatmen can be assured of their eternal election.But allwhohave been effectually called, and who are assured of this by a rightapplicationofthescripturalmaterialsbearinguponthepoint,arebound,in the application of the doctrine of election, to believe that they havebeenelected,andtoapplythisconclusionaccordingtoitstruenatureandbearings.

ThematerialsbywhichmenmayattaintocertaintyastotheireffectualvocationaretobefoundpartlyinScripture,andpartlyinthemselves;andby a right use of thesematerials,menmay, under the guidance of theHoly Spirit, attain to a firm and well-grounded conviction upon thispoint;andthusarriveatdecidedconclusions,bothwithrespecttoGod’seternal purposes in regard to them, and with respect to their owneverlasting destiny. If they have fallen into error in the application ofthese materials, if they have been persuaded of the certainty of theireffectualvocationwithoutgoodgrounds,-thatis,iftheybelievethattheyhavebeeneffectuallycalledwhentheyhavenot,-then,ofcourse,alltheirulterior conclusions about the certainty of their election and of theirperseverancefalltotheground;theytoomustbeequallyerroneous,andtherefore can exert only an injurious influence. But the doctrine ofelection is not responsible for this error, or for any of the injuriousconsequencesthatmayhaveresultedfromit.Theerrorwassolely theirown, arising either from ignorance of what Scripture teaches upon thesubject of effectual calling, or from ignorance of themselves, - or fromboth. Such cases afford no specimen of the right and legitimateapplication, or thenatural andappropriate tendency, of thedoctrineofelection, or of any doctrine that is connected with it. The full andlegitimate application of this doctrine is exhibited only in the case ofthosewhohavebeeneffectuallycalled,-whoarepersuadedofthisuponsolid and satisfactory grounds, - and who, from this fact, viewed inconnectionwiththegeneraldoctrineofelectiontaughtinScripture,havedrawn the inference or conclusion, that they have been elected toeverlasting life, and that they shall certainly persevere in faith andholinessuntotheend,andbeeternallysaved.

Andwhatisthenaturalandappropriateresultofthisstateofmind,-ofthese views and convictions about our present condition and future

prospects,andthewholeprocedureofGodinconnectionwiththem?Thelegitimate result of this state of mind, and consequently the rightapplication of the doctrine, as soon as it comes to admit of a directpractical bearing on the case of men individually, is not to encouragethemincarelessnessorindifferenceabouttheregulationoftheirconduct,about thedischargeof theirduty, as if the resultwere secureddowhatthey might, - that is, as if God had not established an invariableconnectionbetweenthemeansandtheend,orhadnotleftallthemoralobligationsunderwhichmenheatleastunimpaired.Dr.Whatelyadmitsthatourdoctrineisnotliabletoanychargeofinjurioustendencyonthisground. But it is surely manifest that it is fitted to exert, directly andpositively, an important practical influence.Whenmenwho have beeneffectually called, infer from their effectual vocation, established by itsappropriateevidence, that theyhavebeenelectedandshall certainlybesaved;andwhentheyrealizeandapplyarightalltheviewswhicharethuspresentedoftheircondition,obligations,andprospects,-ofallthatGodhasdoneandwillyetdowithregardtothem;theresultmustbe,thatthedoctrineofelection,orthespecialaspectinwhichthatdoctrinepresentsand impresses all the considerations, retrospective and prospective,which ought to influence and affect the mind, will afford, as theConfession says, “matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;”inasmuch as it brings out, in a light, clearer,more palpable, andmoreimpressive than could be derived from any other source, how entirelyGodistheauthorofoursalvationandofallthatleadstoit,-ofallthatwehaveandallthatwehopefor,-howgloriouslyHisperfectionshavebeenmanifestedinallthatHehasdoneforus,-andhowsupremelyweshouldfeel ourselves constrained to show forth His praises, and to yieldourselvesuntoHim. Itmustafford,also, “matterofhumility,diligence,and abundant consolation to allwho sincerely obey the gospel,” -mosteffectuallybringingdowneveryhighthoughtandeveryimaginationthatexaltethitself,fillingwithpeaceandjoyinbelievingamideverydifficultyanddanger,andkeepingaliveatalltimesasenseof themostprofoundandpowerful obligation to aim supremely and unceasingly at the greatobject to which God’s electing purpose was directed, - on account ofwhich, in theexecutionof thatpurpose,Christ gavehimself forus, andsent forthHis Spirit into our hearts, - viz. that we should be holy andwithout blamebeforeHim in love, thatwe shouldbe cleansed fromall

filthinessofthefleshandofthespirit,andbeenabledtoperfectholinessinthefearoftheLord,thatweshouldbemademeetfortheeverlastingenjoymentofHisgloriouspresence.

When,then,menareassuredoftheireternalelection,asaninferenceordeductionfromthecertaintyoftheireffectualvocation,thissuggestsandinculcatesviewsofGodandofthemselves-ofwhatHehaspurposedanddoneforthem,andoftherelationinwhichtheystandtoHim-oftheirpasthistory, present condition, and futureprospects -which cannotbederived, at least in the samemeasure anddegree, or of so definite andeffective a character, from any other form or aspect in which thesesubjects canbepresented; views fitted to cherish in the heart all thosefeelings, desires, andmotives that constitute or produce true piety andgenuinegodliness,andthustoassimilatemen’scharacterandconductonearthtothelifeofheaven.

In a note subjoined to his “Essay on Election,” Dr.Whatelymakes aningenious attempt to get some countenance to his notion, that theCalvinisticdoctrineofelectionhasnopracticaleffectorbearing,fromthe17thArticleoftheChurchofEngland;whileatthesametimehetriestounderminethetestimonyinfavourofCalvinism,whichhasbeenderivedfromthatArticle;anditmaytendtothrowfurtherlightuponthesubjectwehavebeenconsidering,ifwebrieflyexaminehisstatementsuponthispoint. He begins with quoting from one of his previous works someobservations upon the principles which have often regulated thecomposition, and should therefore regulate the interpretation,ofpublicecclesiasticaldocumentsorsymbolicalbooks.Hedwellsespeciallyuponthe idea that these documents have been often the results of acompromiseamongmenwhodifferedsomewhatfromeachotherintheiropinions,andillustratesthebearingofthisconsiderationupontherightmode of explaining and applying them. His general views upon thissubjectareverysoundandjudicious,andmaybemostusefullyappliedinthe explanation of many important ecclesiastical documents; but wethinkheutterly fails in theattempthemakes toapply themto the17thArticleofhisownchurch.Wequotethewholeofhisstatementuponthispoint,andwerequestourreaderstogiveittheirspecialattention:-

“Our17thArticleisastrikingexemplificationofwhathasbeensaid;forit

containsmodificationsandlimitationsinonepartofwhatislaiddowninanother,suchasgoneartoneutralizetheonebytheother.

“It begins by stating the doctrine of predestination in a form whichcertainly may be, and we know often has been, understood in theCalvinisticsense;andthenitproceedstopointoutthedangerofdwellingonthatdoctrine,ifsounderstood,beforecuriousandcarnalpersons,ofwhomonemaypresumetherewillusuallybesomeinanycongregationormixedcompany,sothatsuchadoctrineisseldomifevertobepubliclyset forth. Next, it cautions us against taking the divine promisesotherwise thanas theyaregenerally (generaliter)set forth inScripture;thatis,asmadetoclassesofmen,-thoseofsuchandsuchadescription,and not to individuals.We are not, in short, to pronounce this or thatmanoneof theelect (in theCalvinistic sense), except so faraswemayjudgefromthekindofcharacterhemanifests.Andlastly,wearewarned,inourownconduct,nottovindicateanyactasconformabletoGod’swill,onthegroundthatwhatevertakesplacemusthavebeendecreedbyHim,butare toconsider conformity toHiswill as consisting inobedience toHisinjunctions.

“If, then, somemaysay, thisdoctrine is (1)not tobepublicly set forth,nor(2)appliedinowejudgmentofanyindividual,nor(3)appliedinourownconduct,whyneedithavebeenatallmentioned?

“Asforthecomfortenjoyedfromthe‘godlyconsideration’ofitbythosewho ‘feel within themselves the working of God’s Holy Spirit,’ etc., itwould be most unreasonable to suppose that this cannot be equallyenjoyedbythosewhodonotholdpredestinarianviews,butwhonotthelessfullytrustinandlovetheirRedeemer,and‘keepHissaying.’

“But the Article is manifestly the result of a compromise betweenconflicting views; one party insisting on the insertion of certainstatements,whichtheotherconsentedtoadmitonlyonconditionoftheinsertionofcertainlimitationsandcautions,toguardagainstthedangersthatmight attend the reception of the doctrine in a sense ofwhich theformerpassageiscapable.”

The views set forth in this passagemay be considered in two different

aspects: - 1st, In their bearing generally upon the Calvinism of theArticles;and2d,IntheirbearinguponWhately’sspecialallegation,thattheCalvinisticdoctrinedoesnotadmitofanypracticalapplication.

Onthefirstofthesetopics,.Whatelyseemstointendtoinsinuatethatthe17thArticle, as it stands,was the result of a compromisebetweenmenholding different and opposite views on the subjects controvertedbetween Calvinists and Arminians; some statements being put in topleaseorsatisfytheoneparty,andsometopleaseorsatisfytheother.Itison thegroundof somenotionof this sort thatmanyhave contendedthat the theology of the Church of England is neither Calvinism norArminianism; while others have embodied the same general idea in asomewhatdifferentform,bymaintainingthat it isboththeoneandtheother. But there is nothing whatever to support the idea of any suchcompromise,eitherintheactualstatementsoftheArticleitself,orinthehistorical facts as to the theological sentiments of its authors, and thecircumstances inwhich itwascomposed. Itmustnowbe regardedasaconclusively established historical fact, - a fact about which there isscarcely room foranhonestdifferenceof opinion, - that the framersofthe English Articles were Calvinists, and of course intended to teachCalvinism; or at least could not have intended to teach anything at allinconsistentwithit.AndthereiscertainlynothingintheArticleitselftocontradictordiscountenancethisconclusion,towhichthewholehistoryofthemattersoplainlypoints.There isnotonestatementcontained inthe Article to which any reasonable and intelligent Calvinist ever hasobjected, or ever could have thought of objecting. How honest andintelligent men who are not Calvinists can satisfy or pacify theirconsciencesinsubscribingit,isamysterywhichweneverhavebeenabletosolve.Butwiththiswearenotatpresentconcerned.Itiscertainthatthere isnothing in the17thArticle -nota thoughtor idea-butwhat isfoundinotherconfessionsundeniablyCalvinistic,andinthewritingsofCalvinhimself,andofalltheablestandmosteminentCalvinisticdivines.Theframersof theEnglishArticleswerenodoubtmoderateCalvinists,who were not disposed to give countenance to the more extreme andminuteexpositionsofthesubjectinwhichsomeCalvinistshaveindulged;andwhowere anxious to guard against the practical abuses intowhichsomeunintelligentandinjudiciouspersonshavefallenintheapplication

ofthedoctrine,andtowhichweadmitthedoctrineisobviouslyliableinthehandsofsuchpersons.ButthereisreallynotashadowofgroundforWhately’s assertion, that “the Article is manifestly the result of acompromisebetweenconflictingviews;”andtheconclusiveproofofthisis, that there is nothing in it which would not naturally and at oncesuggest itself as a matter of course to any intelligent Calvinist, whowished to give a temperate and careful statement of his opinions. Hisstatements about “modifications and limitations,” “limitations andcautions,”whichonepartyinsisteduponinordertoneutralizesomethingelse; and about this party consenting to admit the leading and generalposition,which it isadmittedhasaveryCalvinisticaspect, “onlyontheconditionoftheinsertion”oftheselimitationsandcautionstomodifyit,areapurefiction,utterlyunsupportedbyanythingeitherinthehistoryofthe Article or in the Article itself. No man could have made suchstatements who was intelligently acquainted with the writings ofCalvinistic divines, which make it manifest that such cautions andlimitations constitute a natural and familiar commonplace in theexpositionof their systemof theology.Not only are the limitationsandcautions in theArticle perfectly consistentwithCalvinism, but some ofthemareofsuchanatureascouldonlyhavebeensuggestedandrequiredbyapreviousstatementofCalvinisticdoctrine;andthusaffordapositiveproof, that its leading general statement is, and was intended to be, adeclarationofthefundamentalprincipleofCalvinism.

It isbut fair,however, toremark, thatDr.Whatelyhasnotherestated,precisely and explicitly, what were the “conflicting views” which heconsiders to have been compromised in the Article by modifying andneutralizinglimitations;andthatthusitmaybeopentohimtoallege,inhis own defence, that he did not mean to deny the Calvinism of theArticle, or to assert that there is anything in it opposed to the viewsgenerally held by Calvinistic divines; and that the “conflicting views,”whichhesayswerecompromised,referredonlytominorpoints,inwhichCalvinistsmightdifferamongthemselves.Ifthisshouldbepleadedinhisdefence,thenwehavetosaythatheoughttohavemadehismeaningandobjectmoreclearanddefinitethanhehasdone;andthatthenaturalandobvious bearing of his statements, viewed in connection with thecommon mode of discussing this topic among a large class of

Episcopalian divines, decidedly favours the idea, that, by “conflictingviews,”hejustmeanttheoppositeopinionsofCalvinistsandArminians.If his statement about “conflicting views” referred to points of inferiorimportance,inwhichCalvinistsmightdifferfromeachother,itisatoncetrifling and irrelevant; and if it referred to the differences betweenCalvinistsandArminians,itisconclusivelydisproved,atoncebyallthatisknownconcerningthehistoryandtheauthorsoftheArticle,andbythefact that there is nothing in it but what is maintained explicitly andunhesitatinglybythegreatbodyofCalvinistictheologians.

ButwehavetodoatpresentchieflywiththeattemptmadebyWhatelytoget, fromthe17thArticle,support forhisallegation, thattheCalvinisticdoctrine of election does not admit of any practical application. TheArticle consists of three divisions. The first, and most important, is ageneral statement of the doctrinewhichWhately says “maybe, andweknowoftenhasbeen,understood in theCalvinistic sense andwhich allCalvinistsregardasaclearandaccuratedescriptionofthewholeprocessby which sinners are saved, in full accordance with the distinctivefeatures of their system of theology. The second division sets forth thepractical application of this Calvinistic doctrine under two heads, - thefirstdeclaring the “sweet andpleasant” use thatmaybemadeof it “bygodly persons,” “as well because it doth greatly establish and confirmtheirfaithofeternalsalvationtobeenjoyedthroughChrist,asbecauseitdoth fervently kindle their love towardsGod;” and the secondwarningagainst an abuse to which it may be perverted by “curious and carnalpersons lacking(intheLatindestituti) thespiritofChrist,”who, if they“havecontinuallybeforetheireyesthesentenceofGod’spredestination,”maybeledtherebyintodespairandprofligacy.Thethirdandlastdivisionconsists of two positions, which do not, indeed, quite so clearly andcertainly suggest or imply the Calvinistic doctrine, as do the use andabuse under the second division, but which are at least perfectlyconsistentwithit.Theymay,indeed,becalled“limitationsandcautions;”since,inexactaccordancewiththeprincipleswehavealreadyexplained,they limit the sphere of the practical application of the doctrine, andcaution against applying it to' matters on which it has no proper orlegitimatebearing.Thesetwolimitationsorcautionsare,-first,“wemustreceiveGod’spromisesinsuchwiseastheybegenerallysetforthtousin

Scripture;5’andsecond,“inourdoings,thatwillofGodistobefollowedwhichwehaveexpresslydeclaredtousinthewordofGod.”.

It will be observed thatWhately, in the quotation we have given fromhim, postpones the consideration of the first head under the seconddivision,abouttheuseorapplicationthatisandshouldbemadeofthisdoctrinebygodlypersons;proceedsatoncetotheabuseofthedoctrinecondemned in the second head of the second division, and to the twolimitationsorcautionssetforthinthethird;andhavingendeavouredtoextort from these three topics some support for hismain allegation, hethenreturnstotheexplicitdeclarationoftheArticleabouttherightuseor practical application of the doctrine, and tries to dispose of it. Thewhole process is very curious, as a specimen of careful and elaboratesophistry,thoughitiscertainlynotverysuccessful.

ThewayinwhichheturnstoaccountthestatementintheArticle,aboutthe abuse that may be made of the doctrine by carnal and ungodlypersons, is this: Upon the assumption that there will usually be somesuch persons in any congregation, he bases the inference that “such adoctrine is seldom if ever to be publicly set forth;” and from theapplicationwhichheafterwardsmakesofthisinference,inhissummingup of the argument, it is plain that he wishes it to be received assuggested by, or involved in, the statement in the Article itself, as if itwereintendedtobetaughtthereatleastbyimplication.Now,itissurelymanifestthatthereisnothingintheArticlewhichaffordsanyappearanceofground for this inference.Theabilityofadoctrine tobeabusedbyacertainclassofpersonsiscertainlynotasufficientreasonwhyitshouldbe“seldomifeverpubliclysetforth,”butonlyareasonwhy,whenitissetforth,therightuseandapplicationofitshouldbecarefullypointedout,andtheabuseorperversionofitcarefullyguardedagainst.Toascribetothe compilers of this Article a notion of so peculiar a kind, as that adoctrine which they had set forth as a great scriptural truth shouldseldom if ever be publicly taught, when they had not said this, oranythinglikeit,andtodothisuponagroundsopalpablyinadequate,isakindofprocedurewhichiswhollyunwarrantable.

Hethenproceedstothetwolimitationsorcautionssetforthinthethirdand last division of the Article; and to the account which, in the first

instance,hegivesoftheirimportandbearing,wehavenothingtoobject.Itistrue,ashealleges,thatthefirstofthemimpliesthat“wearenottopronounce this or that man one of the elect (in the Calvinistic sense),exceptsofaraswemayjudgefromthekindofcharacterhemanifests;”and that the second implies, that we are, “in our own conduct, not tovindicate any act as conformable to God’s will, on the ground thatwhatever takes placemust have been decreed byHim, but to considerconformity to His will as consisting in obedience to His injunctions.”These positions are true in themselves; they are plainly implied in theconcludingdivisionoftheArticle;andtheycertainlylimitmateriallythesphere of the practical application of the doctrine; but we think itmanifest,fromtheexplanationswhichhavealreadybeensubmitted,thatthey are altogether irrelevant to Whately’s leading allegation, that thedoctrineadmitsofnopracticalapplicationwhatever.

He then goes on to give the summingupof theprecedingargument inthisway:66If,then,somemaysay”(heevidentlywishesittobebelievedthatmenmaysayallthistrulyandjustly),“thisdoctrineis(1)nottobepubliclysetforth,nor(2)appliedinourjudgmentofanyindividual,nor(3)appliedinourownconduct,whyneedithavebeenatallmentioned?”Theconclusionhereindefinitelyandmodestlyindicatedintheshapeofaquestion, is evidently intended as equivalent to an assertion of hisfavourite position, that the Calvinistic doctrine of election, even ifadmittedtobetrue,isamerebarrenspeculation,destituteofallpracticalinfluence.Thequestioninwhichhisconclusion isembodied isvirtuallyaddressed to the compilers of the Articles, and it plainly involves aseriouschargeagainstthemforteachingthisdoctrine,when,inWhately’sestimation,therewasnoneedtomentionit.Theiranswertothischargewould undoubtedly have been, that therewas need tomention it - 1st,becauseitwasaportionofGod’srevealedtruth;and2d,because ithadanimportantpracticaluseorapplicationinthecaseofgodlypersons,asthey had fully set forth in the first head of the second division of theArticle.Butletusadverttothethreepointsinwhichhehassummeduphis argument, and which he represents as all sanctioned by thestatementsoftheArticleonwhichhehadbeencommenting.Thefirstis,that“thisdoctrineisnottobepubliclysetforth.”Thishehadpreviouslyput in the modified form, that “it is seldom if ever to be publicly set

forth;”butnow,whenheissumminguphisargument,andendeavouringto found upon this consideration a presumption (for he could scarcelyregard it as a proof) in support of his conclusion, he drops thequalification,andmakestheassertionabsolute,-ccthedoctrineisnottobepubliclysetforth.”WehavealreadyshownthatthereisnogroundforthisassertioninanythingcontainedintheArticle.Thestatementthatthedoctrine is liable to be abused by a certain class of persons, affords nogroundwhateverforthe inferencewhichWhatelydeduces fromit,eveninitsqualifiedform.Itfurnishesgoodground,indeed,forthedeclarationoftheWestminsterConfession,thattheadoctrineofthishighmysteryofpredestinationistobehandledwithspecialprudenceandcare,”but fornothing more; and with this, we have no doubt, the compilers of theThirty-nineArticleswouldhavebeenperfectlysatisfied,asembodyingallthattheymeanttoteachuponthispoint.

Thesecondandthirdpoints-viz.thatthisdoctrineisnottobeapplied,ordoesnotadmitofanypracticalapplication,eitherinourjudgmentofanyindividual,orintheregulationofourownconduct-areintendedasacompendious statement of the two limitations or cautions in theconcluding section of the Article. These two points he had previouslyexplainedmorefullyanddefinitely,and,aswehaveadmitted,correctly.Butwedonotadmitthatthereisthesamefairnessandcorrectnessinthemoreindefiniteandcompendiousstatementofthemwhichhenowgivesinhissummingup.Ourobjectiontohisargument, foundeduponthesetwo points, was, that they merely limited the sphere of the practicalapplicationof thedoctrine of election, but didnot provehis allegation,thatithadnopracticalapplicationwhatever.Heseemstohavehadasortof indistinctapprehensionof thisradicaldefect inhisargument;and inhissumminguphetriestoconcealit,byputtingthesetwopointsinthemost indefinite and comprehensive form, so as to give them theappearance of covering the whole ground, and thus leaving no roomwhateverforthepracticalapplicationof thedoctrine.Tosayabsolutely,andwithoutanyqualificationorexplanation, that thedoctrine isnottobeappliedinourjudgmentofanyindividualorinourownconduct,istoassertrathermorethanwecanadmittobetrueinitself,orsanctionedbythestatementsoftheArticle,andrathermorethanisimpliedinthemorefull and formal exposition of these statements which he himself had

previously given. On these grounds, we cannot but regard Whately’ssummingupofhisargumentuponthissubjectasexhibitingmoreofthesophistthanofthelogician.

AfterhavingdonewhathecouldtofindsomematerialsintheArticletogivepositivecountenance tohisallegation,hecomesat last toconsiderwhatistheresetforthabouttheuseandapplicationofthedoctrine.This-bothfromitspositionintheArticle,anditsmoredirectandimmediatebearing upon the point in dispute - ought in fairness to have beenconsidered first. But Whately evidently thought it expedient toaccumulatesomethinglikeevidenceinsupportofhisposition,beforeheventured to face the statement which so explicitly and conclusivelydisprovesit.Thewayinwhichheattemptstodisposeofthestatementisthis,-“Asforthecomfortenjoyedfromthe‘godlyconsideration’ofitbythosewho‘feelwithinthemselvestheworkingsofGod’sHolySpirit,’etc.,it would be most unreasonable to suppose that this cannot be equallyenjoyedbythosewhodonotholdpredestinarianviews,butwhonottheless fully trust inand love theirRedeemer, andkeepHis saying.”Now,upon thiswe have to remark, 1st, That theArticle doesmost expresslyascribe a specific use - a definite practical application - to the godlyconsideration of this doctrine by truly religious persons; and 2d, Thatthereisnothingunreasonableinascribingtoitthisuseandapplication.The Article expressly asserts, that “the godly consideration ofpredestination and our election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, andunspeakablecomfort togodlypersons;”andtheascriptionof thisresultto the “consideration” of this doctrine, is of itself a flat and explicitcontradictiontoWhately’sposition,whichnosophistryorshuffling,andnoaccumulationofprobabilitiesorpresumptions, canevadeordisposeof.TheArticlefurtherspecifiestheprocessbywhichtheconsiderationofthis doctrine produces this result of “unspeakable comfort to godlypersons;”-viz.“aswellbecauseitdothgreatlyestablishandconfirmtheirfaithofeternalsalvationtobeenjoyedthroughChrist,asbecauseitdothferventlykindletheirlovetoGod.”ToallegethattheArticle,inascribingto this doctrine the production of unspeakable comfort, by confirmingmen’sfaithoftheireternalsalvation,andincreasingtheirlovetoGod,didnot intend to state anything peculiar to this doctrine, but merelydescribed what might be derived equally or as fully from the

consideration of other doctrines, is plainly to charge the Article withcontainingdownrightnonsenseorunmeaningverbiage.Andherewemayremarkbytheway, thatthemanifestandexactaccordancebetweentheviewgiven in the 17thArticleof theChurchofEngland, concerning theright use and application of the doctrine of “predestination and ourelection inChrist,”with therepresentationgivenof the samesubject inthe Westminster Confession, which we have already explained andillustrated, furnishes a proof of the identity of the system of doctrinetaughtinthesetwosymbols.

As to the alleged unreasonableness of ascribing any such use orapplicationspecificallytotheCalvinisticdoctrineofelection,wehave,wethink, sufficiently refuted this in our general observations upon thissubject. And, indeed, it is surely self-evident, that this doctrine, whenintelligentlyandrationallyappliedbypersonswhohavegoodgroundsforbelieving that they have been elected to eternal life, must producepractical results upon their views and feelings, - results operatingbeneficiallyupontheircharacterandconduct,-whichcannotbederivedequally, if at all, from any other source. We admit, indeed, that thepracticalresultsderivedfromtheapplicationofthisdoctrineareconfinedwithinanarrowsphere,anddonotbeardirectlyupontheenjoymentofthegreatessentialblessingsofthegospel,orupontheproductionofthefundamental elements ofChristian character. They donot bear directlyupon justification and regeneration, - the essential blessings on whichuniversally,andineveryinstance,thesalvationofsinnersdepends.Theyareconnectedmoreimmediatelywithwhatmaybecalledthesecondaryorsubordinateblessingsofthegospel,-“assuranceofGod’slove,peaceofconscience,and joy in theHolyGhost.”But these formnounimportantpartofthegospelprovision.Theymateriallyaffectnotonlythe“comfortofgodlypersons,”buttheirgrowthingrace;andtheyoperatepowerfullyin aiding their increase in holiness, and in securing their perseverancetherein unto the end. Every sinner who has been justified andregenerated shall assuredlybe saved.Andwehavenodoubt thatmanymenhavebeenmademeetforheaven,andadmittedtotheenjoymentofit, who never, so long as they continued upon earth, understood orbelieved the Calvinistic doctrine of election. The specific practicalpersonal application of the doctrine, by men individually in their own

case, requires, indeed, as its necessary antecedents and conditions, notonlythattheyhaveinfactbeenenabledtorepentandbelieveinChrist,-that they have entered upon the way which leadeth to 'heaven, byembracingChristasHeisfreelyofferedtotheminthegospel,-butalso,thattheyareassured,upongoodandsufficientgrounds,thatthisistheirpresentcondition.AndwewillinglyconcedethatnotafewhavebeenbyGod’s grace brought into this condition, and at last admitted into thekingdom of glory, who never attained to a distinct “certainty of theireffectualvocation,”andthereforecouldnotberationally“assuredoftheireternal election;” and who, of course, could make no direct personalapplicationofthedoctrineofelectiontotheirowncase,orderivefromitthe special spiritual benefit which it is fitted to impart. But we arepersuadedthatallthesepersonslivedsomewhatbeneaththeirprivileges,-failed,tosomeextent,inwalkingworthilyoftheirhighandholycalling,- and came short, more or less, in fully adorning their Christianprofession,bytheir ignoranceorunbeliefof the informationwhichGodhasgivenusinHisword,concerningHissovereignpurposeofmercyinChristJesusinregardtoallwhoaresaved;anabsoluteandunchangeablepurposeformedfrometernity,andexecutedintime,bybestowinguponthem all those things which accompany salvation, and prepare for theenjoymentofheaven.

We shall concludewith a few additional remarks suggested by the lastsection of the 17th of the Thirty-nine Articles. It is expressed in thesewords: - “Furthermore,wemustreceiveGod’spromises insuchwiseastheybegenerallysetforthtousinHolyScripture;and,inourdoings,thatwillofGodistobefollowedwhichwehaveexpresslydeclareduntousinthewordofGod.”Wehavealreadysaidenough to show that these twostatements-whiletheycertainlylimitorrestrictthelegitimatesphereofthepersonalpracticalapplicationof theCalvinisticdoctrineof election,and caution against the abuses which have been made of it - containnothingwhatever in the least inconsistent with Calvinism; nothing butwhatistobefoundinthewritingsofallCalvinisticdivines.Itis,indeed,acuriouscircumstance,-andithasbeenoftenreferredto,inoppositiontotheattemptswhichhavebeenmade todeduce from this portionof theArticleanargumentagainst theCalvinismof its leadingposition, - thatthe second and most important part of this statement, which virtually

includes or comprehends the first, is expressed in the very words ofCalvin;whilethefirstpartofitistobefound,initswholesubstanceandspirit, inmanypartsofhiswritings.Weconcede to theArminians thatthe word generally, here, is not to be taken in the sense of usually orordinarily,butisintendedtoindicatethecharacterofthepromisesassetforth in Scripture in a general, indefinite, unlimited, unrestricted way.There is nothing in this, however, which renders any service to theircause. The word promises is to be taken here, as it was used by theReformersingeneral,inawidersensethanthatinwhichitiscommonlyemployedinmoremoderntimes.TheReformersgenerallyusedthiswordascomprehendingalltheoffersandinvitationsofthegospeladdressedtomen in general, - to sinners as such, - freely offering to them all theblessingsofsalvation,andinvitingthemtocometoGodthroughChrist,that theymay receive and enjoy these blessings. In modem times, theword promises is commonly taken in a more restricted sense, asdescriptiveof those scriptural statementswhich are addressed speciallytobelievers,-tothosewhohavealreadybeenunitedtoChristbyfaith,-andwhich assume, that this is their present position. But the word asused in the Article plainly comprehends, and, indeed, has specialreferenceto,whatwenowcommonlycalltheoffersandinvitationsofthegospel, or those scriptural statementswhich tell the human race of theprovisionwhichGodhasmadeforsavingthem;andonthisgroundcalluponthemtoturnfromsinuntoGod,tobelieveintheLordJesusChrist,andtolayholdofthehopesetbeforethem.Now,thesubstanceofwhatistaughtintheArticleisthis,thattheseoffersandinvitationsaresetforthtous in Scripture in a general or universal form, - no restriction beingmade, no exception being put forth, no previous qualification beingrequiredasaconditionofacceptingthem,-andthatwemustdealwith,or apply them, in this their general or unrestricted character, withoutbringingin,atthisstage,eitherthegeneraldoctrineofpredestination,oritspossible, butwhollyunknown,bearingupon individuals, in order tomodifyor limit thegeneralscriptural representations,or themanner inwhichtheyought tobedealtwith.Here,neither thegeneraldoctrineofpredestination, nor its imagined bearing upon individuals, has anyproper place, or can exert any legitimate practical influence. The offersand invitationsmustbe set forthas they stand, inall theirunrestrictedgenerality, and should be dealt with unhesitatingly, according to their

natural andobviousmeaning and import.This is all that is involved inthe first part of the statement we are considering; and to all thisCalvinists have no hesitation in assenting. They set forth the generaloffers and invitations of the gospel addressed to mankind at large, inorder to lead themfromdarkness to light; theydoall thisas freelyandfully, as cordially and earnestly, as any other class of theologians; andtheythinktheycanshowthatitcannotbeprovedthatthereisanythinginallthisinconsistentwiththepeculiardoctrinestheyhold.

We have said that the second part of this statement about the “will ofGod” virtually includes the first part about the “promises.” And thereasonisthis,thatthepromises-thatis,theoffersandinvitationsofthegospel -virtuallycomprehendor involvecommandsor injunctions,andofcourseimposedutiesandobligations.Theoffersandinvitationsofthegospelareintendedtoleadmentorepentandbelieve,bysettingbeforethemmotivesandencouragementstopersuadethemtodoso.Buttheyatthesametimeincludeorimplyacommand,thatthosetowhomtheyareaddressedshouldreceivethemanddealwiththemaccordingtotheirtruenatureandimport.Godhasmadethistheir imperativeduty,byexplicitinjunctionscontainedinHisword.“ToescapethewrathandcurseofGoddue tous for sin,God requireth of us faith in JesusChrist, repentanceunto life, with the diligent use of all the outward and ordinary meanswhereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption.” It istrue,indeed,thattherightmodeofrepresentingandapplyingtheoffersandinvitationsofthegospelisofsuchtranscendentimportance,fromitsdirect and immediate bearing on the only process by which sinnersindividuallyaresaved,thatitwaspropertostateitdistinctlybyitself,andto give it the fullest prominence. But it is not the less true, that thesubstance of what ought to be said upon this topic is virtuallycomprehended in the wider statement, which the compilers of theArticlesexpressedinthewordsofCalvin,-viz.“that,inourdoings,thatwillofGodistobefollowedwhichwehaveexpresslydeclaredtousintheword of God.” The general import of this position is, that our wholeconductistoberegulated,inallmattersbearinguponourrelationtoGodandoureternalwelfare,bythelaws,injunctions,orcommandswhichareimposeduponusinScripture;andnotbyanythingwhichwemayorcanknowastoGod’spurposesorintentionswithrespecteithertoourselves

orothers,orwithrespecttoanyeventsorresultsthatmaybeanticipated.Thisismanifestlyasoundprinciple;andnointelligentCalvinisthaseverrefusedorhesitatedtoassenttoit,andtoactuponit.Therehave,indeed,beengreatdisputesbetween theCalvinistsand theArminians inregardtothewillofGod-voluntasDei;andtherightexpositionofthissubjectmay be said to enter vitally and fundamentally into the controversybetweenthem.Butthedisputesdonotturnuponthepointwithwhichwehaveatpresenttodo.CalvinistsagreewithArminiansinholdingthattheexclusiveruleofourduty-ofwhatweareboundtodo-isthatwillofGodwhich is plainly set forth in His word in the form of injunctions orcommands.The language employed in theArticle - “thatwill ofGod” -naturallysuggeststheideathatthereisanotherwillofGodbesideswhatis here described, or another sense in which the expression may beemployed;andit isaboutthisotherwillthatagreatdealofcontroversyhasbeencarriedon.Wecannotenterontheconsiderationofthistopic,thoughitisveryimportantinitself,andthoughthereareindicationsthatit isvery illunderstoodbysomeinthepresentdaywhocall themselvesCalvinists. We have room only for a few words, not upon the subjectitself, but merely upon some of the terms commonly used in thediscussionofit.

ThatwillofGodwhichwehaveexpresslydeclaredtousinHisword,”andwhichisuniversallyadmittedtobetheexclusiveruleofourduty,iscalledbyCalvinistic divines by a variety of designations. They call it voluntaspraecepti, voluntas revelata, voluntas signi, voluntas εὔαρεστιας. Theseare just four different designations for one and the same thing;presenting it in somewhat different aspects, but all of them equallyintended to indicate thatwill ofGodwhich is set forth inHisword byinjunctionsandcommands,andconstitutesthesoleruleofourduty.ButCalvinists have always contended that there is another will of God,indicatedbyeventsorresultsastheytakeplace.TheyholdthatalleventsareforeordainedbyGod,andthat,ofcourse,allevents,whentheytakeplace, indicate what God had resolved to bring about, or at least topermit; and may thus be regarded as being, in some sense,manifestationsofHiswill.ThiswillofGod,bywhichHeregulateseventsorresults,isquitedistinctfromthatwillbywhichHeimposesdutiesandobligations; and yet it must be admitted to be a reality, - to have an

existence and an efficacy, - unlessHe is to be shut out, not only fromforeseeingand foreordaining,but fromdeterminingand regulating, thewholecourseofeventswhichconstitutethehistoryoftheworld.Thiswillof God, also, Calvinists usually designate by four different names,corresponding,butcontrasted,withthefourappliedtothedivinewillintheformersense.Theycallitvoluntasdecreti,voluntasarcana,voluntasbeneplaciti, voluntas ευδοκίας. These, too, are just four differentdesignationsofoneandthesamething,-viz. thatwillofGodbywhichHedetermineseventsorresults.Andaboutthedivinewill,inthissense,therehasbeenagooddealofdiscussion,anacquaintancewithwhichisindispensably necessary to an intelligent knowledge of this greatcontroversy.

Arminiansusuallydenythateventsorresults,simplyas such,are toberegardedasfurnishingamanifestationofthedivinewill;andappeal, insupport of this view, to the conditional form in which predictions andpromises about future events are frequently put in Scripture, - theconditions attached proving, as they allege, that God had formed noabsolutepurpose tobringabouta certain result,and thusshowing thattheactualresult,whenitdoesoccur,isnotnecessarilytoberegardedas-being, in any sense, an indication of the divine will. The fundamentalprinciple of Calvinism is, that God hath unchangeably foreordainedwhatsoevercomethtopass;andifthisprinciplebetrue,thentherecanbenostrictandproperconditionalityattachingtoanyeventsorresults,asiftheiractualoccurrencewerereallysuspendeduponcausesorinfluenceswhich God had not resolved to regulate and control. Calvinistsaccordinglydeny that there isany trueandproperconditionality in thedivinepredictionsandpromises;theconditionalorhypotheticalforminwhich they are often set forth in Scripture, being intended merely toindicateafixedconnectionestablishedinGod’spurposebetweenmeansand end, and being designed, by indicating this connection, to exert amoral influence upon the minds of men, and thereby to contribute tobringabouttheresultcontemplated.ArminiansobjectvehementlytothedistinctionwhichCalvinistsmakebetweenthepreceptiveandrevealedordeclared will of God, and what they commonly call His decretive andsecretwill, - thewillofHisgoodpleasure,-as if thisweretoascribetoGod two opposite and contradictory wills. But there is really no

oppositionor contradictionbetween them.Hispreceptivewill,which isrevealedordeclared,standsout,asalladmit,onthefaceofScripture,intheinjunctionsorcommandswhichconstitutetheonlyruleofourduty.ButHis decretive will - voluntas decreti, or beneplaciti - must also beadmittedasareality,unlessHeistobeexcludedfromthedeterminationand control of events.AndwhenCalvinists call thiswill ofdecreeorofgood pleasure, by which He determines actual events or results, Hissecretwill,asdistinguishedfromHisrevealedordeclaredwill,bywhichHedeterminesdutiesandimposesobligations,theyjustmean,that it isineveryinstance(exceptwhereGodhasissuedapredictionorapromise)utterlyunknowntous,untiltheeventtakesplace,and,byitsoccurrence,reveals or declares to us what God had resolved to do, or at least topermit.

Andthereissurelynothinginallthisbutthestatementofanundeniablematteroffact.Unlessitbedeniedthatthedivinewillhasadetermininginfluence in bringing about events or results, wemust introduce somedistinctionsintotheexpositionofthismatter;andthereisnodifficultyinshowing that the Calvinistic distinction between the preceptive orrevealed,andthedecretiveorsecret,willofGod,ismuchmoreaccordantwith Scripture, and liable to much less serious objections, than thedistinction which Arminians set up in opposition to it, between anantecedent or conditional, and a consequent or absolute will, - madeabsolute,ofcourse,onlybythefulfilmentoftheconditions.

Ithasbeenstatedoflate,thattheolderCalvinisticwritersmaintainedtheconditional characterof theprophetic announcements, in opposition tothosewhoassertedtheirabsoluteandunchangeablefixedness;andthat,by the distinction which they were accustomed to make between thesecretandtherevealedwillofGod,theymeantadistinctionbetweenHisrealintentionordecree,whichisfixedandimmutable,andHisdeclaredpurpose,whichmayvaryfromtimetotimewiththechangefulconditionsofman.WehavenevermetwiththeseviewsamongtheolderCalvinisticwriters;andweventuretoassert that suchstatementsas these indicateverygreatignoranceandmisconception,astothegroundsusuallytakenby Calvinistic divines in expounding and defending the fundamentalprinciplesoftheirsystemoftheology.Butwecannotdiscussthissubject,

thoughitisnaturallysuggestedbythestatementonwhichwehavebeencommenting.Wethinkwehavesaidenoughtoshowthattheconcludingportion of the 17th Article not only contains nothing which has anyappearance of inconsistency with Calvinism, but even furnishes apresumptionthatitwasindeedtheCalvinisticdoctrineofpredestination,andnoother,whichtheleadingportionoftheArticlewasintendedtosetforth.

Wehavehadrepeatedoccasion,indealingwithsuchquestionsasthese,to advert to the important and useful influence of controversialdiscussions, as exhibited in the history of the church, in throwing lightuponthetruemeaningofScripture,andtherealimportandevidenceofthedoctrineswhich are, taught there.Wehave endeavoured to enforcetheobligation, incumbentuponallmen, to improve past controversies,forthepurposeofaidingtheminformingthemostaccurate,precise,anddefiniteconceptionsuponeverysubjectwhichtheBiblebringsunderournotice;andwehavereferredtothegreatCalvinisticsystematicdivinesoftheseventeenthcentury,asthebestspecimensof the improvementthatmayandshouldbemadeofthefruitsandresultsofpolemicaldiscussion,inbringingoutacorrectandexactexpositionofallthedoctrinestaughtin Scripture, in their mutual bearings and relations. But everything isliable to abuse and perversion. There are everywhere dangers, both ontherighthandandtheleft,towhichmenareexposed,fromtheweaknessand imperfection of their faculties, and the corrupting influences fromwithout and from within, that often tell upon the formation of theiropinionsandimpressionsofthings,tendingtoproducedefectorexcess,and frequently, even when there may not be much of positive error,leading to one-sidedness of conception, in the direction either ofnarrownessorexaggeration.Thoughamanmaybewellversantinsomedepartments of theological literature, we can scarcely regard him asentitled to the character of a theologian, unless he be familiarwith theworks of the great systematic divines of the seventeenth century, bothCalvinistic and Arminian. But an addiction to the study of systematictheology, and to the perusal of systems, has, unless it be carefullyregulated, itsobviousand seriousdangers,whichought tobediligentlyandassiduouslyguardedagainst.Nooneclassofmenaretobeimplicitlyfollowed, as if they were in all respectsmodels for our imitation, with

reference to all the objects which we are called upon to aim at. Nouninspired men, or body of men, have ever, in the formation andexpressionoftheiropinions,risenaltogether,andineveryrespect,abovetheinfluencesoftheirpositionandcircumstances.

Controversialdiscussionshavea strongand invariable tendency to leadthose who have been engaged in them, to form an exaggeratedimpression of the magnitude of the topics about which they haveexercisedtheirfaculties,andspenttheirtimeandstrength,andforwhichtheymayhavecontendeduntovictory.Anditisusuallynotuntilanothergenerationhasarisenthatmenareenabledtogatherupfullythefruitsofthe contest, and to apply its results to the formation of a sound andjudicious estimate, not only of the truth, but of the importance of thequestions involved in it, and of the best and most effective way ofdefendingthetruthandexposingtheerror.NointelligentandjudiciousCalvinist will probably dispute, that the great controversy whichArminius raised in the beginning of the seventeenth century, producedtheeffectofbringingthepeculiardoctrinesofCalvinismintoapositionofsomethinglikeundueprominence,-agreaterprominencethantheyhaveintheBible,orthantheyought tohave,ordinarilyandpermanently, inthe thoughts ofmen, and in the usual course of pulpit instruction.Wehave no doubt that the fair result of that great controversy was toestablishconclusivelythescripturaltruthofallthepeculiardoctrinesofCalvinism. But it does not follow from this that the Calvinists, who sodecidedly triumphed over their opponents on the field of argument,entirelyescapedtheordinaryinfluenceofcontroversy,andsucceededinretainingassoundanestimateofthecomparativeimportance,asoftheactual truth, of the doctrines for which they had been led to contend.TherecanbenoreasonabledoubtthatthepeculiaritiesofCalvinismwereraised fora time toapositionofundueprominence,and that thereareplain indications of this in some of the features of the theologicalliteratureof the seventeenth century.We cannotdwell upon thispoint;but we may refer, as an illustration of what we mean, to the markeddifference, as to the prominence given to the peculiar doctrines ofCalvinism,betweentheInstitutionsofCalvinhimselfandthetheologicalsystems of the great Calvinistic divines to whomwe have referred.Wehave the highest sense of the value, for many important purposes, of

thesetheologicalsystems;butwecannotdoubtthatCalvin’sInstitutionsis fitted to leaveupon theminda justerandsounder impressionof theplacewhich the doctrines of Calvinism hold in the Bible, and ought tohold permanently in the usual course of pulpit instruction, or in theordinarypreachingofthegospel.

We have made these observations, not certainly because we have animpression that there is a tendency among us generally, or in anyinfluentialquarters, togiveundueprominence to thepeculiardoctrinesof Calvinism, but because it has been alleged of late that professedCalvinists do not now give so much prominence to their peculiardoctrinesaswas commonlyassigned to them in former times, and thatthis affords evidence that Calvinism has been greatly modified, if notpracticallyabandoned.Ourobjectisjusttoindicatehowthefactfoundedon,insofarasitisareality,maybeaccountedfor,inperfectconsistencywithwhatwebelieve tobe true, - viz. thatprofessedCalvinists are stillthoroughly persuaded of the scriptural truth of the peculiarities ofCalvinism, and are resolved tomaintain and apply them, according totheir truenatureand importance, in theirdueproportions,and in theirrightrelationstothewholeschemeofdivinetruth.

Wewishtoremindourreaders,inconclusion,thatwehavenotprofessedorattemptedtodiscuss thegeneralsubjectofpredestination,or todealwith its most important and fundamental departments. A fullinvestigationof thewholesubjectwouldnaturallydivide itself intofourbranches,-viz.lst,Thesettlementofthetruestatusquestionis,therealpointsindisputebetweenthecontendingparties;2d,Theexaminationofthe scriptural evidence, direct and indirect, explicit and inferential, infavour of Calvinism, and in opposition to Arminianism; 3d, Theobjections commonly adduced by Arminians against our real andadmitteddoctrines;and4th,ThepracticalapplicationofCalvinism.Withthesecondofthesebranchesofthesubject-whichisthemostimportantandfundamental-wehavenotattemptedtodealatall;andtothethirdwe have referred only in a very brief and incidental way, withoutprofessing to discuss it. Our observations have been almost whollyrestricted to the first and fourth of these divisions, including aconsideration of the objections commonly adduced against Calvinism,

whicharebaseduponmisconceptionsandmisrepresentationsofthetruemeaningandimport,andofthepracticalapplication,ofitsdoctrines.

TheReformersandtheLessonsFromTheirHistory

Havingspokenat lengthof thecharacterof theReformers,wemean tomakeafewgeneralobservationsthatmaybefittedtosuggestsomeusefulpractical lessons from the subject. It might afford materials for someinterestingreflections,tonoticethevarietyofgiftswhichGodconferredupon the different Reformers individually, - bestowing upon one whatanother wanted, or did not possess in the same degree; and thusproviding, notwithstanding the infirmities of human nature, for theircordial cooperation, to a large extent, among themselves, in theirdifferent spheres, and also for enabling them to advancemost fully, bytheirunited laboursandefforts, thesuccessof the commoncause.Thiswould afford an interesting illustration of the abounding goodness andmanifoldwisdomofGod;butwemustconfineourselvestosomeofthosecircumstanceswhichwerecommontotheReformers ingeneral,viewedas a class or body ofmen; and we remark, 1st, That the Reformers ingeneral were men eminently distinguished at once for the strength oftheirnaturaltalents,andtheextentoftheiracquiredlearning.Thatthiswas indeed the case, is too evident to admit of dispute, and has neverbeen questioned even by their bitterest enemies. They were menpossessed of such distinguished talents as would have raised them toeminence and influence in any department of study or occupation towhichtheymighthaveturnedtheirattention;andtheirwritingsandtheirlaboursabundantlyestablishthisposition.Thiswasofcoursenomeritoftheirs,andaffordsnogroundwhateverwhyeithertheyorothersshouldboast.Itsimportanceandvalueheonlyinthis,thatitisamatteroffactthat God selected, and qualified in other respects, for the work ofrestoringHistruthandreformingHischurch,menwhomHehadgiftedwithverysuperiornaturalabilities.ThiswastheLord’sdoing,-thiswasthecoursewhichHepursuedonthatmemorableoccasion,andwhichHehas ordinarily pursued in most important epochs, connected with themaintenanceofHis truthandtheadvancementofHiscause.Weare tolookuponitasjustwhattheLordinHiswisdomwaspleasedtodo,-asa

thing effected, and of course intended, by Him in His actualadministration of the affairs of the church and the world. We are toregarditinthislight,asanundoubtedreality, intendedbyHim,likeallthat He does, to make himself known, and to unfold and impress theprinciplesofHismoralgovernment;and,viewingthefactinthisaspect,toconsiderwhatarethelessonswhichitisfittedtoteach.Itshouldleadmen,ofcourse,toestimatearightmentalpowerandvigourasavaluablegiftofGod,intendedbyHimtobeused,andoften,employedbyHim,infact, in the advancement of His cause. This, however, is not a lessonwhichitisverynecessarytoinculcate;foralthoughoccasionallyfanaticalexceptions do appear, the general and ordinary tendency of men is tooverestimate mere intellectual power, irrespective of the purposes towhichitisapplied-theobjectstowhichit isdirected.Still it isrighttorememberthatGod,byselectingasinstrumentsfortherestorationofHistruthandthereformationofHischurch,menwhomHehadgiftedwithvery superior intellectual powers, has thereby borne testimony to theirvalueand importance, -has indicated the responsibilityconnectedwiththepossessionofthem,andthepurposetowhichtheyoughttobechieflyapplied;whileHehasalso,bythesamefact,madeitnotonlywarrantablebutincumbentuponall,toaimatthecultivationandimprovementoftheintellectual powers which He may have conferred, as a distinct anddefinite object, in subordination toHis glory, and as ameans of fittingChristiansmore fully for doing something for the advancement of Hiscause.

The fact that the Reformers were also, in general, men of extensiveacquired learning, admits of a more direct and obvious practicalapplication,asitremindsusofourobligationtoimprovetotheuttermostouropportunitiesofacquiringusefulknowledge,andencouragingus inthe prosecution of this object by holding out the expectation, that themore knowledgewemay be able to acquire, wemay become themoreusefulinpromotingHiscause.

God having in His wisdom selected for the work of reformation menwhomHe had endowed, generally speaking,with very superior naturalpowers,-andwhomHehadunited,orresolvedinHisowngoodtimetounite, toJesusChrist,bya trueand living faith, - inspired themwitha

desire to acquire all the knowledge that might be useful in theprosecutionoftheworktowhichtheyweredestined;andsoarranged,inHis providence, the outward circumstances in which He placed them,thattheyhadthemeansandopportunitiesofgratifyingthisdesire.ThusHe brought about the actual result, that they became, in point of fact,extensivelylearnedinallmattersconnectedwiththeworkinwhichtheyweretobeengaged;whilewefind,also,thatHewasgraciouslypleasedtoemploy the learning which they had acquired, or rather whichHe hadbestowed upon them, as instrumental, in its place, in contributing insomemeasuretothepromotionofHiscause.ThesuccessofthatcauseistobeascribedwhollytoHisownagency-theoperationofHisSpirituponthemindsandheartsofmen;butthefullrecognitionoftheagencyoftheSpiritastheonlyrealauthorofthewholesuccess,doesnotprecludetheproprietyofattending toandmarking the instrumentalityemployed,asexhibited in the men who were the instruments of bringing about theresults,andinthevariousgiftsaswellasgracesbestoweduponthemandmanifestedintheirwork;anditisafact,andonethatoughtcertainlytobe noticed and improved, that God, in selecting and preparing theinstrumentswhomHewas to employ in introducing and extending theReformation, tookcare that theyshouldbemenwho, speakingof themgenerally, hadbecomepossessedof a shareof knowledge and learning,connected with all theological subjects, greatly superior to that of thegreatbodyofthosebywhomtheyweresurrounded.Thecircleofscience,ineverydepartment,wasgreatlymore limited then than it is now, andthe amount of attainable knowledge, bymeans of reading, greatly less.But the important consideration - that which involves a principle andteaches a lesson - is, that the Reformers were led to desire, and werefurnishedinprovidencewiththemeansofacquiring,averylargeamountof the then attainable knowledge which was fitted to increase theirinfluence and to promote their success, in establishing truth and inorganizing the church. Some of them held a very distinguished placeamongthescholarsoftheageinsomedepartmentsofliteraturethatwerenot exclusivelyprofessional.Calvinderivedmost importantadvantages,withreferencetothespecialworktowhichhewasafterwardscalled,andthe talents and habits which it required, from his having been led inprovidence in early life to go through a course of study in law andjurisprudence in two of the most eminent French universities.

Melancthon and Beza were acknowledged as ranking among the mosteminent Greek scholars of the period; and brought at once thatrefinement of taste and elegancy of style which an acquaintance withclassical literature tends to produce, and at the same time greatphilologicallearning,tobearupontheinterpretationofScriptureandthedefenceofdivinetruth.AlmostallofthemwerewellreadintheworksoftheprincipalwritersofGreeceandHome,-inthewritingsoftheFathers,and the history of the church, - and in the scholastic philosophers andtheologians of the middle ages; and this comprehended nearly all theknowledge that was then generally accessible. All this knowledge theywereenabledtoacquire;theyemployeditintheworktowhichtheywerecalled; and they found that the possession and application of itcontributedtopromotethesuccessoftheirlabours.Thelessonwhichthisfact is fitted to teach is, that we should estimate highly the value oflearning, as a means of promoting the interests of truth andrighteousness;and thatweshould feel it tobe incumbent to acquire asmuchofknowledgeandlearningasopportunitieswillallow,especiallyofthatknowledgeandlearningwhichbearsmostdirectlyandimmediatelyuponthevariousdepartmentsoflabourinwhichwemaybecalledupontoengagefortheadvancementofChrist’scause.

Intracingthehistoryof the livesof the leadingReformers,wefindthatthereisscarcelyoneofthemwhohadnotopportunitiesaffordedtheminprovidence,atsomeperiodorother,ofdevotingaconsiderableportionoftimetodiligentandcarefulstudy.Wefindtheyfaithfullyimprovedtheseopportunities, - that they were in consequence able ever thereafter tobringoutof their treasure thingsnewandold, andwere thus fitted forwider andmore extensive usefulness. In one aspect, indeed, the truestand highest test of the usefulness of men who have honestly devotedthemselves to the immediate service of God, may be said to be thenumber of souls whom they have directly been the instruments ofconverting. God has not unfrequently bestowed in large measure thishighest usefulness upon men who were but slenderly furnished eitherwith intellectual superiority or acquired knowledge; and any man,howevergreathistalentsandacquirements,whohasreceivedmanysoulsforhishire,maywellbesatisfiedwithhisusefulnessandtherewardofit.But independently of the consideration, that in all probability God has

never employed any man as an instrument of extensive good in HischurchwhomHehasnotmadethedirectinstrumentofconvertingsomefrom the error of theirways and thereby saving their souls, itmust beobserved that there is a test ofusefulnesswhichmaybe regardedas insome respects even higher than this, - when men are enabled tocontribute to thewide diffusion of great scriptural principles or truths,themaintenanceandsuccessofagreatscripturalcause,ortheinfusionofspiritualhealthandvigour intoadeador languid church.And in thesehigh and diffusive departments of Christian usefulness, the Lord hasusually been pleased to employ the services of men who had receivedfrom Him not only the gift of renewed hearts, but also superiorintellectualpowers,andofextensiveandvariedknowledge.Soatleastitcertainlywasat the eraof theReformation;and the fact thatGod thentookcarethatthosewhomHemeantchieflytoemployinthisimportantwork,didinfactacquireextensivelearning,whichtheyemployedinHisservice,shouldteachtheobligationincumbentuponall,ofimprovingtothe uttermost the opportunities afforded in providence of acquiring allusefulknowledge,andthesinfulnessofneglectingthem.

But,inthesecondplace,thehistoryoftheReformersisfittedtoteachalesson, by exhibiting a striking example of unwearied activity andindustry. Theywere notmere students and authors, they were diligentand laborious workers. As students they acquired a large stock oflearning;aswriterstheyhavetransmittedtousagreatmassofvaluableauthorship;whileatthesametimemostofthemhadagreatamountofordinarypracticalworkandbusinesstoattendto,andtodischarge,inthedifferent situations in which they were placed. Most of them werevoluminous authors, and have left behind them productions, themeretranscriptionofwhichwe,withourlowstandardofindustryandlabour,areapttothinkmightbeworkfora lifetime.TheworksofthedifferentReformers exhibit, of course, in different degrees, evidence of care andelaboration in point of thought and diction; but they have almost allbequeathedproductionswhichmusthaveoccupiedagreatdealof time,and requireda greatdealof thought andpains.And theywerenoneofthem retired students, with leisure to devote their time unbroken toreading,reflection,andcomposition.Theywereallbusilyengagedinthedischarge of important public duties, as professors and teachers, as

pastorsofcongregations,andorganizersofchurches,andintheordinaryadministrationofecclesiastical affairs.Theyhadagreatpublic cause inhand,inthedefenceandmaintenanceofwhichtheywerecalledupontotakeapart;andthisnotonlyrequiredof themthepublicationofworksthroughthepress,butmusthaveentaileduponthema largeamountofprivatecorrespondenceandofpersonaldealingwithmen.Theydidnotingeneral(Bezawasanexception)attaintoagreatage,buttheylivedwhilethey lived;andamidmuchtodistractandharass them,theyperformedan amount of labour, physical and intellectual, the contemplation ofwhich is usefully fitted to humble us under a sense of our imbecility,inactivity,andlaziness,andtostiruptomorestrenuousandperseveringexertion. Zwingliwas cut off at the age of forty-seven; and yet, besidesdoingagreatdealofwork,notonlyaspastorandprofessoroftheologyinZurich, but as the leading Reformer (of the German portion) ofSwitzerland, he has left us four folio volumes of well-digested, well-composedmatter,uponallthegreattheologicaltopicsthatthenoccupiedthepublicmind.AndwhatalifewasCalvin’s!Thoughhelivedonlyfifty-fouryears,andstruggledduringa largeportionof itwithavery infirmstateofbodilyhealth,andwithmuchseveredisease,halfhislifewaswell-nigh spent before the Lord brought him to Geneva, and called him toengageinthepublicserviceofHischurch.Buthowmuchwasheenabledduring the remainder of his life to do and to effect! Though engagedincessantlyinthelaboriousdutiesofapastorandprofessoroftheology,he was called upon to give his counsel and advice, by personalapplications and by written correspondence, upon almost everyimportantquestion,speculativeorpractical,thataffectedtheinterestsofthe reformed cause throughout Europe; and yet he has leftmany foliovolumes(inoneeditionnine,andinanothertwelve),fullofprofoundandadmirably-digestedthinkinguponthemostimportantanddifficultofallsubjects, - exhibiting much patient consideration and great practicalwisdom, clothed in pure and classical Latin; forming also (for some ofthemwerewritten inFrench, and several, as the “Institutions,”both inLatinandFrench),intheestimationofeminentFrenchcritics,whohadno liking to his theology or his ecclesiastical labours, an era in theimprovementofthelanguageofthecountrywhichhadthehonourtogivehim birth. We are too apt to think, in these degenerate times, that areasonableandnotveryexaltedmeasureofdiligenceandactivityinsome

oneparticulardepartment,whetherofstudyorofpractical labour,isallthat can be fairly expected; but the example of the Reformers shouldshow that it ispossible, throughGod’s grace, todomuchmore; shouldteachalessonofthevalueoftime,andoftheobligationtohusbandandimproveit;andconstrainalltolabour,withunweariedzealanddiligence,expectingnoresthere,butlooking,astheydid,totherestthatremainethforthepeopleofGod.

The third and last lesson suggested by the history and conduct of theReformers is, the necessity and importance of giving much time andattentiontothestudyofthewordofGod.TheReformerswereallledbyGod, at an early period in their history, to give careful attention to thestudyofthesacredScriptures;andtheywereguidedbyHisSpirittoformcorrect views of the great leading principles which are there unfolded.They were led to continue ever after to study them with care anddiligence;andtheypersevered inapplying themtocomfort theirheartsamidalltheirtrialsanddifficulties,andtoguidethemintheregulationoftheir conduct. It is very evident, from surveying the history and thewritings of the Reformers, that their strength and success - both asdefendersofdivinetruthandmaintainersofGod’scause,andalsoasmenengaged,amidmanydifficulties, in thepracticalbusinessof the churchandtheworld,andintheadministrationofimportantaffairs-aroseverymuch from their familiar and intimate acquaintance with the word ofGod, thewholewordofGod.Theywere familiarwith themeaning andapplicationofitsstatements,andtheyweredeeplyimbuedwithitsspirit.The word of God dwelt in them richly, in all wisdom and spiritualunderstanding,andthusbecame“alightuntotheirfeet,andalampuntotheirpath.”Itisaninterestingfact,andisoneproofandmanifestationoftheirdeepandcarefulstudyofthewordofGod,thatmanyoftheleadingReformers have left, amid their other voluminous productions andabundant labours, commentariesupon thewhole, or a largeportionof,the sacred Scriptures. We have eight or nine commentaries upon thewhole, or large portions of, the Old and New Testaments, - theproductions of as many of the most eminent and laborious of theReformers;andthisfactofitself,provesthelargeamountofthoughtandattentionwhichtheywereaccustomedtodevotetothestudyofthem,andthe great familiarity which they had acquired with them. To write a

commentaryupontheScriptures,whichshouldreallypossessanyvalueor utility, implies that they have beenmade the subject of much deepstudyandmuchcarefulmeditation, aswell as fervent prayer for divinedirection.ThecommentariesoftheReformersuponthesacredScripturesare, of course, possessed of different degrees of value and excellence,accordingtothedifferentgiftsandqualificationsofthemen,andthetimeandpainswhich theywereable tobestowupon them, -andhere,as ineverything else connected with the exposition and application of thewholetruthofGod,Calvintowersfarabovethemall;yet,asawhole,theyfully vindicatewhatwehave said of their talents, learning, and generalcharacter, and fully prove that they were eminently qualified fordiscerningandopeningup themindofGod inHisword,and that theydevoted a large portion of time and attention to investigating themeaning of the sacred Scriptures, to forming clear and definiteconceptionsof the importof theirstatements,andtobringingthemoutfor the instruction and improvement of others. There is reason to fear,that,sincetheperiodoftheReformation,thecarefulstudyofthewordofGoditselfhasnotusuallyreceivedtheshareoftimeandattentionwhichits importance demands. There has always been, and there still is, toomuchtimeandattention,comparatively,givento theperusalandstudyofotherbooks connectedwith theological subjects, and too little to thestudyoftheinspiredvolume.WeknowingeneralbutlittleofthewordofGodasitoughttobeknown,andweareverymuchdisposedtoremainincontentedignoranceofwhatGodhaswrittenforourinstruction.WearedependentforalltrueknowledgeofthewordofGodupontheagencyoftheDivineSpirit,but thatSpiritwearebut little concerned to implore.Wearedependentalso, for theattainmentof thisknowledge,uponourown personal study of the sacred Scriptures, - upon bringing all thepowersofourmindstobearupontheinvestigationoftheirmeaning,andgivingtothisstudynoinconsiderableportionofourtimeandattention.Butwealmostallcontinuetobechieflyoccupiedwithotherpursuits,andwiththeperusalofotherbooks,whilebutafractionofourtimeisgivento the studyof theBible; and this toooftenwithoutmuch sense of thesolemnity and responsibility of the occupation, and without even ourordinarypowersofattentionandapplicationbeingbroughtintofullandvigorousexercise.Nowallthisis,inthefirstplace,asin,becauseitistheneglect and violationof a plain and undoubted duty; and then it has a

powerful tendencytodiminish thevigourandcheck theprogressof thedivine life in the soul, and to enfeeble and paralyze all efforts, incommendingwithefficacyandsuccess,divine truthtoothers.TheLordwaspleasedtoleadtheReformerstoacarefulstudyofHisword,andtoguide themtocorrect viewsof its leadingprinciples.Hequalified themlargely foropeningup and expounding its statements to others;He ledthemtogivemuchtimeandattentiontothisoccupation,andmadetheirlaboursinthisdepartment,orallyandbywriting,thegreatmeansoftheirusefulnessandsuccess;andwemaybeassuredthat itwillbetoa largeextentthroughourcapacitytoopenupandunderstandthewholemindof God, as revealed in His word, - a capacity to be acquired only byferventprayerandbydiligentandcontinuedstudyoftheinspiredvolumeitself, - that we shall best grow in grace and in the power of Christianusefulness.

Monergism